[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 13, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1816-1846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00270]



[[Page 1815]]

Vol. 80

Tuesday,

No. 8

January 13, 2015

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





40 CFR Parts 52 and Part 81





Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas 
for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; San Joaquin Valley 
Moderate Area Plan and Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for 
the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 1816]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0636; FRL-9921-48-Region 9]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of 
Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; San Joaquin Valley 
Moderate Area Plan and Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for 
the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by 
California to address Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements for the 
2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) national 
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) 
Moderate PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area. These SIP revisions are 
the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, submitted March 4, 2013, and the 
Supplement, submitted November 6, 2014. The EPA is also proposing to 
disapprove interpollutant trading ratios identified in these SIP 
submittals for nonattainment new source review permitting purposes. 
Finally, the EPA is proposing to reclassify the SJV area, including 
Indian country within it, as a Serious nonattainment area for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS based on EPA's determination that the area 
cannot practicably attain this standard by the applicable Moderate area 
attainment date of December 31, 2015. Upon final reclassification as a 
Serious area, California will be required to submit a Serious area plan 
including a demonstration that the plan provides for attainment of the 
2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the SJV area by the applicable Serious 
area attainment date, which is no later than December 31, 2019, or by 
the most expeditious alternative date practicable, in accordance with 
the requirements of part D of title I of the CAA.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by February 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0636, by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions.
    <bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b0f1a03550c121e15101e3b1e0b1a551c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c8bca9b0e6bfa1ada6a3ad88adb8a9e6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> Mail or deliver: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 
San Francisco, CA 94105.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided, unless the comment 
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you 
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as 
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, and 
the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to 
the EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included 
as part of the public comment. If the EPA cannot read your comments due 
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 
EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket (docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-
0636) for this proposed rule is available electronically on the 
www.regulations.gov Web site and in hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105. While all documents 
in the docket are listed in the index, some information 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 947-4192, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6410051c4a130d010a0f01240114054a030b12"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5b2f3a23752c323e35303e1b3e2b3a753c342d">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background for Proposed Actions
II. Clean Air Act Requirements for Moderate PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Nonattainment Area Plans
III. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements for SIP Submittals
IV. Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and 
Supplement
    A. Emissions Inventory
    B. Air Quality Modeling
    C. PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursors
    D. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available 
Control Technology
    E. Major Stationary Source Control Requirements Under CAA 
Section 189(e)
    F. Adopted Control Strategy
    G. Demonstration That Attainment by the Moderate Area Attainment 
Date Is Impracticable
    H. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones
    I. Contingency Measures
    J. Interpollutant Trading Ratios for Nonattainment New Source 
Review Permits
    K. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
V. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment and Serious Area SIP 
Requirements
    A. Reclassification as Serious and Applicable Attainment Date
    B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Nonattainment Area Plans
    C. Statutory Deadline for Submittal of the Serious Area Plan
VI. Reclassification of Indian Country
VII. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for Proposed Actions

    On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised the 24-hour national ambient 
air quality standard (NAAQS or standard) for PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, to provide 
increased protection of public health by lowering its level from 65 
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (40 CFR 
50.13).\1\ Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant 
correlations between elevated PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels and premature 
mortality. Other important health effects associated with 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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. Individuals particularly sensitive to PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
exposure include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and 
children (78 FR 3086 at 3088, January 15, 2013). PM<INF>2.5</INF> can 
be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle 
(``primary PM<INF>2.5</INF>'' or ``direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>'') or can be 
formed in the atmosphere as a result of

[[Page 1817]]

various chemical reactions among precursor pollutants such as nitrogen 
oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia 
(``secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF>'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 71 FR 61224 (October 17, 2006). The EPA set the first 
NAAQS for PM<INF>2.5</INF> on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), including 
annual standards of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of 
annual mean PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations and 24-hour (daily) 
standards of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of 98th 
percentile 24-hour concentrations (40 CFR 50.7). In 2012, the EPA 
revised the annual standard to lower its level to 12 [mu]g/m\3\ (78 
FR 3086, January 15, 2013, codified at 40 CFR 50.18). Unless 
otherwise noted, all references to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in 
this notice are to the 2006 24-hour standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ 
codified at 40 CFR 50.13.
    \2\ See EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions 
to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter 
(EPA-452/R-12-005, December 2012), p. 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is 
required by CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the nation 
as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On November 13, 2009, the EPA 
designated the SJV as nonattainment for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009). This 
designation became effective on December 14, 2009 (40 CFR 81.305). The 
SJV area is also designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 24-
hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005) and 40 CFR 81.305. In June 
2008, California submitted the 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan to provide 
for attainment of the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards in the SJV. In 
November 2011, the EPA approved all but the contingency measures in 
the 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan (76 FR 69896, November 9, 2011). In 
July 2013, the State submitted a revised contingency measure plan, 
which the EPA approved in May 2014 (79 FR 29327, May 22, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area is home to 4 million 
people and is the nation's leading agricultural region. Stretching over 
250 miles from north to south, 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<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area, see 40 
CFR 81.305.
    The local air district with primary responsibility for developing 
plans to attain the NAAQS in the area is the San Joaquin Valley Air 
Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or District). The District works 
cooperatively with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 
preparing these plans. Authority for regulating sources under state 
jurisdiction in the SJV is split between the District, which has 
responsibility for regulating stationary and most area sources, and 
CARB, which has responsibility for regulating most mobile sources.
    Ambient 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS design value levels in the 
San Joaquin Valley are among the highest recorded in the United States 
for the 2011-2013 period.\4\ Exceedances of the 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard occur almost exclusively during the late fall 
and winter months from October to March, when ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
is dominated by ammonium nitrate (a secondary particulate formed from 
nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) and ammonia emissions) and directly-
emitted particulates, such as wood smoke. During the winter, the SJV 
experiences extended periods of stagnant weather with cold foggy 
conditions which encourage wood burning and are conducive to the 
formation of ammonium nitrate (2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, Appendix G, pp. 7 
to 9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See U.S. EPA, 2013 Design Value Reports, PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Detailed Information Updated 8/24/14, available at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html 
(``PM<INF>2.5</INF>_DesignValues_20112013_FINAL_08_28_14'') 
(hereafter ``2013 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Design Value Reports''). ``Design 
values'' are the 3-year average NAAQS metrics that are compared to 
the NAAQS levels to determine when a monitoring site meets or does 
not meet the NAAQS. See 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N, Section 1.0(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> Moderate 
Nonattainment Area Plans

    In April 2007, the EPA issued the Clean Air Fine Particle 
Implementation Rule (``2007 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule'') to 
assist states with the development of SIPs to meet the Act's attainment 
planning requirements for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards (72 FR 
20583, April 25, 2007, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z). This 
rule was premised on the EPA's prior interpretation of the Act as 
allowing for implementation of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS solely 
pursuant to the general nonattainment area provisions in subpart 1 of 
part D, title I of the CAA (``subpart 1'') and not the more specific 
provisions for particulate matter nonattainment areas in subpart 4 of 
part D, title I of the Act (``subpart 4''). Among other things, the 
2007 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule included nationally 
applicable presumptions regarding the need to evaluate and potentially 
control emissions of certain PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002(c), the EPA provided, among 
other things, that a state was ``not required to address VOC [and 
ammonia] as . . . PM<INF>2.5</INF> attainment plan precursor[s] and 
to evaluate sources of VOC [and ammonia] emissions in the State for 
control measures,'' unless the State or the EPA provided an 
appropriate technical demonstration showing that emissions from 
sources of these pollutants ``significantly contribute'' to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in the nonattainment area (40 CFR 
51.1002(c)(3), (4) and 72 FR 20586 at 20589-97 (April 25, 2007)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March 2012, the EPA issued a guidance document to aid states in 
preparing SIPs to meet the Act's attainment planning requirements for 
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard.\6\ The 2012 guidance was 
based, in large part, on the requirements in the 2007 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Implementation Rule, which the EPA based solely upon the statutory 
requirements of subpart 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Memorandum, dated March 2, 2012 (withdrawn June 6, 
2013), from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, to EPA Regional Air Directors, Regions I-X 
re: ``Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' 
(``2012 Guidance'') Available at: http://epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_guide.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California had three years from the effective date of SJV's 
designation as nonattainment for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard to 
submit a SIP for the SJV that addressed the applicable requirements of 
the Act.\7\ On December 20, 2012, the District adopted the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan to provide for attainment of the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. On January 24, 2013, CARB adopted the Plan 
as an element of the California SIP and submitted it to the EPA on 
March 4, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See CAA section 172(b) and 40 CFR 51.1002(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 4, 2013, several weeks after the District's adoption of 
the Plan, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued its 
decision in a challenge to the EPA's 2007 mPM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Implementation Rule (NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). In 
NRDC, the court held that the EPA erred in implementing the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards solely pursuant to the general 
implementation requirements of subpart 1, without also considering the 
requirements specific to particulate matter nonattainment areas in 
subpart 4.\8\ The court reasoned that the plain meaning of the CAA 
requires implementation of the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards under 
subpart 4 because PM<INF>2.5</INF> particles fall within the statutory 
definition of PM<INF>10</INF> and are thus subject to the same 
statutory requirements as PM<INF>10</INF>. The court remanded the 2007 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule in its entirety, including the 
presumptions concerning VOC and ammonia in 40 CFR 51.1002, and 
instructed the EPA ``to repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 
consistent with this opinion.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The NRDC decision also remanded the EPA's 2008 final rule to 
implement the nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting 
requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> (73 FR 28231, May 16, 2008) which, 
like the 2007 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule, was premised on 
the requirements of subpart 1. Today's proposal does not address 
requirements for NNSR programs other than the requirements 
concerning PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors in CAA section 189(e), which 
we discuss in Section IV.C below, and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
interpollutant trading ratios, which we discuss in Section IV.J 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the NRDC decision, on June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), 
the EPA published a final rule classifying all areas currently 
designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standards as ``Moderate'' under subpart 4 and establishing a deadline 
of December 31, 2014 for states to submit

[[Page 1818]]

any attainment-related and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) SIP 
elements required for these areas pursuant to subpart 4. The EPA 
provided its rationale for these actions in both the proposed and final 
classification/deadline rule.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 79 FR 69806, 69809 (November 21, 2013) and 79 FR 31566, 
31568 (June 2, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 18, 2014, the District adopted the ``Supplemental 
Document, Clean Air Act Subpart 4: The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan for 
the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standard and District Rule 2201 (New and 
Modified Stationary Source Review)'' (``Supplement'') as a revision to 
the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan. The District adopted the Supplement to 
address subpart 4 requirements for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard 
to the extent that these requirements were not adequately addressed in 
the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan. CARB submitted the Supplement to the 
EPA on November 6, 2014. The Supplement includes information on the 
implementation of reasonably available controls for ammonia sources in 
the SJV and the District's demonstration that attainment by the 
Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015 is impracticable 
(``impracticability demonstration''). As a consequence of the NRDC 
decision, we are reviewing the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and 
Supplement for compliance with the applicable requirements of both 
subpart 1 and subpart 4.
    The EPA has longstanding guidance interpreting the subpart 4 
requirements for particulate matter nonattainment areas (see ``State 
Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title 
I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 13498, April 16, 
1992) (``General Preamble'') and ``State Implementation Plans for 
Serious PM-10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-
10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for 
the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' 
(59 FR 41998, August 16, 1994) (``Addendum'')). The General Preamble at 
13538 discusses the relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP 
requirements, and notes that SIPs for moderate nonattainment areas must 
meet the general provisions in subpart 1 to the extent that these 
provisions are not otherwise ``subsumed by, or integrally related to, 
the more specific [subpart 4] requirements.'' Some subpart 1 provisions 
have no subpart 4 equivalent (e.g., the emission inventories (CAA 
section 172(c)(3)) and contingency measures (CAA section 172(c)(9)) and 
for these provisions, subpart 1 continues to govern. Other provisions 
of subpart 1 are subsumed or superseded by more specific requirements 
in subpart 4 (e.g., certain provisions concerning attainment dates).
    Because the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan was initially developed and 
submitted to meet the requirements of subpart 1 and the 2007 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule, certain elements of the Plan 
address provisions of subpart 1 rather than the applicable provisions 
of subpart 4. Specifically, these elements are the State's request for 
an attainment date extension from 2014 to 2019 under CAA section 
172(a)(2)(A); the demonstration of attainment by 2019; those portions 
of the reasonably available control measure (RACM) demonstration that 
show there are no section 172(c)(1) RACM that would expedite attainment 
from 2019 to 2018; the transportation conformity motor vehicle emission 
budgets for 2019; and the contingency measures for failure to attain. 
We are not proposing any action on these specific SIP elements at this 
time.
    As part of this proposal, the EPA is proposing to determine that 
the SJV cannot practicably attain the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard by 
the Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015 and to 
reclassify the area from Moderate to Serious nonattainment under 
subpart 4. Should the EPA finalize this proposal to reclassify the SJV 
area as a Serious area, the State will be required to adopt and submit 
a new plan addressing the Serious area requirements in subpart 4. We 
discuss these Serious area requirements in more detail in section V. 
below.

III. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements for SIP Submittals

    We are proposing action on two California SIP submittals. The first 
is the ``2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan,'' which the State submitted to EPA 
on March 4, 2013 (hereafter ``2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan'' or ``the 
Plan'') \10\ and the second is the ``Supplemental Document, Clean Air 
Act Subpart 4: The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standard and District Rule 2201 (New and Modified 
Stationary Sources),'' which the State submitted to EPA on November 6, 
2014 (hereafter ``the Supplement'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Letter dated March 4, 2013, from James N. Goldstene, 
Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared 
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosures.
    \11\ See Letter dated November 6, 2014, from James N. Goldstene, 
Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared 
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require each 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 an opportunity for a public 
hearing was provided consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations 
in 40 CFR 51.102.
    Both the District and CARB satisfied applicable statutory and 
regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior 
to adoption and submittal of the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan. The 
District conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, 
and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan on December 
20, 2012.\12\ CARB provided the required public notice and opportunity 
for public comment prior to its January 24, 2013 public hearing on the 
Plan.\13\ The SIP submittal includes proof of publication of notices 
for these public hearings. We find, therefore, that the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan meets the procedural requirements for public 
notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, p. ES-6 and SJVAPCD 
Governing Board Resolution 2012-12-19, ``In the Matter of Adopting 
the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan,'' December 20, 2012.
    \13\ See CARB Resolution 13-2, ``San Joaquin Valley 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> State Implementation Plan,'' January 24, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District adopted the Supplement after reasonable public notice 
and hearing.\14\ CARB adopted the Supplement for submittal as a SIP 
revision at its October 24, 2014 Board meeting after reasonable public 
notice.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice of Public Hearing to Adopt Supplemental Document 
to the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 Standard and New Source 
Review Rule to address Clean Air Act Subpart 4 requirements, 
available at http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/NPH_SD_PM25Plan_09_2014.pdf.
    \15\ See CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the 
Supplemental Document for the San Joaquin Valley 24-Hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP, September 23, 2014, and CARB Board Resolution 
14-37, October 24, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a 
SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also 
provides that any plan that the EPA has not affirmatively determined to 
be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of law six 
months after the date of submittal. The EPA's SIP completeness criteria 
are found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.
    The March 4, 2013 submittal of the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan 
became complete by operation of law on September 4, 2014. We find that 
the Supplement satisfies the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part

[[Page 1819]]

51, appendix V (see our Technical Support Document at section I.B).

IV. Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and 
Supplement

    We summarize our evaluation of the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and 
Supplement below. Our detailed evaluation can be found in the Technical 
Support Document (TSD) for this proposal which is available online at 
www.regulations.gov in docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0636, on EPA 
Region 9's Web site at www.epa.gov/region9/air/sjv-pm25/index.html, or 
from the EPA contact listed at the beginning of this notice.

A. Emissions Inventory

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories
    CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that each SIP include a 
``comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from 
all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in [the] area. . . 
.'' By requiring an accounting of actual emissions from all sources of 
the relevant pollutants in the area, this section provides for the base 
year inventory to include all emissions that contribute to the 
formation of a particular NAAQS pollutant. For the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard, this includes direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> as 
well as the main chemical precursors to the formation of secondary 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>: NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, VOC, and ammonia 
(NH<INF>3</INF>). Primary PM<INF>2.5</INF> includes condensable and 
filterable particulate matter.
    A state should include in its SIP submittal documentation 
explaining how the emissions data were calculated. In estimating mobile 
source emissions, a state should use the latest emissions models and 
planning assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed. 
California is required to use EMFAC2011 to estimate tailpipe and brake 
and tire wear emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, 
SO<INF>2</INF>, and VOC from on-road mobile sources (78 FR 14533, March 
6, 2013). States are required to use the EPA's AP-42 road dust method 
for calculating re-entrained road dust emissions from paved roads (76 
FR 6328, February 4, 2011).
    In addition to the base year inventory submitted to meet the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), the state must also submit 
future ``baseline inventories'' for the projected attainment year and 
each reasonable further progress (RFP) milestone year, and any other 
year of significance for meeting applicable CAA requirements. By 
``baseline inventories'' (also referred to as ``projected baseline 
inventories''), we mean projected emissions inventories for future 
years that account for, among other things, the ongoing effects of 
economic growth and adopted emissions control requirements. The SIP 
should include documentation explaining how the emissions projections 
were calculated.
2. Emissions Inventories in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan
    The planning inventories for direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and all 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors (NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, VOC, and 
ammonia) for the SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area together with 
documentation for the inventories are found in Appendix B of the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan. Winter daily average inventories, representing 
conditions in the period November through April, are provided for the 
base year 2007 and the baseline year of 2012 and each baseline year 
from 2014 to 2019. A winter inventory is used because exceedances of 
the 35 [mu]g/m\3\ PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in the SJV occur mostly 
during the winter months (p. 3-4 and Appendix G, p. G-6). Baseline 
inventories reflect all control measures adopted prior to January 2012. 
Growth factors used to project these baseline inventories are derived 
from data obtained from a number of sources such as the California 
Energy Commission and Department of Finance as well as studies 
commissioned by the SJV's metropolitan planning organizations (pp. B-21 
to B-30).
    Each inventory includes emissions from point, area, on-road, and 
non-road sources. The inventories use EMFAC2011 for estimating on-road 
motor vehicle emissions (p. B-26). After EMFAC2011 was released in 
2011, new information on statewide diesel fuel usage and economic 
forecasts became available to the State. For the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Plan, CARB adjusted EMFAC2011 emissions estimates for heavy-duty trucks 
to reflect this new information (p. B-26). The EPA allowed the use of 
these adjustment factors in transportation conformity determinations in 
the SJV.\16\ Re-entrained paved road dust emissions were calculated 
using the EPA's AP-42 road dust methodology (Appendix B, p. B-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Letter dated January 14, 2014, Matthew Lakin, Chief, Air 
Planning Office, EPA-Region 9 to John Taylor, Branch Chief, 
Transportation Planning Branch, CARB; Subject: Use of San Joaquin 
Valley Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle Recession Adjustment Methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 provides a summary of the winter daily average inventories 
of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors for the base 
year of 2007. These inventories provide the basis for the control 
measure analysis and the RFP and attainment demonstrations in the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan.

   Table 1--San Joaquin Valley Emissions Inventory Summary for Direct PM[ihel2].[ihel5] and PM[ihel2].[ihel5]
                                        Precursors for the 2007 Base Year
                                         [Winter daily average in tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Direct
                               PM[ihel2].[ihel5]        NOX          SO[ihel2]          VOC           Ammonia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources...........               9.4             45.6            10.4            96.2            19.8
Area Sources.................              62.5             19.0             0.8           213.2           342.2
On-Road Mobile Sources.......               9.1            296.5             0.6            67.3             5.3
Off-Road Mobile Sources......               6.1            103.9             1.0            38.0             0.0
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................              87.1            465.1            12.8           414.8           367.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2012 PM[ihel2].[ihel5] Plan, Appendix B, Tables B-1 to B-5.

3. Evaluation and Proposed Action
    The inventories in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan are based on the 
most current and accurate information available to the State and 
District at the time the Plan and its inventories were being developed 
in 2011 and 2012, including the latest EPA-approved version of 
California's mobile source emissions model, EMFAC2011. The inventories 
comprehensively address all source categories in the SJV and were 
developed consistent with the EPA's inventory guidance. For these 
reasons, we are proposing to approve the 2007 base year emissions 
inventory in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan as meeting the requirements 
of CAA section 172(c)(3).

[[Page 1820]]

We are also proposing to find that the baseline inventories in the Plan 
provide an adequate basis for the RACM, RFP, and impracticability 
demonstrations.

B. Air Quality Modeling

1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling
    CAA section 189(a)(1)(B) requires each state in which a Moderate 
area is located to submit a plan that includes a demonstration either 
(i) that the plan will provide for attainment by the applicable 
attainment date, or (ii) that attainment by that date is impracticable. 
The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and Supplement include a demonstration 
that attainment by the Moderate area attainment date is impracticable.
    Air quality modeling is used to establish emissions attainment 
targets, the combination of emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors that the area can accommodate and still 
attain the standard, and to assess whether the proposed control 
strategy will result in attainment of the standard. Air quality 
modeling is performed for a base year and compared to air quality 
monitoring data collected during that year in order to determine model 
performance. Once the model performance is determined to be acceptable, 
future year changes to the emissions inventory are simulated with the 
model to determine the relationship between emissions reductions and 
changes in ambient air quality. To project future design values, the 
model response to emission reductions, in the form of Relative Response 
Factors (RRFs), is applied to monitored design values from the base 
year.
    For demonstrating attainment, the EPA's recommendations for model 
input preparation, model performance evaluation, use of the model 
output for the attainment demonstration, and modeling documentation are 
described in Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for 
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and 
Regional Haze, EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007 (``Modeling Guidance''), as 
amended by ``Update to the 24 Hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS Modeled 
Attainment Test,'' Memorandum dated June 28, 2011, from Tyler Fox, Air 
Quality Modeling Group, OAQPS, EPA to Regional Air Program Managers, 
EPA (``Modeling Guidance Update'').\17\ The EPA has not issued modeling 
guidance specific to impracticability demonstrations but believes that 
a state seeking to make such a demonstration generally should provide 
air quality modeling similar to that required for an attainment 
demonstration. The main difference is that for an impracticability 
demonstration, the model's projected design value on the required 
attainment date would be above the NAAQS, despite full implementation 
of the SIP control strategy including all reasonably available control 
measures (RACM). Alternatively, a model projection could show that the 
implementation of the SIP control strategy (including RACM) results in 
attainment of the standard, but that this is achieved only after the 
applicable attainment date. We are using the latter alternative in 
evaluating the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, since its modeling focuses 
on an attainment year of 2019, instead of 2015, which is the Moderate 
area attainment year for this area under subpart 4 (CAA 
section188(c)(1)).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The EPA Modeling Guidance and Modeling Guidance Update are 
available on EPA's SCRAM Web site, Web page: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_sip.htm; direct links: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf and http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/Update_to_the_24-hour_PM25_Modeled_Attainment_Test.pdf.
    \18\ The District developed the Plan to address the requirements 
of subpart 1 as interpreted in the 2007 p.m.2.5 Implementation Rule 
(prior to the D.C. Circuit's remand of this rule in NRDC) which 
authorized the EPA to extend the attainment date as appropriate for 
a period no greater than 10 years from the date of designation, 
considering the severity of nonattainment and the availability and 
feasibility of pollution control measures (see CAA section 
172(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1004). Because the SJV areas was 
designated nonattainment effective December 14, 2009 (74 FR 58688 
(November 13, 2009), the date ``10 years from the date of 
designation'' would be December 14, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA recommends that states prepare modeling 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 applicable standard, and 
producing documentation to be submitted for EPA Regional Office review 
and approval prior to actual modeling.
    In addition to a modeled attainment demonstration, which focuses on 
locations with an air quality monitor, EPA's Guidance describes an 
Unmonitored Area Analysis (UAA). This analysis is intended to ensure 
that a control strategy leads to reductions in PM<INF>2.5</INF> at 
other locations that have no monitor but that might have base year and 
future baseline (projection year) ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels 
exceeding the standard.
    Finally, as discussed below, the Modeling Guidance recommends 
supplemental air quality analyses. These may be used as part of a 
Weight of Evidence analysis (WOEA), which assesses attainment by 
considering evidence other than the main air quality modeling 
attainment test. While supplemental analyses can increase confidence in 
the reliability of the modeling, they are less important for evaluating 
the impracticability demonstration per se. That is, the level of rigor 
in the modeling analyses supporting the Plan's conclusion that 
attainment will occur by 2019 is less important when the object is to 
demonstrate that attainment is not practicable by 2015. Supplemental 
analyses to support a demonstration of attainment by the end of 2019 
will be necessary in a new Serious area plan.
2. Air Quality Modeling in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan
    A brief description of the modeling in 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan 
and our evaluation of it follows. More detailed information about the 
modeling is available in section II.B. of the TSD.
    CARB and the District jointly performed the air quality modeling 
for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan. The modeling analysis uses the 
Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) photochemical model, developed 
by the EPA.\19\ It incorporates routinely available meteorological and 
air quality data collected during 2007. The MM5 (Mesoscale Model 
version 5) was used to prepare meteorological input for CMAQ. Air 
Quality modeling was performed only for the first and fourth quarters 
(Q1 and Q4) of 2007 which is sufficient for modeling the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in the SJV because the high 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations occur only during the colder part of 
the year. Only the top 10 percent of modeled days is required for 
projecting the 98th percentile-based design values into the future. 
(Modeling Guidance Update, p. B-1) The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan's 
modeling protocol is contained in Appendix F and includes descriptions 
of the photochemical modeling. Additional

[[Page 1821]]

description of the photochemical modeling is also covered in the Weight 
of Evidence Analysis (''WOEA'').\20\ The protocol was reviewed by the 
EPA and a number of academic experts, and covers all of the topics 
recommended in the Guidance, including thorough discussions of past 
modeling results and emission inventory preparation procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan also included receptor 
modeling source apportionment analyses, using both the Chemical Mass 
Balance (CMB) model and the Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) 
model. These models distinguish the ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
contributions of several broad emissions source categories based on 
how they match the chemical species components of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
measurements. These results generally corroborated results from the 
photochemical modeling, but were not themselves part of the 
attainment demonstration.
    \20\ The WOEA is Appendix B to the ``[CARB] Staff Report, 
Proposed Revision to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) for the San Joaquin Valley,'' Release Date: January 11, 2013 
(``Staff Report''), which can be found in the docket for this 
proposed rule. Appendix G to the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan also 
contains a weight of evidence analysis which is identical to the one 
in the CARB Staff Report except for the two additional appendices 5 
and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The air quality modeling and results are summarized in Chapter 4 of 
the Plan (section 4.5, p. 4-22) and in the WOEA (section 10, p. 62). 
The Plan's meteorological model and air quality model performance 
statistics and graphics are available from the CARB Web site 
(``Meteorology and Air Quality Modeling for the 2012 24-Hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan for the San Joaquin Valley'', http://arb.ca.gov/eos/SIP_Modeling_PM25/24hr_PM25_ModelingPage.htm). The air quality 
model performance appears to be quite good, with bias within the 
criteria for acceptance, and usually within the original performance 
goals; performance is very good for total PM<INF>2.5</INF> and for 
nitrate, the largest component of PM<INF>2.5</INF>; however, time 
series plots show that some high PM<INF>2.5</INF> periods were 
underestimated.
    The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan included a UAA in Appendix 6 of the 
Weight of Evidence Analysis in Appendix G of the Plan (p. G-175). (ARB 
Staff Report Appendix B is identical to Plan Appendix G, except that it 
does not include the latter's Appendices 5 and 6).
3. Evaluation of the Air Quality Modeling in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Plan
    The modeling showed that existing State and District control 
measures are not sufficient to attain the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard by 2019 at all monitoring sites in the SJV. Modeling of the 
additional measures in the Plan (additional direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
reductions from residential wood burning and from commercial 
charbroiling) showed attainment at all sites by 2019. Id.
    Given the extensive discussion of modeling procedures, tests, and 
performance analyses called for in the Modeling Protocol and the good 
model performance, the EPA finds that the modeling is adequate for 
purposes of supporting the RACM demonstration, the RFP demonstration, 
and the demonstration of impracticability in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Plan and Supplement. To satisfy the statutory requirements for a 
serious area attainment demonstration, however, the State will need to 
address documentation gaps outlined in the TSD (section II.B. of the 
TSD).
    While the State included a UAA in the Plan, it makes no difference 
for the impracticability demonstration we are concerned with here. Any 
unmonitored peaks with concentrations higher than at the monitors would 
merely strengthen the case for attainment being impracticable by the 
required date. A demonstration that attainment is impracticable at 
monitor locations is sufficient to meet the requirements of section 
189(a)(1)(B)(ii). The EPA finds that the supplemental analyses 
presented in the WOEA are useful in a weight of evidence analysis, and 
support the demonstration of the impracticability of attainment by 
2015.
    We note finally that existing ambient air quality monitoring data 
also support the modeled demonstration that attainment of the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard by December 31, 2015 is impracticable. 
Compliance with the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard is assessed 
using the three-year average of the yearly 98th percentile 
concentrations. The most recent monitored PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations show that compliance with the 2006 standard is not 
possible by the end of 2015. See discussion in section II.F.3 of the 
TSD and section V.A. of this proposal.

C. PM2.5 Precursors

1. Requirements for the Control of PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursors
    The composition of PM<INF>2.5</INF> is complex and highly variable 
due in part to the large contribution of secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF> to 
total fine particle mass in most locations, and to the complexity of 
secondary particle formation processes. A large number of possible 
chemical reactions, often non-linear in nature, can convert gaseous 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC and ammonia to PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
making them precursors to PM<INF>2.5</INF>.\21\ Formation of secondary 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> may also depend on atmospheric conditions, including 
solar radiation, temperature, and relative humidity, and the 
interactions of precursors with preexisting particles and with cloud or 
fog droplets.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (EPA/600/
P-99/002aF, October 2004), Chapter 3.
    \22\ EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to 
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter 
(EPA-452/R-12-005, December 2012), p. 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2007 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule contained rebuttable 
presumptions concerning the four PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors applicable 
to attainment plans and control measures related to those plans. See 40 
CFR 51.1002(c). Although the rule included presumptions that states 
should address SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx emissions in their attainment 
plans, it also included presumptions that regulation of VOCs and 
ammonia was not necessary. Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002(c), the EPA 
provided, among other things, that a state was ``not required to 
address VOC [and ammonia] as . . . PM<INF>2.5</INF> attainment plan 
precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of VOC [and ammonia] emissions in 
the state for control measures,'' unless the state or the EPA provided 
an appropriate technical demonstration showing that emissions from 
sources of these pollutants ``significantly contribute'' to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in the nonattainment area. 40 CFR 
51.1002(c)(3), (4); see also 2007 p.m.2.5 Implementation Rule, 72 FR 
20586 at 20589-97 (April 25, 2007).
    In NRDC, however, the D.C. Circuit remanded the EPA's 2007 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule in its entirety, including the 
presumptions concerning VOC and ammonia in 40 CFR 51.1002. See NRDC v. 
EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Although the court expressly 
declined to decide the specific challenge to these presumptions (see 
706 F.3d at 437, n. 10 (D.C. Cir. 2013)), the court cited CAA section 
189(e) \23\ to support its observation that ``[a]mmonia is a precursor 
to fine particulate matter, making it a precursor to both 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF>'' and that ``[f]or a 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area governed by subpart 4, a precursor 
is presumptively regulated.'' 706 F.3d at 436, n. 7 (citing CAA section 
189(e)). Consistent with the NRDC decision, EPA now interprets the Act 
to require that under subpart 4, a state must evaluate all 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors for regulation unless it provides a 
demonstration adequate to rebut the presumption for a particular 
precursor in a particular nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Section 189(e) of the CAA states that ``[t]he control 
requirements applicable under plans in effect under this part for 
major stationary sources of PM<INF>10</INF> shall also apply to 
major stationary sources of PM<INF>10</INF> precursors, except where 
the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute 
significantly to PM<INF>10</INF> levels which exceed the standard in 
the area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions of subpart 4 do not define the term ``precursor'' 
for purposes of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, nor do they explicitly require the 
control of any specifically identified particulate matter (PM) 
precursor. The statutory definition of ``air pollutant,'' however, 
provides that the term ``includes any precursors to the formation of 
any air pollutant, to the

[[Page 1822]]

extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors 
for the particular purpose for which the term `air pollutant' is 
used.'' CAA section 302(g). The EPA has identified SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, and ammonia as precursors to the formation of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. Accordingly, the attainment plan requirements of 
subpart 4 presumptively apply to emissions of all four precursor 
pollutants and direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> from all types of stationary, 
area, and mobile sources, except as otherwise provided in the Act (e.g. 
CAA section 189(e)).
    Section 189(e) of the Act requires that the control requirements 
for major stationary sources of direct PM<INF>10</INF> also apply to 
major stationary sources of PM<INF>10</INF> precursors, except where 
the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute 
significantly to PM<INF>10</INF> levels that exceed the standard in the 
area. Section 189(e) contains the only express exception to the control 
requirements under subpart 4 (e.g., requirements for RACM and RACT, 
best available control measures (BACM) and best available control 
technology (BACT), most stringent measures, and NSR) for sources of 
direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor emissions. 
Although section 189(e) explicitly addresses only major stationary 
sources, the EPA interprets the Act as authorizing it also to 
determine, under appropriate circumstances, that regulation of specific 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors from other source categories in a given 
nonattainment area is not necessary. For example, under the EPA's 
longstanding interpretation of the control requirements that apply to 
stationary, area, and mobile sources of PM<INF>10</INF> precursors 
area-wide under CAA section 172(c)(1) and subpart 4 (see General 
Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13539-42), a state may demonstrate in a SIP 
submittal that control of a certain precursor pollutant is not 
necessary in light of its insignificant contribution to ambient 
PM<INF>10</INF> levels in the nonattainment area.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of 
subpart 4 for PM<INF>10</INF>. See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated 
Residents v. EPA, et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are evaluating the SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan in accordance with 
the presumption embodied within subpart 4 that all PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursors must be addressed in the state's evaluation of potential 
control measures, unless the state adequately demonstrates that 
emissions of a particular precursor do not contribute significantly to 
ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that exceed the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQs 
in the nonattainment area. In reviewing any determination by the state 
to exclude a PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor from the required evaluation of 
potential control measures, we consider both the magnitude of the 
precursor's contribution to ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in 
the nonattainment area and the sensitivity of ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations in the area to reductions in emissions of that 
precursor.
2. Evaluation of Precursors in SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and Supplement
    In the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, the State and District identify 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and SO<INF>X</INF> as the precursors that it must 
control in order to attain the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in the 
San Joaquin Valley within 10 years of the area's designation as 
nonattainment for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS (i.e., by 2019).\25\ 
Although no technical demonstration is necessary to support a 
conclusion consistent with the regulatory presumptions under subpart 4, 
the Plan nevertheless provides supporting evidence describing the need 
for NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>X</INF> controls. The Plan states that 
further reductions in VOC and ammonia emissions would not contribute to 
attainment of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in the area and provides 
analyses to support this position. In the following, we discuss the 
technical basis that the District provided in the Plan to support its 
positions with respect to SO<INF>2,</INF> NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, and 
ammonia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ This identification is made in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Plan, Appendix G, ``PM<INF>2.5</INF> Weight of Evidence Analysis'' 
(``WOEA'') at pp. iv and 66, and in the CARB, ``Staff Report, 
Proposed Revision to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) for the San Joaquin Valley,'' Release Date: January 11, 2013 
(``Staff Report'') at p. 9, which can be found in the docket for 
this proposed rule. The WOEA is also included as Appendix B to the 
Staff Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. SO<INF>2</INF>
    The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan recognizes that emissions of 
SO<INF>2</INF> contribute significantly to ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
levels in the San Joaquin Valley, and that ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations are sensitive to reductions in SO<INF>2</INF>.
    The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan shows the measured contribution of 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions to ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in 
pie charts portraying the contribution of various pollutant species. 
Depending on time period and location, the ammonium sulfate 
contribution is 6 to 9 percent,\26\ and the corresponding contribution 
of just the sulfate part of the ammonium sulfate molecules is 4 to 7 
percent of ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF>. The Plan's ``Weight of Evidence 
Analysis'' (``WOEA'') also gives the ammonium sulfate portion of the 
2007 design value concentration, 4.7 [mu]g/m\3\ at Bakersfield.\27\ The 
corresponding sulfate-only portion is 3.4 [mu]g/m\3\. These 
contribution levels are substantial, although smaller than the 
contributions of some other components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 2009-2010 peak day average in 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan 
Appendix A, Figures A-29 and A-30, p. A-52; 2009-2011 peak day 
average in WOEA Figure 7, p. 10.
    \27\ WOEA at Table 5, p. 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> sensitivity to reductions of 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions is also presented in the Plan in the form of 
modeling results. The results from the sensitivity modeling is cited 
and discussed below in the NO<INF>X</INF> subsection. The 
SO<INF>2</INF>-specific results are that a 25% reduction in Valley-wide 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions would result in a 0.18 [mu]g/m\3\ decrease in 
ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations at the design value monitoring 
site, Bakersfield-California. It can also be inferred from the modeling 
that there is an ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> decrease of 0.08 [mu]g/m\3\ 
per ton of SO<INF>2</INF> reduction (WOEA, Tables 6 and 7, p. 65). The 
0.18 [mu]g/m\3\ PM<INF>2.5</INF> decrease for a 25% SO<INF>2</INF> 
reduction is considerably lower than the 3.75 [mu]g/m\3\ decrease that 
would result from a 25% NO<INF>X</INF> reduction, but the 0.08 [mu]g/
m\3\ PM<INF>2.5</INF> decrease per ton of emissions reduction is the 
same for SO<INF>2</INF> as it is for NO<INF>X</INF>. The reason the 25% 
NO<INF>X</INF> reduction provides a larger reduction in ambient 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels than a 25% SO<INF>2</INF> reduction is simply 
that the NO<INF>X</INF> emission inventory for the area is much larger 
than the SO<INF>2</INF> inventory. The 2007 winter planning inventory 
for SO<INF>2</INF> is just 12.8 tpd, whereas for NO<INF>X</INF> it is 
465.1 tpd, more than 35 times larger (see 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan at 
Appendix B, Emission Inventory, grand totals in tables B-3 for 
SO<INF>2</INF> and B-2 for NO<INF>X</INF>.) Even though the relatively 
small SO<INF>2</INF> contribution to ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations leaves little scope for reductions, the sensitivity of 
ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> to SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions 
indicates that SO<INF>2</INF> emissions contribute significantly to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels above the standards.
    Based on the technical analyses provided in the Plan, the EPA 
agrees with the State's and District's conclusion that SO<INF>2</INF> 
controls must be included in the evaluation of potential control 
measures for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in the SJV, consistent 
with the requirements of subpart 4.
b. NO<INF>X</INF>
    The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan recognizes that emissions of 
NO<INF>X</INF> contribute significantly to ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
levels in the San Joaquin Valley, and that ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations are sensitive to reductions in NO<INF>X</INF>. The Plan 
discusses NO<INF>X</INF> in conjunction with ammonia, because these 
precursors react together to create ammonium

[[Page 1823]]

nitrate, the largest component of ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> particles by 
species in the SJV.\28\ The chemical products of ammonia and 
NO<INF>X</INF> (ammonium and nitrate) combine in a 1:1 molecular ratio, 
but as discussed below, this ratio does not mean that emissions 
controls for the two precursor pollutants would be equally effective at 
reducing ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF>. The Plan provides several lines of 
evidence to indicate that reductions in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are 
effective in reducing PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations exceeding the 
standard, and also that they are more effective than reductions in 
ammonia emissions. The evidence includes ambient contributions, model 
simulations of NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions, historical trends, 
and the relative amounts of NO<INF>X</INF> and ammonia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan Appendix A, Figures A-30 and A-
29, p. A-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan indicates that the ambient contribution of NO<INF>X</INF> 
to PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels in the SJV is substantial. Ammonium nitrate 
is the largest chemical component of ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the 
SJV, comprising 65 percent of the 2009-2011 average peak 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentration at Bakersfield (WOEA, p. 10). Using the 
2009-2011 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> design value of 61.8 [mu]g/m\3\,\29\ 
the ammonium nitrate concentration on peak PM<INF>2.5</INF> days is 
approximately 40.2 [mu]g/m\3\. If only nitrate itself is considered 
(i.e., the nitrate part of the ammonium nitrate molecules), the 
contribution of NO<INF>X</INF> represents approximately 50.3 percent of 
the 2009-2011 average peak 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentration at 
Bakersfield, which is an ambient contribution of 31.1 [mu]g/m\3\.\30\ 
Whether considered as ammonium nitrate or simply as nitrate, 
NO<INF>X</INF> is clearly a significant contributor to ambient 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels above the standard in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, p. A-10. The design value 
for Bakersfield-California for 2009-2011 is given as a rounded value 
of 62 [mu]g/m\3\ in Table A-5 in Appendix A of the Plan. For greater 
precision in estimating species contributions, we have used the 
unrounded value of 61.8 [mu]g/m\3\ calculated as the average of the 
98th percentiles values for each year (66.7, 53.3, and 65.5) as 
listed in Table A-4.
    \30\ The nitrate fraction of ammonia nitrate is calculated as 
molecular weight of nitrate (62) divided by the molecular weight of 
ammonium nitrate (80) and equals 77.5 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to this evidence on the contribution of NO<INF>X</INF> 
to PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations, the Plan provides evidence that 
ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations are sensitive to NO<INF>X</INF> 
reductions (i.e., nitrate PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations go down when 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are reduced). The evidence is from modeling, 
historical trends, and relative proportions of NO<INF>X</INF> and 
ammonia. The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan provides evidence from past and 
current photochemical modeling simulations that ambient ammonium 
nitrate is sensitive to NO<INF>X</INF> reductions. The Plan describes 
past modeling studies that were documented in academic journals.\31\ In 
the various studies, when NO<INF>X</INF> emissions were reduced by 50 
percent, ambient ammonium nitrate decreased by 25 to 50 percent, 
depending on the episode modeled and the geographic location.\32\ 
Modeling for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan also shows substantial 
sensitivity of ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations to reductions in 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. In the Plan, the State modeled a 25 percent 
reduction in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and showed a decrease in 
Bakersfield PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations of 3.75 [mu]g/m\3\, a 6 
percent decrease in the 2009-2011 design value of 61.8 [mu]g/m\3\ and 
similar levels of ambient decreases at other monitors (WOEA, Table 6, 
p. 65).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The academic journal papers and are described in Appendix 
F, section 2.7 (p. 28), and in WOEA, section 5.c (p. 64).
    \32\ Kleeman, M.J., Ying, Q., and Kaduwela, A., Control 
strategies for the reduction of airborne particulate nitrate in 
California's San Joaquin Valley, Atmospheric Environment, 2005, 39, 
5325-5341. Liang, J., G[uuml]rer, K., Allen, P.D., Zhang, K.M., 
Ying, Q., Kleeman, M., Wexler, A., and Kaduwela, A., 2006, A 
photochemical model investigation of an extended winter PM episode 
observed in Central California: Model Performance Evaluation, 
Proceedings of the 5th Annual CMAQ Models-3 User's Conference, 
Chapel Hill, NC. Pun, B.K., Balmori R.T.F, and Seigneur, C., 2009, 
Modeling wintertime particulate matter formation in Central 
California, Atmospheric Environment, 43, 402-409. Different models 
and emission inventories in these studies conducted over the years 
also contribute to the variation in results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan provides additional (non-modeling) 
evidence on the effectiveness of NO<INF>X</INF> reductions. The 
historical downward trends of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and of ambient 
nitrate concentrations are discussed in Chapter 4 and the WOEA of the 
Plan.\33\ Daily NO<INF>X</INF> emissions levels and winter nitrate 
concentrations appear correlated over time on an annual basis. Both 
have decreased by about a third during the period 2004 to 2011. This is 
evidence that existing NO<INF>X</INF> controls are effective at 
reducing ammonium nitrate. The evidence is strengthened by the fact 
that this reduction in ambient nitrate occurred despite an increase in 
emissions of ammonia, the other precursor to ammonium nitrate, during 
the same period (Plan p. 4-8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, Chapter 4, p. 4-8 and Figure 4-
7, p. 4-10; more detail in WOEA section 9, p. 58, Figures 49-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan further describes the effectiveness of NO<INF>X</INF> 
controls by characterizing it as the ``limiting precursor'' in ammonium 
nitrate formation, based on the relative amounts of NO<INF>X</INF> and 
ammonia. Based on monitored concentrations and the emissions inventory, 
the Plan concludes that NO<INF>X</INF> is the limiting precursor. The 
limiting precursor concept is illustrated briefly in Chapter 4 and 
described more fully in the WOEA.\34\ One molecule of each of 
NO<INF>X</INF> and ammonia is required to form each molecule of 
ammonium nitrate. If NO<INF>X</INF> is in short supply relative to 
ammonia, then NO<INF>X</INF> is the limiting factor in ammonium nitrate 
formation.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Chapter 4, Figures 4-4 and 4-5 (Plan, p. 4-9); WOEA, 
section 5b, p. 16. See also CARB Staff Report, p. E-3.
    \35\ As noted below in the ammonia subsection, the ``limiting 
precursor'' concept is not absolute, and must be used with caution. 
However, for NO<INF>X</INF> it does support evidence from the 
modeling results that NO<INF>X</INF> significantly contributes to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> exceedances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The WOEA includes plots (Figures 16 and 17, p. 19) of ammonia and 
nitric acid (which contains nitrate) concentrations at two monitoring 
sites in the SJV (Angiola and Fresno) that were measured during the 
winter 2000-2001 CRPAQS \36\ study and reported in Lurmann et al. 
(2006).\37\ The Plan notes that ammonia concentrations are at least an 
order of magnitude larger than those of nitrate and notes Lurmann et 
al.'s conclusion that NO<INF>X</INF> is the limiting precursor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ CRPAQS is the California Regional Particulate Air Quality 
Study. More information is available about CRPAQS at http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/ccaqs.htm.
    \37\ Lurmann, F.W., Brown, S.G., McCarthy, M.C., and Roberts, 
P.T., December 2006, Processes Influencing Secondary Aerosol 
Formation in the San Joaquin Valley during Winter, Journal of Air 
and Waste Management Association, 56, 1679-1693.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The WOEA also considers emissions inventories to support the 
argument that NO<INF>X</INF> is the limiting precursor. The WOEA 
normalized NO<INF>X</INF> emissions using the relative molecular 
weights of NO<INF>X</INF> and ammonia, in order to reflect the number 
of molecules of each available to react with each other (p. 18, Table 
1). In 2000, the amount of NO<INF>X</INF> available was only about two-
thirds the amount of ammonia; in 2011 NO<INF>X</INF> was only one-third 
of ammonia. This shows the scarcity of NO<INF>X</INF> relative to 
ammonia and implies that NO<INF>X</INF> is the limiting precursor in 
the formation of ammonium nitrate.
    Based on the range of technical analyses provided in the Plan and 
other information available to EPA, the EPA agrees with the State's and 
District's conclusion that NO<INF>X</INF> controls must be included in 
the evaluation of potential control measures for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in the SJV, consistent with the requirements 
of subpart 4.
c. Ammonia
    The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and Supplement state that 
``[b]ecause of the regional

[[Page 1824]]

surplus in ammonia, even substantial ammonia emissions reductions yield 
a relatively small reduction in nitrate'' (Plan p. 4-8) and that 
``ammonia reductions would not significantly contribute to the Valley's 
attainment of the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard'' (Plan p. 4-11). To 
support this finding, the Plan and Supplement discuss the ambient 
contribution of ammonia to measured PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels in the SJV, 
and the sensitivity of ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> to ammonia reductions. 
The latter includes discussion of the relative abundance of 
NO<INF>X</INF> and ammonia, and of modeled simulations of further 
reductions in ammonia emissions.
    The Plan indicates that ammonia contributes to ambient 
concentrations of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, in the form of ammonium nitrate and 
ammonium sulfate. As noted above in the NO<INF>X</INF> discussion, 
ammonium nitrate contributes 65 percent of the 2009-2011 average peak 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> ambient levels at Bakersfield. Ammonium sulfate 
contributes an additional 7 percent (p. G-10; WOEA, p. 10). Thus, 
ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate together account for a total of 
72 percent of the peak 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations, or 44.5 
[mu]g/m\3\, and ammonia emissions are essential to the formation of 
both of these components of the ambient particulate matter. If only the 
ammonium portion of these molecules is considered, the corresponding 
figures are 16.6 percent of peak PM<INF>2.5</INF> ambient levels, or 
10.3 [mu]g/m\3\.\38\ This level of contribution is a substantial 
fraction of the SJV's 2009-2011 design value of 61.8 [mu]g/m\3\, and 
indicates that emissions of ammonia contribute significantly to ambient 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations that exceed the 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The ammonium fraction of ammonia nitrate is calculated as 
molecular weight of ammonium (18) divided by the molecular weight of 
ammonium nitrate (80) and equals 23.5 percent. The ammonium fraction 
of ammonia sulfate is calculated as molecular weight of ammonium 
portion (36) divided by the molecular weight of ammonium sulfate 
(132) and equals 27.3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next we examine information in the Plan regarding the sensitivity 
of ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels in the SJV to ammonia emission 
control. On this issue there is conflicting evidence. Based on evidence 
that ammonia is not the limiting precursor and that modeled ammonia 
reductions are relatively ineffective, the Plan concludes that controls 
for ammonia are not warranted. However, a detailed evaluation of the 
modeling shows that ammonia controls can be effective at reducing 
ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> in some locations.
    The Plan's evidence discussed above to support the argument that 
NO<INF>X</INF> is the limiting precursor for ammonia nitrate formation 
is also presented as evidence that ammonia is not the limiting 
precursor, and so ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> would not be sensitive to 
ammonia reductions (WOEA, p. 16-20). The Plan notes that there is both 
an abundance of ambient ammonia relative to ambient nitrate, and an 
abundance of ammonia emissions relative to NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. 
The Plan also indicates that there is an abundance of gaseous ammonia 
relative to particulate ammonium at multiple locations during the 2000-
2001 winter episode in the CRPAQS study (WOEA, p. 20 and Figure 18). 
This abundance suggests that even under conditions favorable to 
ammonium nitrate formation, a substantial amount of unreacted ammonia 
remains. Based on these multiple pieces of evidence on the abundance of 
ammonia, the Plan concludes that ammonia is not the limiting factor for 
ammonium nitrate formation and, thus, that reducing ammonia emissions 
would not reduce ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the SJV.
    The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan also considered air quality modeling 
analyses to evaluate the effectiveness of reducing ammonia as compared 
to other precursors, and to PM<INF>2.5</INF> decreases needed for 
attainment. Modeling for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan indicated that 
a 25 percent reduction in ammonia emissions resulted in a 0.55 [mu]g/
m\3\ decrease in ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> (WOEA, p. 65, Table 6). This 
benefit is roughly one-seventh the corresponding benefit for a 25 
percent reduction in NO<INF>X</INF>. Id. Restating the inventory 
reduction percentages in terms of tons per day reductions, the Plan 
notes that reducing ammonia emissions by one ton per day is only about 
10 percent as effective as reducing one ton per day of NO<INF>X</INF> 
(Plan p. 4-11). Thus, based on this air quality modeling, the Plan 
concludes that additional ammonia control is considerably less 
effective than NO<INF>X</INF> control.
    The Plan also notes that, assuming the same rate of improvement in 
ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentration per ton of ammonia reduced, it 
would take a 34 percent reduction in ammonia emissions to decrease 
ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> by 1 [mu]g/m\3\, the amount that would have 
been needed to advance projected attainment by one year from 2019 to 
2018. The Plan considers this to be ``an infeasible amount, since there 
are no control strategies that exist or have been identified which 
could achieve such large reductions'' (Plan, p. 4-11).
    The Plan assumes that additional ammonia control, as modeled, would 
provide limited benefit for attainment planning purposes. The Plan 
concludes, based upon the various information and analyses described 
above, that ``ammonia reductions would not significantly contribute to 
the Valley's attainment of the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard'' (Plan 
p. 4-11), and therefore additional control measures should not be 
evaluated.
    After reviewing the information discussed above, EPA believes that 
the information provided by the State and District in the Plan and 
Supplement shows that ammonia contributes to a large fraction of 
measured PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in the SJV area, in the form 
of ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate. Additionally, modeling 
analyses submitted by the State and studies available to EPA indicate 
that although ammonia control is generally less effective at reducing 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations when compared to NO<INF>X</INF> 
control, it remains true that reducing ammonia emissions in the SJV 
would reduce PM<INF>2.5</INF> by varying amounts throughout the 
nonattainment area. Moreover, reductions in ammonia in conjunction with 
reductions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> would help to provide 
for attainment of the NAAQS in the SJV.
    While EPA finds the modeling and other analyses presented in the 
2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan to be credible, the fact remains that the 
modeling analyses show that additional reductions in ammonia may reduce 
ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels to varying degrees. In the various 
studies, when ammonia emissions were reduced by up to 50 percent, 
ambient ammonium nitrate decreased by 5 to 25 percent, depending on the 
episode modeled and the geographic location evaluated. (WOEA, p. 64) 
These percentages for ammonia benefits are generally smaller than those 
for NO<INF>X</INF> reductions, but these modeling results show that 
reductions in ammonia emissions under certain circumstances can 
effectively reduce ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF>. The fact that all the 
modeling studies, including the modeling done for the current Plan, 
find at least some benefit from ammonia control shows that the concept 
of a ``limiting precursor'' discussed above is not absolute. In 
addition, the test for determining whether emission reduction measures 
for a particular precursor must be evaluated for purposes of timely 
attainment should not be exclusively based on the control effectiveness 
of the precursor relative to other precursors, but should also consider 
whether emissions of the precursor ``contribute significantly'' to 
ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels which exceed the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard in the nonattainment area.
    Regarding the Plan's statement that it would take a 34 percent 
reduction in

[[Page 1825]]

ammonia emissions to decrease ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> by 1 [mu]g/m\3\, 
the amount needed to advance attainment by one year from 2019 to 2018, 
EPA notes that the test for advancing the attainment date is based not 
on an evaluation of control measures for a single pollutant but rather 
on an evaluation of potential control measures for direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and all PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors from all types of 
sources in the nonattainment area. We also note that the appropriate 
inquiry in this context is whether reasonably available control 
measures would advance attainment by one year from 2015 to 2014 (not 
from 2019 to 2018), given under subpart 4 the applicable attainment 
date for the SJV area for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS is December 
31, 2015.
    In summary, the information provided by the State and District in 
the Plan and Supplement shows that ammonia contributes to a large 
fraction of measured PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in the SJV area, 
in the form of ammonium nitrate and, to a lesser extent, ammonium 
sulfate. Additionally, modeled evidence submitted by the State and 
studies available to EPA indicate that although ammonia control is less 
effective at reducing PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations compared to 
NO<INF>X</INF> control, reducing ammonia emissions in the SJV would 
reduce PM<INF>2.5</INF> by some amount in parts of the Valley. Given 
the severity of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment problem in the SJV, 
the demonstration that attainment in SJV by 2015 is impracticable, and 
the documentation in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan showing that 
ammonia emissions are responsible for more than 10 [mu]g/m\3\ of 
ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in the SJV area, EPA does not 
agree with the statement in the Plan that additional ammonia controls 
need not be evaluated to satisfy CAA requirements for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in the SJV.
    While stating that additional ammonia reductions are not necessary, 
the State nevertheless provided in the Supplement an evaluation of 
ammonia control measures currently implemented in the SJV and other 
potential ammonia control measures. We discuss the State's ammonia 
control evaluation in section D, below (``Reasonably Available Control 
Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology'').
d. VOC
    The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan states that further reductions in 
VOC emissions would not contribute to PM<INF>2.5</INF> attainment in 
the San Joaquin Valley. To support this finding, the Plan discusses the 
ambient contribution of VOC to measured PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels in the 
Valley, the indirect role of VOC in ammonium nitrate formation, and 
modeled simulations of further reductions in VOC emissions.
    There are two routes by which VOC can contribute to ambient 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. The first is through various chemical reactions 
leading to the formation of Secondary Organic Aerosols (SOA). The 
second is through photochemical reactions that create oxidants such as 
ozone and the hydroxyl radical (OH), which in turn oxidize 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to nitrate, leading to the formation of 
particulate ammonium nitrate. The Plan's Chapter 4 (p. 4-12) discussed 
both routes in section 4.4.2. The WOEA discusses SOA in section 6 
(WOEA, p. 32) and the oxidant route in section 5d (WOEA, p. 24).
    For the direct contribution of VOC to PM<INF>2.5</INF>, SOA, the 
2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan states that modeling for annual average 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> for the 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan found that 
anthropogenic SOA were about 3 to 5 percent of total organic aerosol, 
and that SOA were mainly formed during the summer from nonanthropogenic 
sources. The winter anthropogenic contribution that is of interest for 
the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard would necessarily be lower, since 
SOA formation is less at winter temperatures, which are lower than the 
annual average. The Plan also cites a study by Chen et al. \39\ for the 
winter 2000-2001 CRPAQS episode. This study found that the SOA portion 
of total organic aerosol had a maximum value of 4.26 [mu]g/m\3\ with 
concentrations at Fresno and Bakersfield of 2.46 and 2.28 [mu]g/m\3\, 
respectively, which represent 6 percent and 4 percent of the total 
organic aerosol at those locations. Applying this roughly 5 percent SOA 
proportion to the organic carbon portion of the measured 2009-2011 
winter PM<INF>2.5</INF> composition shows that SOA is around 0.9 
percent of total ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> at Bakersfield, and 1.5 
percent of ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> at Fresno.\40\ Because 
anthropogenic SOA is only a portion of the total, the portion due to 
controllable anthropogenic sources would be even less. These modeling 
studies show that SOA is not a substantial component of ambient 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the SJV and that the potential for reducing ambient 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> through VOC emission reductions is very limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Chen, J., Ying, Q., and Kleeman, M.J., 2010, Source 
apportionment of wintertime secondary organic aerosol during the 
California regional PM<INF>10</INF>/PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality 
study, Atmospheric Environment, 44(10), 1331-1340.
    \40\ The contribution of Organic Matter to 2009-2011 peak day 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels was 17 percent at Bakersfield and 29 percent 
at Fresno (see Staff Report, Appendix B, p. 10 [pdf.52], Figure 6. 
Five percent of these gives 0.85 percent SOA at Bakersfield and 1.45 
percent at Fresno. As a fraction of the 2007 design values of 66 
[mu]g/m\3\ at Bakersfield and 63 [mu]g/m\3\ at Fresno, these give 
SOA contributions of 0.56 and 0.91 [mu]g/m\3\ at Bakersfield and 
Fresno, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the indirect contribution of VOC to PM<INF>2.5</INF>, nitrate 
formation via daytime photochemistry, it appears that this route is 
also not a substantial contributor, based on modeled sensitivity to VOC 
reductions. For one such study there were relatively low modeled 
concentrations of ozone, which did not appear consistent with nitrate 
formation via daytime oxidant (ozone) photochemistry, which would be 
expected to have elevated ozone levels.\41\ The Plan reviews the same 
studies that the State relied on in the 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan for 
attainment of the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards (Plan Modeling 
Protocol, p. F-31). The EPA's review of these studies and of the 2008 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan's examination of them is covered in the TSD for 
the EPA's final action on the 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan.\42\ The 
findings from those reviews remain the same for the current Plan: past 
modeling studies vary on whether controlling VOC reduces 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, but the most reliable ones show VOC control has 
little benefit, or even a disbenefit. As detailed in that previous TSD 
and in the Plan's Modeling Protocol, the studies for which VOC control 
showed a benefit at some times and places are less reliable because 
they used unrealistic emissions levels, unrealistic control scenarios, 
or the effect occurred at PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations no longer 
reached in the SJV. The Protocol also suggested that there is 
sufficient background ozone flowing in from outside the SJV area to 
perform the oxidizing role, even in the absence of oxidants generated 
from VOC emissions within the SJV,\43\ implying that VOC reductions 
would have little effect on ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels exceeding 
the standard in the SJV. The overall conclusion is that the effect of 
reducing VOC emissions is somewhat uncertain, but in general produces 
little benefit or

[[Page 1826]]

even a disbenefit in PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Pun, B.K., Balmori R.T.F, and Seigneur, C., 2009, Modeling 
Wintertime Particulate Matter Formation in Central California, 
Atmospheric Environment, 43: 402-409. doi: 10.1016/
j.atmosenv.2008.08.040.
    \42\ EPA-Region 9, Technical Support Document and Responses to 
Comments Final Rule on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
State Implementation Plan,'' September 30, 2011, section II.C.
    \43\ 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. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.05.044; cited in 
Plan Modeling Protocol. p. F-36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Added to this evidence from past studies is the 2012 Plan's current 
modeling, which indicates a disbenefit from controlling VOC at 
important geographic locations. This is shown by negative 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> sensitivities (that is, decreased VOC emissions result 
in increased PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels) for multiple locations.\44\ In 
addition, diagrams of model PM<INF>2.5</INF> response at Bakersfield to 
various combinations of NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC reductions show 
graphically that VOC reductions increase PM<INF>2.5</INF>, for any 
given level of NO<INF>X</INF>.\45\ For all the monitoring sites, these 
NO<INF>X</INF> vs. VOC diagrams show either no decrease or an actual 
increase in PM<INF>2.5</INF> as VOC emissions are reduced. The current 
modeling provides strong evidence that additional VOC reductions would 
not decrease ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See VOC columns of WOEA Tables 6 and 7 (p. 65) for 
Bakersfield, Visalia, Corcoran, and Merced.
    \45\ WOEA Figure 54 (p. 67) shows the model PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
response at Bakersfield to reductions in various combinations of 
precursors. Subfigure ``b)'' shows NO<INF>X</INF> reductions plotted 
against VOC reductions. For a given level of NO<INF>X</INF>, in 
decreasing VOC by moving leftward along a horizontal line 
(representing constant NO<INF>X</INF>), one crosses the lines of 
constant PM<INF>2.5</INF> (isopleths) into regions of increased 
PM<INF>2.5.</INF> The Plan presents similar diagrams in Chapter 4, 
Figures 4-15 through 4-23 (pp. 4-31ff) for the various monitoring 
sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the information provided by the State and District in the 
Plan and Supplement shows that: (a) wintertime levels of secondary 
organic aerosol measured in the SJV are low and therefore the direct 
products of VOC emissions do not directly contribute significantly to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels above the standard in the SJV; and (b) 
wintertime reductions in VOC emissions in the SJV, when 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations are high, would not reduce ambient 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels, and therefore the indirect products of VOC 
emissions also do not directly contribute significantly to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels above the standard in the SJV. Based on this 
information, we propose to determine that at this time VOC emissions do 
not contribute significantly to ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that 
exceed the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in the SJV nonattainment 
area.
3. Proposed Action
    Based on a review of the information provided by the District and 
other information available to EPA, we propose to determine that at 
this time VOC emissions do not contribute significantly to ambient 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels which exceed the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard 
in the SJV and, therefore, that VOCs may be excluded from the State's 
evaluation of potential control measures for purposes of this standard 
in this area. Consistent with the regulatory presumptions under subpart 
4, all other PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors (NO<INF>X</INF>, 
SO<INF>2</INF>, and ammonia) must be included in the State's evaluation 
of potential control measures for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in 
the SJV area, including NNSR provisions to implement the requirements 
of subpart 4.\46\ We discuss the State's evaluation of potential 
control measures for NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and ammonia, as 
well as direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, in section D (``Reasonably Available 
Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Absent a demonstration to EPA's satisfaction that major 
stationary sources of ammonia emissions do not contribute 
significantly to ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that exceed the 
NAAQS in the SJV area, under CAA section 189(e) major stationary 
sources of ammonia are subject to the control requirements that 
apply to major stationary sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
including NNSR requirements. We intend to evaluate the adequacy of 
SJV's NNSR program for PM<INF>2.5</INF> purposes in a separate 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control 
Technology

1. Requirements for RACM/RACT
    CAA section 172(c) under subpart 1 describes the general attainment 
plan requirement for RACM and RACT, requiring that attainment plan 
submissions ``provide for the implementation of all reasonably 
available control measures 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) and shall provide for attainment'' of the NAAQS. 
The attainment planning requirements specific to PM<INF>2.5</INF> under 
subpart 4 likewise impose upon states an obligation to develop 
attainment plans that require RACM on sources of direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and those PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors determined to be 
subject to the RACM/RACT requirement. CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) requires 
that Moderate area PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIPs contain provisions to assure 
that RACM are implemented by no later than 4 years after designation of 
the area. The EPA reads CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) 
together to require that attainment plans for Moderate nonattainment 
areas must provide for the implementation of RACM and RACT for existing 
sources of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors in the 
nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable but no later than 4 
years after designation.\47\ As part of the RACM/RACT analysis, all 
available controls should be evaluated, and reasonable controls should 
be adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ This interpretation is consistent with guidance provided in 
the General Preamble at 13540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The terms RACM and RACT are not specifically defined in the Act, 
nor do the provisions of subpart 4 specify how states are to meet the 
RACM and RACT requirements. In longstanding guidance, however, the EPA 
has interpreted the RACM requirement to include any potential control 
measure for a point, area, on-road and non-road emission source that is 
technologically and economically feasible (General Preamble at 13540) 
and is not ``absurd, unenforceable, or impracticable'' (General 
Preamble at 13560). The EPA has historically defined RACT as the lowest 
emission limitation that a particular stationary source is capable of 
meeting by the application of control technology (e.g., devices, 
systems, process modifications, or other apparatus or techniques that 
reduce air pollution) that is reasonably available considering 
technological and economic feasibility. See General Preamble at 13541 
and 57 FR 18070, 18073-74 (April 28, 1992).
    The EPA recommends that states use the following process to 
identify RACM/RACT:

    1. Develop a comprehensive list of available control measures 
for all source categories in the nonattainment area. In developing 
this list, the state should identify existing control measures 
currently being implemented in the area and also include any control 
measures suggested in public comments.
    2. Remove from the list any measure that is unreasonable because 
emissions from the affected source or source category are 
insignificant (i.e., de minimis). The state should appropriately 
document any determination that a source or source category is 
insignificant.
    3. Evaluate each remaining available control measure for its 
``reasonableness,'' considering technological and economic 
feasibility and any potentially adverse impacts. The state should 
provide a reasoned justification if it rejects a listed control 
measure as unreasonable.
    4. Include in its submitted Moderate area attainment plan, in 
enforceable form, each control measure found to be reasonable unless 
the measure is already either federally promulgated, part of the 
state's SIP, or otherwise creditable in SIPs. In areas that 
demonstrate attainment by the Moderate area attainment date, the 
state may justify rejection of an otherwise reasonable measure by 
demonstrating that the measure would not, individually or 
collectively with other reasonable measures being rejected, advance 
attainment by one year or more. For areas that demonstrate that 
attainment by the Moderate area attainment date is impracticable, 
the state must provide for the implementation of all available 
control measures that are technologically and economically feasible.


[[Page 1827]]


See General Preamble at 13540-13544.
    An evaluation of technological feasibility should include 
consideration of factors such as a source's process and operating 
conditions, raw materials, physical plant layout, and non-air quality 
and energy impacts (e.g., increased water pollution, waste disposal, 
and energy requirements) (57 FR 18070, 18073).
    An evaluation of economic feasibility should include consideration 
of factors such as cost per ton of pollution reduced (cost-
effectiveness), capital costs, and annualized cost (57 FR 18070, 
18074). Absent other indications, the EPA presumes that it is 
reasonable for similar sources to bear similar costs of emissions 
reductions. Economic feasibility of RACM and RACT is thus largely 
informed by evidence that other sources in a source category have in 
fact applied the control technology, process change, or measure in 
question in similar circumstances. Id.
2. RACM/RACT Analysis in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan
    The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan's RACM/RACT evaluation for direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> sources is 
summarized in section 9.2 (p. 9-3) and detailed in Appendices C 
(``Mobile Source Control Strategies'') and D (``Stationary and Area 
Source Control Strategy Evaluation''). RACM for ammonia sources is 
discussed in Attachment A of the Supplement. The Plan includes a short 
discussion of the District's current VOC control measures (p. 5-17 and 
Supplement, p. 13) but includes no detailed evaluation of them. The 
treatment of VOCs is thus consistent with the District's determination 
that additional VOC controls are not necessary in the SJV area for 
purposes of attaining the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
    The evaluation of potential controls in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Plan is presented by source category. For stationary and area source 
categories, the evaluation is broken down by the current District rule 
or rules that apply to that source category. The evaluation also 
addresses a number of source categories that are not currently subject 
to emission controls (e.g., fireworks). See 2012 Plan, Appendix D, p. 
D-163.
    The following information is provided in Appendix D for each 
stationary or area source category or District rule or, for ammonia 
sources, in Attachment A to the Supplement:

    <bullet> A description of the sources within the category or 
sources subject to the rule;
    <bullet> base year (2007), current year (2012), and projected 
baseline year emissions (for every year from 2014 to 2019) in the 
source category or affected by the rule;
    <bullet> a discussion of the current rule requirements and/or 
listing and discussion of existing rules, regulations, or other 
control efforts that address the source category; and
    <bullet> identification and discussion of potential new 
controls, including in many cases, a discussion of the technological 
and economic feasibility of the new controls. Rules adopted by other 
agencies (including the EPA, South Coast AQMD, and Bay Area AQMD) 
are discussed and compared to existing SJV rules. Measures proposed 
by the public for the source category/rule are also identified and 
discussed. In addition, non-regulatory approaches to reducing 
emissions in each stationary and area source category are discussed, 
including the use of incentives, opportunities for technology 
advancement programs, policy initiatives, and education/outreach 
programs.

    The following information is provided in Appendix C for each major 
on- and off-road mobile source category:

    <bullet> A description of the type of sources in the category;
    <bullet> base year (2007), current year (2012), and projected 
baseline year emissions (for every year from 2014 to 2019) in the 
source category;
    <bullet> a discussion of the current rule requirements and/or 
listing and discussion of existing rules, regulations, or other 
control efforts that address the source category; and
    <bullet> identification and discussion of potential new 
controls. Measures proposed by the public for the source category/
rule are also identified and discussed with the majority of this 
discussion presented in the responses to comments in Appendix I, pp. 
I-10 to I-13.

    Through this evaluation process, the District identified 5 new 
control measures for adoption. The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan includes 
enforceable commitments to adopt these measures. See 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, section 5.3.1 (p. 5-21) and Table 2 below.

                      Table 2--SJVAPCD 2012 PM2.5 Plan Specific Rule Amendment Commitments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Measure number and
   District rule No.           description          Amend date  Comply date       Rule amendment commitment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4308..................  Boilers, Steam                    2013         2015  Lower the NOX emission limit for
                         Generators, and Process                              instantaneous water heaters in the
                         Heaters 0.075 to <2                                  size range of 0.075-0.4 MMBtu/hr
                         MMBtu/hr.                                            from the current level of 55 ppmv
                                                                              to 20 ppmv.
4692..................  Commercial Charbroiling..         2016         2017  Add requirements for under-fired
                                                                              charbroilers.
                                                                             1. Lower the threshold level for
                                                                              calling wood-burning curtailments
                                                                              from 30 [mu]g/m3 to >=20 [mu]g/m3.
                                                                             2. Review the meteorological
                                                                              conditions that lead to elevated
                                                                              PM2.5, to prevent the buildup of
                                                                              PM2.5 that may lead to a potential
                                                                              exceedance day.
4901..................  Wood Burning Fireplaces           2016    2016/2017  3. Consider expanding the wood
                         and Wood Burning Heaters.                            burning season to include October
                                                                              and/or March.
                                                                             4. Analyze the feasibility of
                                                                              allowing the use of the cleanest
                                                                              certified wood burning devices at
                                                                              specified curtailment levels.
4905..................  Natural Gas-Fired, Fan            2014         2015  Lower the NOX emission limits for
                         Type Residential Central                             residential furnaces and examine
                         Furnaces.                                            the possibility of incorporating
                                                                              NOX limits for natural gas-fired,
                                                                              fan-type, commercial central
                                                                              furnaces into the rule.
9610..................  SIP Creditability of              2013         2013  Establish appropriate mechanisms
                         Incentives.                                          for the District to take SIP
                                                                              credit for eligible incentive
                                                                              programs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2012 PM2.5 Plan, p. 5-21, Table 5-3, and section 5.3.1.

    The District also identified a number of source categories for 
which existing information is inadequate to determine the feasibility 
of additional controls. These categories and the additional controls to 
be studied are discussed in section 5.3.3. (p. 5-24). The schedule for 
these studies is given in Table 5-4 (p. 5-24).
    The Plan also includes descriptions of the District's incentive 
programs

[[Page 1828]]

(Chapter 6); its technology advancement program (Chapter 7), and its 
public outreach program (Chapter 8).
    The efforts by the SJV's eight metropolitan planning organizations 
(MPO) \48\ to implement cost-effect transportation control measures 
(TCM) are described in Appendix C, section C-11-4 (p. C-33). While no 
additional TCMs were identified by the MPOs, the Plan includes a 
discussion of the on-going implementation of a broad range of TCMs in 
the Valley. There is also a discussion of the MPOs' Congestion 
Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding policy which is a 
standardized process across the Valley for distributing 20 percent of 
the CMAQ funds to projects that meet a minimum cost-effectiveness. 
During the comment period for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, a number 
of TCMs were suggested by the public for consideration. See Appendix I, 
pp. I-10 to I-13. The feasibility of these measures is discussed in the 
District's responses to comments. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ These eight MPOs represent the eight counties in the San 
Joaquin Valley air basin: 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Supplement identifies three categories of ammonia 
(NH<INF>3</INF>) emission sources in the SJV, which are estimated to 
account for 96% of ammonia air emissions in the Valley--farming 
operations, including confined animal facilities (239.2 tpd), 
evaporation from agricultural fertilizers (66.1 tpd), and composting 
solid waste operations (20.5 tpd) (see Supplement at 11). Information 
presented in the Supplement then compares District rules for confined 
animal facility (CAF) and composting operations to analogous 
requirements in other areas and discusses water quality measures for 
agricultural fertilizer application that may also reduce air emissions 
(see generally Supplement at Attachment A).
    Farming operations: The Supplement states that the control measures 
in SIP-approved Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities, adopted 2010) 
\49\ have a secondary benefit of limiting NH<INF>3</INF> emissions and 
have reduced ammonia emissions by more than 100 tpd (see Supplement at 
A-2, citing Staff Report for June 2009 re-adoption of Rule 4570 (June 
2009) at Appendix F). Rule 4570 is a work practice rule that requires 
farmers to implement management practices (e.g., feed according to NRCS 
guidelines, remove manure from corrals at least four times per year) 
for different components of the CAF operation, such as feeding, milking 
parlors, housing/bedding, manure management and land application. Rule 
4570 applies to livestock operations, including dairy, beef, poultry 
and swine, above certain size thresholds. The District assumes in its 
RACM analysis that, for most control measures, the ammonia control 
efficiencies are the same as the VOC control efficiencies. The District 
compares Rule 4570 to livestock rules in seven other California air 
districts, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District 
(SCAQMD), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and the 
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). Based 
on a review of the number of work practices required by the other 
California rules, the District concludes that Rule 4570 is at least as 
stringent as the air quality rules for livestock operations in these 
other areas. In cases where the work practice standards in other rules 
may be more stringent than the requirements in Rule 4570, the District 
considers these measures beyond RACT or the emissions differences not 
significant (see, e.g., Supplement at A-7, noting frequency of 
mitigation requirements in South Coast Rule 223, adopted June 2, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See 77 FR 2228 (January 17, 2012) (final rule approving 
Rule 4570 into the California SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Supplement also compares Rule 4570 to the Idaho Department of 
Environmental Quality's (IDEQ) dairy ammonia permit by rule, adopted in 
2009 (Idaho rule).\50\ While Rule 4570 is based on implementing a 
certain number of BMPs in specific categories, the Idaho rule is based 
on a ``points'' system, where each BMP is assigned a certain number of 
points based on control effectiveness. The District states that Rule 
4570 is more stringent than the Idaho rule based on Rule 4570's lower 
applicability threshold (e.g., 500 milking cows v. 1,638 cows (@1,400 
lbs) for free stall/flush dairies), more stringent requirements and 
greater number of required mitigation measures (see Supplement at A-25 
and A-29). The District also states that Rule 4570 is more stringent 
regarding temporary suspension and substitution of mitigation measures, 
and contains more stringent testing, monitoring and recordkeeping 
requirements. It also states that Rule 4570 is more stringent because 
it provides specific mitigation measures for various operations at 
dairies, while the Idaho rule is based on what the District 
characterizes as an ``arbitrary'' point system that does not guarantee 
a specific degree of control (see Supplement at A-24 to A-29).\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The Idaho rule requires dairy farms above specified 
threshold numbers of cows or animal units to register with Idaho DEQ 
and to implement industry best management practices (BMPs) to 
control ammonia emissions. A list of BMPs is contained in the rule. 
Each BMP is assigned a point value based on relative effectiveness 
in reducing ammonia. Dairy farms must employ BMPs totaling 27 
points. See Idaho Administrative Procedure Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01 
Sections 760-764: Rules for the Control of Ammonia from Dairy Farms 
(adopted March 30, 2007; amended May 8, 2009).
    \51\ Citing IDEQ's technical documentation for the Idaho rule, 
the Supplement states that the Idaho rule's point system is 
``arbitrary'' and that overall ammonia emission reductions from the 
rule may not be substantial given the flexibility in the rule and 
the absence of a direct correlation between the points required and 
the amount of emission reductions achieved (see Supplement at A-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fertilizer application: The Supplement identifies fertilizer 
application to crops as the second largest source of ammonia emissions 
in the Valley and suggests that research to identify maximum efficiency 
of nitrogen use for various crop types could lead to a reduction of 
excess nitrogen in the soil that is susceptible to leaching and 
volatilization. The Supplement also refers to a ``Regional Board 
General Order'' issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality 
Control Board as a control measure that has ``significantly reduced 
losses of nitrogen compounds to the environment, including leaching of 
nitrogen compounds to groundwater and air emissions such as ammonia and 
nitrous oxide'' (Supplement at A-25 to A-27).\52\ The Supplement does 
not, however, identify any state or local air pollution control measure 
that limits ammonia emissions from fertilizer application operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Reissued Waste Discharge Requirements General Order for 
Existing Milk Cow Dairies, California Regional Water Quality Control 
Board Central Valley Region Order R5-2013-0122, October 3, 2013, 
available at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_orders/r5-2013-0122.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Composting: The District compares its two SIP-approved composting 
rules, Rule 4566 (Organic Water Materials, adopted in 2011) \53\ and 
Rule 4565 (Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations, 
adopted in 2007),\54\ to analogous rules adopted by the SCAQMD, Rule 
1133.3 (Emission Reductions from Greenwaste Composting Operations, 
adopted in 2011) and Rule 1133.2 (Emission Reductions from Co-
Composting Operations, adopted in 2003). For this analysis, the 
District assumes that ammonia control efficiencies achieved by these 
rules are the same as the VOC

[[Page 1829]]

control efficiencies. In its comparison of Rule 4566 with SCAQMD Rule 
1133.3, the District acknowledges that Rule 1133.3 has a much lower 
size threshold for implementing most stringent controls (80% control 
efficiency) but notes that neither SCAQMD nor the District currently 
has any facilities that trigger the most stringent controls. Therefore, 
the District states that, in practice, the controls are equivalent. In 
its comparison of Rule 4565 with SCAQMD Rule 1133.2, the District finds 
that the controls in Rule 4565 are generally more stringent than Rule 
1133.2 for small facilities but less stringent than Rule 1133.2 for 
large facilities. The Supplement states that the most stringent 
measures in Rule 1133.2 are not cost-effective for facilities in the 
Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See 77 FR 71129 (November 29, 2012) (final rule approving 
Rule 4566 into California SIP).
    \54\ See 77 FR 2228 (January 17, 2012) (final rule approving 
Rule 4565 into California SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Evaluation and Proposed Action
    The process followed by the District in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Plan and Supplement to identify RACM/RACT is generally consistent with 
the EPA's recommendations in the General Preamble. The process included 
compiling a comprehensive list of potential controls measures for 
sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and 
ammonia in the SJV. This list included measures suggested in public 
comments on the Plan. See 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, Appendices C, D, 
and I. No source categories were identified as insignificant except by 
implication for a few source categories of ammonia which collectively 
contributed less than 5 percent to the base year ammonia inventory 
(Supplement, p. A-1.) As part of this process, the District evaluated 
potential controls for all relevant source categories for economic and 
technological feasibility and provided justifications for the rejection 
of certain identified measures. Id. After completing this evaluation, 
the District included enforceable commitments to adopt and 
expeditiously implement those measures it found to be reasonable. See 
2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, Table 5-3, p. 21 and Table D-1 above. Since 
submittal of the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan in March 2013, the District 
has adopted all but two of these measures. One measure, amendments to 
Rule 4905 (Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type Residential Central Furnaces) is 
scheduled for adoption this winter. The second measure, amendments to 
Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling), is not scheduled until 2016. 
Research and development of cost-effective control technology are 
currently underway for certain measures in Rule 4692, the addition of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emission limits for under-fired charbroilers (Plan, p. 
5-22 and Supplement, p. 8).
    We have reviewed the District's determination in the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan that its stationary and area source control 
measures represent RACM/RACT for direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF>. As discussed in Section II.C. of 
the TSD, the EPA is proposing to determine that at this time, VOCs do 
not contribute significantly to ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that 
exceed the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in the SJV and that a VOC 
control evaluation therefore is not necessary for purposes of this 
standard in this area.\55\ In our review, we relied mainly on our 
previous evaluations of the District's rules in connection with our 
approval of the SJV RACT SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, our 
comments on the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, and our comments on the 
District's RACT SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.\56\ We also 
reviewed measures suggested by the public in comments on the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan. Based on this review, we believe that the 
District's rules provide for the implementation of RACM/RACT for 
stationary and area sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, 
and SO<INF>2</INF>.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ VOC sources in the San Joaquin Valley are currently subject 
to a broad range of controls measures adopted by the District and 
CARB as part of their strategy to attain the ozone standards in the 
area. The SJV is currently designated nonattainment and classified 
as extreme for the 1-hour ozone standard and for both the 1997 and 
2008 8-hour ozone standards. See 40 CFR 81.305. Extreme ozone 
nonattainment areas are required by CAA section 172(c)(1) to 
implement RACM for VOC sources and by section 182(b)(2) to the 
implement RACT for all major sources of VOC and certain other 
sources of VOC. A major source of VOC in an extreme ozone 
nonattainment area is a source that emits or has the potential to 
emit 10 tons per year or more of VOC (CAA section 182(e)) which is 
much lower than the 100 tpy threshold for major stationary sources 
in Moderate PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas (CAA section 
302(j)). In 2012, the EPA approved the RACM demonstration in SJV's 
SIP for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (77 FR 12652, 
12670 (March 1, 2012)) and found that the State had met the section 
182(b)(2) RACT control requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standards (limited approval, 77 FR 1417 (January 10, 2012); final 
corrective rule approval, 77 FR 71129 (November 29, 2012)).
    As noted in the General Preamble, Congress recognized that PM 
precursors may be otherwise controlled and expressly recommended 
that the EPA consider other provisions of the CAA in addressing 
precursors (General Preamble at 13542, n. 22). Accordingly, the 
General Preamble provides that a state may demonstrate in a SIP 
submittal that control of VOC under other CAA requirements relieves 
it from the need to adopt additional controls for VOC as a precursor 
under section 189(e). Id. at 13542.
    \56\ See 77 FR 1417 (January 10, 2012); EPA Region 9, Technical 
Support Document for EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the 
California State Implementation Plan--EPA's Evaluation of San 
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District's Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for Ozone State 
Implementation Plan (SIP), Adopted April 16, 2009 (dated August 29, 
2011); letter dated October 19, 2012, from Kerry Drake, Associate 
Director, Air Division EPA-Region 9 to Samir Sheikh, SJVAPCD; and 
letter dated June 4, 2014, from Andrew Steckel, Chief, Rules Office, 
EPA Region 9 to Errol Villegas, Planning Manager, SJVAPCD.
    \57\ A full list of the District's rules, including cites to our 
most recent final or proposed rulemaking on each can be found in 
Appendix B to the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have also reviewed the District's analysis of current and 
potentially available ammonia controls for the three largest sources of 
ammonia emissions in the SJV: CAF operations, agricultural fertilizer 
application, and composting operations. Collectively these sources 
account for 96 percent of total base year (2007) ammonia emissions.\58\ 
See 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, Appendix B, Table B-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ The balance of the ammonia inventory is spread among a 
number of source categories from electric utilities to gasoline-
powered on-road vehicles. The largest of these sources, at 6.3 tpd 
in 2007 (1.7 percent of the total ammonia inventory), is the area 
source category ``Other (Miscellaneous Processes).'' See 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, Appendix B, Table B-5. Ammonia emissions in 
this category are from domestic sources including pets, untreated 
human waste (e.g., diapers), and perspiration. See ENVIRON 
International Corporation, ``Final Work Plan California Regional 
PM<INF>10</INF>/PM<INF>2.5</INF> Air Quality Study--Ammonia 
Emissions Improvement Projects in Support of CRPAQS Aerosol Modeling 
and Data Analyses: Draft Ammonia Inventory Development,'' April 13, 
2001, p. 2-16, found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/nh3environworkplan.pdf.
    We note that two of the remaining source categories (open 
burning and residential wood burning at a combined 2.9 tpd in 2007) 
are covered by SIP-approved rules that prohibit and/or curtail 
burning and therefore also reduce ammonia emissions from these 
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Farming Operations and Composting: The District adopted Rule 4565, 
Rule 4566 and Rule 4570 primarily to control VOC emissions, and EPA has 
determined that the control requirements in each of these rules 
represent RACT-level controls for VOCs. See 77 FR 2228 (January 17, 
2012) (final rule approving Rule 4565 and Rule 4570 into California 
SIP) and 77 FR 71129 (November 29, 2012) (final rule approving Rule 
4566 into California SIP). Although the Supplement does not provide a 
detailed analysis of the extent to which these rules also reduce 
ammonia emissions, the District's general conclusion that the work 
practice standards in these rules reduce ammonia emissions appears to 
be factually correct. The District's evaluation of Rule 4565, Rule 4566 
and Rule 4570 generally supports a conclusion that these SIP-approved 
rules for CAFs and composting operations are as stringent as analogous 
rules implemented in other California districts.
    With respect to the Idaho rule, because it is based on a point 
system and Rule 4570 is based on numbers of BMPs for different 
components of the CAF operation, it is difficult to compare the 
requirements in these two rules

[[Page 1830]]

directly. Both rules contain options for controlling ammonia emissions 
in different parts of the CAF operation, but Rule 4570 may be more 
prescriptive in requiring a certain number of BMPs for each component, 
while the Idaho rule does not set a specific number of BMPs and instead 
requires that the points associated with the selected BMPs total to at 
least 27. It appears that in some respects Rule 4570 has more stringent 
provisions than the Idaho rule (e.g., rule applicability threshold, and 
provisions for temporary suspension/substitution, testing and records 
retention). On the other hand, the Idaho rule contains options (e.g., 
chemical amendments, lagoon nitrification/de-nitrification systems, 
lagoon covers, tunnel ventilation with biofilter, incorporation of 
manure within 24 hours of land application) that do not appear to be 
included in Rule 4570. It is not clear whether these control options 
are commonly implemented in Idaho or reasonably available or 
appropriate for use in the SJV.
    In the absence of specific information regarding more stringent 
ammonia air emission control measures that may be technologically and 
economically feasible for implementation in the SJV area, we find the 
District's evaluation of Rule 4565, Rule 4566 and Rule 4570 in 
comparison to analogous rules adopted elsewhere is adequate to 
demonstrate that the District is implementing all available control 
measures for ammonia emissions from CAFs and composting operations that 
are technologically and economically feasible for implementation in the 
SJV at this time. We note, however, that the District's analyses of 
these rules appear to rest on certain assumptions concerning ammonia 
emissions reductions that are not supported by specific documentation 
or analyses (e.g., assumptions concerning ammonia control efficiencies 
based on VOC control efficiencies). The point system in the Idaho rule 
appears to be based upon detailed scientific studies on the ammonia 
control efficiencies of the identified BMPs,\59\ some of which may be 
available for implementation in the SJV. We note also that the timing 
of the NRDC decision in early 2013 may have constrained the State's and 
District's ability to fully evaluate additional ammonia control 
measures as part of a RACM/RACT control strategy ahead of the 
applicable Moderate area attainment date (December 31, 2015). Taking 
these unique circumstances into account, we find the District's ammonia 
control evaluation adequate for RACM/RACT purposes at this time but 
recommend that the State and District conduct a more thorough 
evaluation of all available ammonia control measures for farming and 
composting operations as part of its development of a Serious area 
plan. Specifically, we encourage the District to revisit its control 
evaluation for CAFs and composting operations at its earliest 
opportunity, both to specifically consider the ammonia control 
efficiencies and cost effectiveness of Rule 4565, Rule 4566 and Rule 
4570, and to address any additional control options that may be 
technologically and economically feasible for implementation in the 
SJV, e.g., the BMPs identified in the Idaho rule and other control 
options identified by EPA or by citizens during the District's 
rulemaking processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ IDEQ's technical documentation indicates that under the 
Idaho rule, BMP points are awarded based on a detailed assessment of 
each BMP's relative effectiveness in controlling ammonia emissions. 
See IDEQ, ``Scientific Basis for the Control of Ammonia from Dairy 
Farms Best Management Practices,'' July 18, 2006, available at 
http://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/635665-58_0101_0502_scientific_basis_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fertilizer application: Although certain water pollution control 
and other requirements contained in the ``Regional Board General 
Order'' cited in the Supplement may indirectly reduce ammonia emissions 
to the air from fertilizer application operations, these requirements 
have not been approved into the SIP for purposes of attainment of the 
NAAQS and therefore cannot provide a basis for approval of a RACM 
demonstration under the CAA. We are not aware, however, of ammonia air 
emission control measures that have been adopted and implemented for 
fertilizer application operations elsewhere. In the absence of 
information regarding air emission control measures for agricultural 
fertilizer application that may be technologically and economically 
feasible for implementation in the SJV area, we find the District's 
analysis in the Supplement acceptable for RACM purposes at this time. 
We note also that the timing of the NRDC decision in early 2013 may 
have constrained the State's and District's ability to fully evaluate 
additional ammonia control measures as part of a RACM/RACT control 
strategy ahead of the applicable Moderate area attainment date 
(December 31, 2015). Taking these unique circumstances into account, we 
find the District's ammonia control evaluation adequate for RACM/RACT 
purposes at this time, but we encourage the District to revisit its 
control evaluation for fertilizer application at its earliest 
opportunity to specifically evaluate the technical and economic 
feasibility of potential air pollution control measures that may reduce 
ammonia emissions from fertilizer application in the SJV.
    Mobile Sources: Finally, we have reviewed the analysis of current 
and potentially available controls for both on and off-road mobile 
sources in Chapter 5 and Appendix C. As we have noted in previous 
actions on SJV plans,\60\ California is a leader in the development and 
implementation of stringent control measures for on-road and off-road 
mobile sources. Its current program addresses the full range of mobile 
sources in the SJV through regulatory programs for both new and in use 
vehicles and through incentive grant programs. See 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, Table 5-2 and Appendix A of the TSD. The 
District has also adopted measures to reduce emissions from mobile 
sources including its indirect source review rule (Rule 9510) and 
employer trip reduction rule (Rule 9410) and has a well-funded 
incentive grants program focused on mobile sources. See Chapter 6. The 
MPOs also have a program to fund cost-effective TCMs. See Appendix C, 
p. C-33. Overall, we believe that the State, District, and MPO programs 
provide for the implementation of RACM for PM<INF>2.5</INF> and its 
precursors from mobile sources in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The proposed approvals of the SJV 2007 [8-hour] Ozone Plan 
at 76 FR 57846, 57852 (September 16, 2011) and the 2008 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan at 76 FR 41338, 41345 (July 13, 2011) include 
discussions of California's control programs for mobile sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, we propose to find that the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and Supplement provide for the implementation of 
all RACM/RACT that can be implemented prior to the applicable Moderate 
area attainment date as required by CAA sections 189(a)(1)(C) and 
172(c)(1) and to approve the RACM/RACT demonstration in the Plan.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan is the latest in a series of 
air quality plans and control strategies that the District and CARB 
have adopted to provide for attainment of the NAAQS in the SJV. 
These plans include the 2003 PM<INF>10</INF> Plan (approved 69 FR 
30005 (May 26, 2004)); the 2004 Extreme [1-hour] Ozone Attainment 
Plan (approved 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010), approval withdrawn 77 FR 
70376 (November 26, 2012)); the 2007 [8-hour] Ozone Plan (approved 
77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012)); the 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP 
(approved 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011)); and the 2009 RACT SIP 
(limited approval January 10, 2012 (77 FR 1417); last corrective 
rule approval November 29, 2012 (77 FR 71129)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Major Stationary Source Control Requirements Under CAA Section 
189(e)

    CAA section 189(e) specifically requires that the control 
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of

[[Page 1831]]

direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>\62\ also apply to major stationary sources of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors, except where the Administrator determines 
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
levels that exceed the standard in the area (General Preamble at 13539 
and 13541 to 42). The Supplement contains a discussion of the 
District's Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) 
(Supplement at 17-20) and three potential major stationary sources of 
ammonia operating in the SJV (Supplement at A-39 to A-41). The EPA is 
not proposing to act on these components of the Plan at this time and 
will do so in a separate rulemaking to address the control requirements 
specific to major stationary sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors under section 189(e) in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ The control requirements applicable to major stationary 
sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> in a Moderate area include, at 
minimum, the requirements of a nonattainment new source review 
(NNSR) permit program meeting the requirements of CAA section 
172(c)(5) (see CAA 189(a)(1)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Adopted Control Strategy

1. Requirements for Control Strategies and Enforceable Commitments
    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).\63\ Measures 
necessary to meet RACM/RACT requirements should also be adopted by the 
State in an enforceable form (General Preamble at 13541).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ The language in sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) is 
quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any enforceable ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the EPA will approve a State plan that takes emissions 
reduction credit for a control measure only where the EPA has approved 
the measure as part of the SIP, or in the case of certain on-road and 
nonroad measures, where the EPA has issued the related waiver of 
preemption or authorization under CAA section 209(b) or section 209(e). 
The EPA has, however, approved enforceable commitments that are limited 
in scope where circumstances exist that warrant the use of such 
commitments in place of adopted measures. Commitments approved by the 
EPA under CAA section 110(k)(3) are enforceable by the EPA and citizens 
under CAA sections 113 and 304, respectively. In the past, the EPA has 
approved enforceable commitments and courts have enforced actions 
against states that failed to comply with them.\64\ Additionally, if a 
state fails to meet its commitments, the EPA could make a finding of 
failure to implement the SIP under CAA section 179(a)(4), which starts 
an 18-month period for the state to correct the non-implementation 
before mandatory sanctions are imposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the EPA determines that circumstances warrant use of an 
enforceable commitment, the EPA considers three factors in determining 
whether to approve the use of an enforceable commitment to meet a CAA 
requirement: (a) Does the commitment address a limited portion of the 
CAA-required program; (b) is the state capable of fulfilling its 
commitment; and (c) is the commitment for a reasonable and appropriate 
period of time.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the 
EPA's interpretation of CAA section 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 Houston-Galveston ozone SIP 
in BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et al., 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Control Strategy in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan
    For purposes of evaluating the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, we have 
divided the measures relied on to satisfy the applicable control 
requirements into two categories: baseline measures and control 
strategy measures.
    As the term is used here, baseline measures are federal, State, and 
District rules and regulations adopted prior to January 2012 (i.e., 
prior to the development of 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan) that continue 
to achieve emissions reductions through the current attainment year of 
2015 and beyond.\66\ The Plan describes many of these measures in 
Chapter 5, Section 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 and in Appendices C and D. 
Reductions from these measures are incorporated into the baseline 
inventory and, for the most part, not individually quantified. 
According to the Plan, these measures provide all the emissions 
reductions projected to occur between the base year of 2007 and the 
current attainment year of 2015 and, based on the model-predicted level 
of emission reductions needed to meet the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard in the SJV in 2019, most of the direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and ammonia reductions needed to meet 
the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. See Table F-1 in the TSD and Appendices 
A and B in the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ These measures are typically rules that have compliance 
dates that occur after the adoption date of a plan and mobile source 
measures that achieve reductions as older engines are replaced 
through attrition (e.g., through fleet turnover).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Control strategy measures are the new rules, rule revisions, 
commitments, and other measures that provide the additional increment 
of emissions reductions needed beyond the baseline measures to provide 
for attainment (when applicable), to demonstrate RFP, to meet the RACM/
RACT requirement, or to provide for contingency measures.
    For the Plan, the District identified and committed to adopt, 
submit, and implement amendments to four District prohibitory rules as 
well as to adopt and submit a rule to provide a process for quantifying 
emission reductions from the use of incentive funds (Rule 9610) (2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, p. 5-21, Table 5-3 and SJV Governing Board 
Resolution 2012-12-19, p. 4). The District also committed to achieve an 
aggregate reduction of 1.9 tpd of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> by 2019 (id). 
These commitments and their current status are shown in Table 3 
below.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ The current status of each commitment is presented for 
informational purposes only. We are not at this time proposing to 
make any finding regarding the District's compliance with these 
commitments.

[[Page 1832]]



 Table 3--San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2012 PM2.5 Plan Specific Rule Amendment Commitments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Measure number &                      Compliance        Emission          Status of the
District rule No.       description       Amendment date       date          reductions         amended rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4308.............  Boilers, Steam                   2013            2015  TBD.............  Adopted November 14,
                    Generators, and                                                          2013; submitted May
                    Process Heaters                                                          13, 2014.
                    0.075 to <2 MMBtu/hr.
4692.............  Commercial                       2016            2017  0.4 tpd PM2.5...  Adoption scheduled
                    Charbroiling.                                                            for 2016.
4901.............  Wood Burning                     2016       2016/2017  1.5 tpd of PM2.5  Adopted September
                    Fireplaces and Wood                                                      18, 2014.
                    Burning Heaters.
4905.............  Natural Gas-Fired,               2014            2015  TBD.............  Adoption scheduled
                    Fan Type Residential                                                     for January 22,
                    Central Furnaces.                                                        2015.
9610.............  SIP Creditability of             2013            2013  TBD.............  Adopted June 20,
                    Incentives.                                                              2013; proposed for
                                                                                             approval May 19,
                                                                                             2014 (79 FR 28650).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2012 PM2.5 Plan, p. 5-21, Table 5-3.

3. Evaluation and Proposed Actions
    As discussed above, the Plan provides for the vast majority of the 
emissions reductions necessary for attainment to be achieved by 
baseline measures. These reductions come from a combination of 
District, State, and federal stationary and mobile source measures. 
Over the past two decades, the District has adopted or revised almost 
40 prohibitory rules that limit emissions of NO<INF>X</INF>, 
SO<INF>2</INF> and/or particulate matter from stationary and area 
sources in the SJV area (see Appendix B of the TSD). All but a few of 
these rule are currently SIP approved and as such their emissions 
reductions are fully creditable in attainment-related SIPs. California 
has also adopted standards for many categories of on- and off-road 
vehicles and engines as well as standards for gasoline and diesel fuels 
(2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, Chapter 5).
    The State's mobile source measures fall into two categories: 
Measures for which the State has obtained or has applied to obtain a 
waiver of federal pre-emption or authorization under CAA section 209 
(``section 209 waiver measures'' or ``waiver measures'') and those for 
which the State is not required to obtain a waiver or authorization 
(``non-waiver measures'' or ``SIP measures''). We believe that credit 
for emissions reductions from implementation of California mobile 
source rules that are subject to CAA section 209 waivers or 
authorizations (i.e., ``waiver measures'') is appropriate 
notwithstanding the fact that such rules are not approved as part of 
the California SIP. Historically, the EPA has granted credit for the 
waiver measures because of special Congressional recognition, in 
establishing the waiver process in the first place, of the pioneering 
California motor vehicle control program and because amendments to the 
CAA (in 1977) expanded the flexibility granted to California in order 
``to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting 
the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public 
welfare'' (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977)). In 
allowing California to take credit for the waiver measures 
notwithstanding the fact that the underlying rules are not part of the 
California SIP, the EPA treated the waiver measures similarly to the 
Federal motor vehicle control requirements, which the EPA has always 
allowed States to credit in their SIPs without submitting the program 
as a SIP revision.
    Credit for Federal measures, including those that establish on-road 
and nonroad standards, notwithstanding their absence in the SIP, is 
justified by reference to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which establishes 
the following content requirements for SIPs: ``* * * enforceable 
emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques 
(including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and 
auctions of emissions rights), * * *, as may be necessary or 
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.'' 
(emphasis added). Federal measures are permanent, independently 
enforceable (by the EPA and citizens), and quantifiable without regard 
to whether they are approved into a SIP, and thus the EPA has never 
found such measures to be ``necessary or appropriate'' for inclusion in 
SIPs to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA. Section 209 of the 
CAA establishes a process under which the EPA allows California's 
waiver measures to substitute for Federal measures, and like the 
Federal measures for which they substitute, the EPA has historically 
found, and continues to find, based on considerations of permanence, 
enforceability, and quantifiability, that such measures are not 
``necessary or appropriate'' for California to include in its SIP to 
meet the applicable CAA requirements.
    First, with respect to permanence, we note that, to maintain a 
waiver, CARB's on-road waiver measures can be relaxed only to a level 
of aggregate equivalence to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program 
(FMVCP). (CAA section 209(b)(1)). In this respect, the FMVCP acts as a 
partial backstop to California's on-road waiver measures (i.e., absent 
a waiver, the FMVCP would apply in California). Likewise, Federal 
nonroad vehicle and engine standards act as a partial backstop for 
corresponding California nonroad waiver measures. (CAA section 
209(e)(2)(A)). The constraints of the waiver process thus serve to 
limit the extent to which CARB can relax the waiver measures for which 
there are corresponding EPA standards, and thereby serve an anti-
backsliding function similar in substance to those established for SIP 
revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193. Meanwhile, the growing 
convergence between California and EPA mobile source standards 
diminishes the difference in the emissions reductions reasonably 
attributed to the two programs and strengthens the role of the Federal 
program in serving as an effective backstop to the State program. In 
other words, with the harmonization of EPA mobile source standards with 
the corresponding State standards, the Federal program is becoming 
essentially a full backstop to most parts of the California program.
    Second, as to enforceability, we note that the waiver process 
itself bestows enforceability onto California to enforce the on-road or 
nonroad standards for which the EPA has issued the waiver or 
authorization. CARB has as long a history of enforcement of vehicle/
engine

[[Page 1833]]

emissions standards as the EPA, and CARB's enforcement program is 
equally as rigorous as the corresponding EPA program. The history and 
rigor of CARB's enforcement program lends assurance to California SIP 
revisions that rely on the emissions reductions from CARB's rules in 
the same manner as the EPA's mobile source enforcement program lends 
assurance to other states' SIPs in their reliance on emissions 
reductions from the FMVCP. While it is true that citizens and the EPA 
are not authorized to enforce California waiver measures under the 
Clean Air Act (i.e., because they are not in the SIP), citizens and the 
EPA are authorized to enforce EPA standards in the event that vehicles 
operate in California without either California or EPA certification.
    As to quantifiability, the EPA's historical practice has been to 
give SIP credit for motor-vehicle-related waiver measures by allowing 
California to include motor vehicle emissions estimates made by using 
California's EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions 
factor model in SIP inventories. The EPA verifies the emissions 
reductions from motor-vehicle-related waiver measures through review 
and approval of EMFAC, which is updated from time to time by California 
to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly-established 
emissions standards. (Emissions reductions from the EPA's motor vehicle 
standards are reflected in an analogous model known as MOVES.) The 
EMFAC model is based on the motor vehicle emissions standards for which 
California has received waivers from the EPA but accounts for vehicle 
deterioration and many other factors. The motor vehicle emissions 
estimates themselves combine EMFAC results with vehicle activity 
estimates, among other considerations. See the 1982 Bay Area Air 
Quality Plan, and the related EPA rulemakings approving the plan (see 
48 FR 5074, February 3, 1983, for the proposed rule and 48 FR 57130, 
December 28, 1983, for the final rule) as an example of how the waiver 
measures have been treated historically by the EPA in California SIP 
actions. The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan was developed using a version 
of the EMFAC model referred to as EMFAC2011, which the EPA has approved 
for use in SIP development in California (78 FR 14533, March 6, 2013). 
Thus, the emissions reductions that are from the California on-road 
``waiver measures'' and that are estimated through use of EMFAC are as 
verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied upon by states other 
than California in developing their SIPs based on estimates of motor 
vehicle emissions made through the use of the MOVES model.
    Moreover, the EPA's waiver (and authorization) review and approval 
process is analogous to the SIP approval process. First, CARB adopts 
its emissions standards following notice and comment procedures at the 
state level, and then submits the rules to the EPA as part of its 
waiver request. When the EPA receives new waiver or authorization 
requests from CARB, the EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for 
public hearing and comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal 
Register following the public comment period. Once again, in substance, 
the process is similar to that for SIP approval and supports the 
argument that one hurdle (the waiver/authorization process) is all 
Congress intended for California standards, not two (waiver/
authorization process plus SIP approval process). Second, just as SIP 
revisions are not effective until approved by the EPA, changes to 
CARB's rules (for which a waiver or authorization has been granted) are 
not effective until the EPA grants a new waiver or authorization, 
unless the changes are ``within the scope'' of a prior waiver or 
authorization and no new waiver or authorization is needed. Third, both 
types of final actions by the EPA-- i.e., final actions on California 
requests for waivers or authorizations and final actions on state 
submittals of SIPs and SIP revisions--may be challenged under CAA 
section 307(b)(1) in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals.
    For additional explanation of the EPA's long-standing practice of 
allowing credit for California ``waiver measures'' notwithstanding the 
fact that the measures are not approved into the SIP, please see the 
EPA's responses to comments challenging this practice in the following 
final rules: 77 FR 12652, at 12655-12658, March 1, 2012 (final action 
on San Joaquin Valley 1997 8-Hour Ozone SIP); 77 FR 12674, at 12677-
12682, March 1, 2012 (final action on South Coast 1997 8-Hour Ozone 
SIP); 76 FR 69896, at 69906-69910, November 9, 2011 (final action on 
San Joaquin Valley 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP); 76 FR 69928, at 69930-
69932, November 9, 2011 (final action on South Coast 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP).
    In addition to baseline measures, which according to the District 
will achieve the vast majority of the direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and SO<INF>x</INF> emission reductions needed to attain 
the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in the SJV, the Plan also contains 
District commitments to adopt several amendments to its rules by 
specific dates and to achieve specified amounts of emissions reductions 
by 2019 (2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, p. 5-21, Table 5-3 and SJV 
Governing Board Resolution 2012-12-19, p. 4; see also Table 2 above).
    As discussed above, we generally consider three factors in 
determining whether to approve the use of an enforceable commitment to 
meet a CAA requirement. In this case, however, the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan does not rely on either the rule amendment 
commitments or the emission reduction commitments in the 
impracticability demonstration, RACM demonstration, RFP demonstration, 
or quantitative milestones, or to meet any other CAA requirement; 
therefore, we do not need to apply this three factor test before 
proposing to approve the District's commitments into the SIP. Approval 
of these commitments will strengthen the SIP and contribute to the 
SIP's purpose of ``eliminating or reducing the severity and number of 
violations of the [PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS] and achieving expeditious 
attainment of such standards.'' (CAA section 176(c)(1)(A)). For these 
reasons, the EPA proposes to approve the SJVAPCD Governing Board 
District's commitments as given in p. 5-21, Table 5-3 of the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and on page 4 of SJV Governing Board Resolution 
2012-12-19.

G. Demonstration That Attainment by the Moderate Area Attainment Date 
Is Impracticable

1. Requirements for Attainment/Impracticability of Attainment 
Demonstrations
    CAA section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that each Moderate area 
attainment plan include a demonstration that the plan provides for 
attainment by the latest applicable Moderate area deadline or, 
alternatively, that attainment by the latest applicable attainment date 
is impracticable. A demonstration that the plan provides for attainment 
must be based on air quality modeling, and the EPA generally recommends 
that a demonstration of impracticability also be based on air quality 
modeling consistent with the EPA's modeling guidance (General Preamble 
at 13538). Id.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ For more information on the applicable air quality modeling 
requirements, please see section IV.B. above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 188(c) states, in relevant part, that the Moderate area 
attainment date ``shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later 
than the end of the sixth calendar year after the area's designation as 
nonattainment. . . .'' For the San Joaquin Valley, which was

[[Page 1834]]

initially designated as nonattainment for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS effective December 14, 2009, the applicable Moderate area 
attainment date under section 188(c) is as expeditiously as 
practicable, but no later than December 31, 2015.
    In SIP submissions to demonstrate impracticability, the state 
should document that its required control strategy in the attainment 
plan represents the application of RACM/RACT to existing sources. The 
EPA believes it is reasonable to require adoption of all available 
control measures that are technologically and economically feasible in 
areas that do not demonstrate timely attainment. The impracticability 
demonstration will then be based on a showing that the area cannot 
attain by the applicable date, notwithstanding implementation of the 
required controls.
2. Impracticability Demonstration in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan
    The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and Supplement include a 
demonstration, based on air quality modeling that even with the 
implementation of all reasonably available control measures for all 
appropriate sources, attainment by December 31, 2015 is not 
practicable. See 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, section 9.1 and 
Supplement, section 2.1. This demonstration is specific to Kern County 
(in particular the California Street-Bakersfield monitor) because the 
air quality modeling performed for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan 
showed that this area would be the last to attain the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. Id. The demonstration is summarized in Table 
4 below.

   Table 4--Impracticability of Attainment Demonstration, Kern County
                          [Tons per winter day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Year                                 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline NOX inventory......................................        58.6
    New control measures....................................           0
    NOX inventory after new controls........................        58.6
    NOX emissions level needed for attainment...............        46.8
    Shortfall in NOX emissions reductions needed for                11.8
     attainment.............................................
Baseline direct PM2.5 inventory.............................        11.5
    New control measures....................................           0
    Direct PM2.5 inventory after new controls...............        11.5
    Direct PM2.5 level needed for attainment................        11.1
    Shortfall in direct PM2.5 emissions reductions needed            0.4
     for attainment.........................................
Baseline SO2 inventory......................................         1.8
    New control measures....................................           0
    SO2 inventory after new controls........................         1.8
    SO2 emissions level needed for PM2.5 attainment.........         1.8
    Shortfall in SO2 emission reductions needed for                    0
     attainment.............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2014 Supplement, p. 6.

3. Evaluation and Proposed Action
    The impracticability demonstration in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Plan is based on air quality modeling which is generally consistent 
with applicable EPA guidance. We find the modeling adequate to support 
the impracticability demonstration in the Plan. See section VI.B.
    We have also evaluated the RACM/RACT demonstration and find that it 
provides for the expeditious implementation of all RACM/RACT that may 
feasibly be implemented at this time, consistent with the requirements 
of CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the SJV. See section IV.D.
    Finally, we have evaluated the demonstration in the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan that the implementation of the State/District's 
SIP control strategy, including RACM/RACT measures, is insufficient to 
bring the San Joaquin Valley into attainment by December 31, 2015 and 
agree that attainment by that date is thus impracticable.
    In addition to the information in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan 
and Supplement, we have reviewed recent PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring 
data from the San Joaquin Valley. These data show that 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels in the SJV, with a current design value (2011-
2013) of 65 [micro]g/m\3\, continue to be well above the 35 [micro]g/
m\3\ level of the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard, and the recent trends 
in the Valley's 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels are not consistent with 
a projection of attainment by the end of 2015.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See Memorandum dated December 15, 2014 from Elfego Felix 
and Scott Bohning, U.S. EPA, Region 9 Air Quality Analysis Office, 
to San Joaquin Valley Reclassification Docket, Subject: 
Practicability of SJV 2015 attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM NAAQS 
(``Felix-Bohning Memo'') and U.S. EPA, 2013 Design Value Reports, 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Detailed Information Updated 8/24/14, available at 
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html 
(``PM25_DesignValues_20112013_FINAL_08_28_14).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this evaluation, we propose to approve the State's 
demonstration in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and Supplement that 
attainment of the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the Moderate area 
attainment date in the SJV is impracticable, consistent with the 
requirements of CAA section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii). Based on this proposal, 
we also propose to reclassify the SJV as Serious nonattainment, which 
would trigger requirements for the State to submit a Serious area plan 
consistent with the requirements of subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I 
of the Act (see Section V).

H. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones

1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative 
Milestones
    CAA section 172(c)(2) requires nonattainment area plans to provide 
for reasonable further progress (RFP). In addition, CAA section 189(c) 
requires PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area SIPs to include 
quantitative milestones to be achieved every 3 years until the area is 
redesignated to attainment and which demonstrate reasonable further 
progress (RFP), as defined in CAA section 171(1). Section 171(1) 
defines RFP as ``such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the 
relevant air pollutant as are required by [Part D] or may reasonably be 
required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of 
the applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date.'' Neither subpart 1 nor 
subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act requires that a set percentage 
of emissions reductions be achieved in any given year for purposes of 
satisfying the RFP requirement.
    RFP has historically been met by showing annual incremental 
emission reductions sufficient generally to maintain at least linear 
progress toward attainment by the applicable deadline (Addendum at 
42015). As discussed in EPA guidance in the Addendum, requiring linear 
progress in reductions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and any individual 
precursor in a PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan may be appropriate in situations 
where:
    <bullet> The pollutant is emitted by a large number and range of 
sources,
    <bullet> the relationship between any individual source or source 
category and overall air quality is not well known,
    <bullet> a chemical transformation is involved (e.g., secondary 
particulate significantly contributes to PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels over 
the standard), and/or
    <bullet> the emission reductions necessary to attain the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard are inventory-wide. Id.
    The EPA's guidance in the Addendum recommends that requiring linear

[[Page 1835]]

progress is less appropriate in other situations, such as:
    <bullet> Where there are a limited number of sources of direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> or a precursor,
    <bullet> where the relationships between individual sources and air 
quality are relatively well defined, and/or
    <bullet> where the emission control systems utilized (e.g., at 
major point sources) will result in swift and dramatic emission 
reductions.
    In nonattainment areas characterized by any of these latter 
conditions, RFP may be better represented as step-wise progress as 
controls are implemented and achieve significant reductions soon 
thereafter. For example, if an area's nonattainment problem can be 
attributed to a few major sources, EPA guidance indicates that ``RFP 
should be met by `adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule' which 
is likely to periodically yield significant emission reductions of 
direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> or a PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor'' (Addendum at 
42015).
    Plans for PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas should include 
detailed schedules for compliance with emission regulations in the area 
and provide corresponding annual emission reductions to be realized 
from each milestone in the schedule (Addendum at 42016). In reviewing 
an attainment plan under subpart 4, EPA evaluates whether the annual 
incremental emission reductions to be achieved are reasonable in light 
of the statutory objective of timely attainment. We believe that it is 
appropriate to require early implementation of the most cost-effective 
control measures while phasing in the more expensive control measures 
(Id.).
    Section 189(c) provides that the quantitative milestones submitted 
by a state for an area also must be consistent with RFP for the area. 
Thus, the EPA determines an area's compliance with RFP in conjunction 
with determining its compliance with the quantitative milestone 
requirement. Because RFP is an annual emission reduction requirement 
and the quantitative milestones are to be achieved every 3 years, when 
a state demonstrates compliance with the quantitative milestone 
requirement, it will demonstrate that RFP has been achieved during each 
of the relevant 3 years. Quantitative milestones should consist of 
elements that allow progress to be quantified or measured objectively. 
Specifically, states should identify and submit quantitative milestones 
providing for the amount of emission reductions adequate to achieve the 
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (Addendum at 42016).
    The CAA does not specify the starting point for counting the 3-year 
periods for quantitative milestones under CAA section 189(c). In the 
General Preamble and Addendum, EPA interpreted the CAA to require that 
the starting point for the first 3-year period be the due date for the 
Moderate area plan submittal (General Preamble at 13539, Addendum at 
42016). In keeping with this historical approach, the EPA is proposing 
to establish December 31, 2014 as the starting point for the first 3-
year period under CAA section 189(c) for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard in the SJV. This date is the due date for the state's 
submittal of attainment-related SIPs necessary to satisfy the subpart 4 
Moderate area requirements applicable to the SJV area.\70\ Accordingly, 
the first quantitative milestone date for the SJV area would be 
December 31, 2017 (3 years after December 31, 2014). Following 
reclassification of the SJV area as Serious for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard, later milestones would be addressed by the 
Serious area plan (Addendum at 42016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Subpart 4 requires states to submit attainment plans within 
18 months after nonattainment designations (CAA 189(a)(2)). Due to 
unusual circumstances, however, the EPA has by rule created a later 
attainment plan submission date for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
in order to provide states and the EPA an opportunity to address the 
requirements for attainment plans consistent with a court decision. 
See 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. RFP Demonstration and Quantitative Milestones in the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan
    The RFP demonstration is in Chapter 9, section 9.3 (pp. 9-4 to 9-7) 
of the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan. The District included this same 
demonstration and provided a brief discussion of quantitative 
milestones in section 4 (p. 14) of the Supplement. The demonstration 
addresses direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF> 
and uses the 2007 winter daily average inventory as the base year 
inventory and the 2019 winter daily average baseline inventory as the 
attainment year inventory. The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan does not 
explicitly provide an RFP demonstration for ammonia but does include a 
base year ammonia inventory as well as 2014, 2017, and 2019 ammonia 
baseline inventories, which account for reductions from existing 
ammonia control measures. (2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan at Appendix B).
    The Plan shows that emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>X</INF> will decline from the 2007 base year 
through 2015 and states that emissions will remain below the levels 
needed to show ``generally linear progress'' from 2007 to 2019--the 
year that the Plan projects to be the earliest practicable attainment 
date (2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, section 9.3). Direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> are emitted by a 
large number and range of sources in the SJV and the emission 
reductions needed for these pollutants are inventory wide (2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, Appendix B). The District followed the 
procedures in the 2007 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule (40 CFR 
51.1009(f)) to calculate its RFP targets for 2014 and 2017 in both the 
2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan \71\ and the Supplement. (2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, pp. 9-5 to 9-7 and Supplement at 14). It then 
showed that projected emission levels based on its adopted control 
strategy would be below those targets in both milestone years. Id. With 
respect to quantitative milestones, the Supplement states that the Plan 
``identifies target emissions levels for generally linear progress that 
can serve as the quantitative milestones for subpart 4'' and that the 
adopted control strategy in the Plan meets these quantitative 
milestones. Supplement at 14 (citing 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan at 
Table 9-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan was developed and adopted by 
the District in accordance with the methodology for calculating RFP 
targets in the 2007 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule, prior to 
the D.C. Circuit's decision in NRDC remanding this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Evaluation and Proposed Actions
    We are deferring action on the quantitative milestones described on 
pg. 14 of the Supplement but we are evaluating the Plan with respect to 
the RFP requirement. Because the District's methodology for calculating 
``RFP target emission levels'' and evaluating ``generally linear 
progress'' is premised on a 2019 attainment date, these evaluations are 
not consistent with the requirements of the Act.\72\ The Plan 
demonstrates, however, that all RACM/RACT are being implemented as 
expeditiously as practicable and identifies projected emission levels 
for 2014 and 2017 that reflect full implementation of the State's and 
District's RACM/RACT control strategy for the area. See 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, section 9.3 and Appendix B; see also discussion 
in Section II.D (``Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably 
Available Control Technology''). In an area that cannot practicably 
attain the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard by the applicable Moderate area 
attainment date, we believe it is reasonable to find that full

[[Page 1836]]

implementation of a control strategy that satisfies the Moderate area 
control requirements (i.e., RACM/RACT at a minimum) represents 
reasonable further progress toward attainment. We propose, therefore, 
to approve the RFP demonstration for direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> as meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 172(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Under subpart 4, the latest permissible attainment date for 
a Moderate PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area is the end of the 
sixth calendar year after the area's designation as nonattainment. 
CAA 188(c)(1). Because the SJV area was designated nonattainment for 
the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS effective December 2009, the area is 
currently subject to a Moderate area attainment date no later than 
December 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan also shows a substantial reduction 
in total ammonia emissions in the period 2007 to 2012 with emissions 
increasing each following year but still remaining below 2007 base year 
levels in 2015 and 2019. See Appendix B, Table B-5. Unlike the wide 
range of sources emitting PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> in the Valley, emissions of ammonia are almost entirely 
from three source categories: CAF, fertilizer application, and 
composting, with more than two-thirds of all emissions coming from 
CAF.\73\ Collectively, these three categories emit 96 percent of all 
ammonia emissions in the 2007 base year inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ In the inventories provided in Appendix B of the Plan, 
emissions from these sources are found in the categories ``Farming 
Operations,'' ``Pesticides/Fertilizers,'' and ``Other (Waste 
Disposal),'' respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reductions in ammonia emissions from CAF between 2007 and 2012 
resulted from the implementation of District Rule 4570 ``Confined 
Animal Operations,'' which required implementation of control measures 
to reduce ammonia in 2008 and required full compliance by affected 
sources by mid-2012. Although emissions in this category increase after 
2012 due to continuing growth in the Valley's dairy industry, overall 
emissions in 2015 and 2019 remain below the 2007 base year level. The 
implementation of the District's Rule 4655 ``Organic Material 
Composting Operations'' (adopted August 18, 2011) beginning in 2012 
most likely resulted in some ammonia reductions (Supplement, p. A-27), 
but these reductions are not included in the base year or baseline 
inventories. As discussed in the Supplement (p. A-25), ammonia 
emissions from manure fertilizer application by dairies may be reduced 
as a co-benefit from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control 
Board's requirements for reducing nitrate in ground water adopted in 
2007. However, because these reductions are not quantified and the 
control requirements are not in the SIP, no reductions from these 
controls are included in the inventories at this time.
    As discussed above, generally linear reduction in emissions on a 
yearly basis may not be necessary for RFP where there are a limited 
number of sources of a precursor and where the emission control systems 
utilized will result in swift emission reductions. Both of these 
considerations are relevant for ammonia emissions in the San Joaquin 
Valley. In such cases, the EPA believes that RFP can be shown by 
adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule (Addendum at 42015). In 
this case all ammonia reductions included in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Plan were achieved through the implementation of controls before the 
Plan was adopted. We believe that this represents an ambitious 
compliance schedule. Additionally, despite the growth in total ammonia 
emissions in the Valley after 2012, the District's implementation of 
its existing RACM/RACT control strategy for ammonia emissions is 
projected to result in total ammonia emissions that are lower in the 
Moderate area attainment year of 2015 and in 2019 than in the base year 
of 2007 (Table 5 below). We propose, therefore, to conclude that the 
2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan provides for RFP for ammonia as required by 
CAA section 172(c)(2).

                                       Table 5--Ammonia Emissions by Year
                                         [Winter daily average in tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2007         2012         2014         2015         2017         2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Farming Operations (CAF).......        264.5        225.4        234.6        239.2        248.4        257.6
B. Pesticide/Fertilizers..........         68.4         66.9         66.3         66.1         65.5         64.9
C. Other (Waste Disposal)                  17.9         19.3         20.1         20.5         21.3         22.2
 (Composting).....................
D. All other sources..............         16.5         15.0         15.0         14.9         15.2         15.4
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    E. Total ammonia emissions....        367.3        326.6        336.0        340.7        350.4        360.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Table B-5.

    We are proposing to determine that VOCs do not contribute 
significantly to ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that exceed the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in the SJV and that a VOC control evaluation 
therefore is not necessary for RFP or quantitative milestones for 
purposes of the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in the SJV (see section 
II.C. of the TSD). CAA section 171(1) defines RFP as ``such annual 
incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant . . . 
that may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of 
ensuring attainment of the applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date.'' 
Based on our proposal to determine that VOCs do not contribute 
significantly to ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that exceed the 
standard, we propose to conclude that no RFP demonstration or 
quantitative milestones are necessary for purposes of the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in the SJV.
    In evaluating RFP, we are relying in part on the Plan's analysis of 
both adopted control measures and additional control measures for wood 
burning and charbroiling to be adopted in future years, which the Plan 
indicates will collectively bring the SJV into attainment of the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard by the end of 2019. We are not, however, 
proposing to approve this demonstration of attainment by 2019 for any 
purpose at this time. Following reclassification of the SJV area to 
Serious nonattainment for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard, the SJV 
area will be subject to Serious Area planning requirements under 
subpart 4 and will need to reevaluate and strengthen its SIP control 
strategy as necessary to meet the Serious area requirement for best 
available control measures (BACM) and Best Available Control Technology 
(BACT), among other requirements. The State will also need to 
demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later 
than December 31, 2019, and provide a revised RFP demonstration, both 
taking into consideration the implementation of the Serious Area 
control strategy. Today, we are proposing to approve most of the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and Supplement for the limited purpose of 
satisfying the statutory control requirements that apply to Moderate 
areas demonstrating that attainment by the Moderate Area attainment 
date under subpart 4 is

[[Page 1837]]

impracticable (see Section II.D. of the TSD).

I. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures
    Under CAA section 172(c)(9), PM<INF>2.5</INF> plans must include 
contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to meet RFP 
(``RFP contingency measures'') or fails to attain the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standards by the applicable attainment date (``attainment contingency 
measures''). Under subpart 4, however, the EPA interprets section 
172(c)(9) in light of the specific requirements for particulate matter 
nonattainment areas. Section 189(b)(1)(A) differentiates between 
attainment plans that provide for timely attainment and those that 
demonstrate that attainment is impracticable. Where the SIP includes a 
demonstration that attainment by the applicable attainment date is 
impracticable, the state need only submit contingency measures to be 
implemented if an area fails to meet RFP.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ The EPA does not interpret the requirement for failure-to-
attain contingency measures to apply to Moderate PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment areas that cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the 
statutory attainment date. Rather, the EPA believes it is 
appropriate for the state to identify and adopt attainment 
contingency measures as part of the Serious area attainment plan 
that it will develop once the EPA reclassifies the area (Addendum at 
42015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of contingency measures is to continue progress in 
reducing emissions while the SIP is being revised to meet the missed 
RFP milestone or correct continuing nonattainment.
    The principle requirements for contingency measures are:
    <bullet> Contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or 
control measures that are ready to be implemented quickly upon failure 
to meet RFP or failure of the area to meet the standard by its 
attainment date.
    <bullet> The SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for the 
contingency measures, specify a schedule for implementation, and 
indicate that the measures will be implemented without further action 
by the state or by the EPA. In general, we expect all actions needed to 
affect full implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days 
after the EPA notifies the state of a failure.
    <bullet> The contingency measures should consist of other control 
measures for the area that are not relied on to demonstrate attainment 
or RFP.
    <bullet> The measures should provide for emissions reductions 
equivalent to approximately one year of reductions needed for RFP 
calculated as the overall level of reductions needed to demonstrate 
attainment divided by the number of years from the base year to the 
attainment year.

(General Preamble at 13543 and Addendum at 42014).
    Contingency measures can include Federal, state and local measures 
already scheduled for implementation or already implemented. The CAA 
requires contingency measures that provide for additional emissions 
reductions that are not relied on to demonstrate RFP or attainment and 
thus not included in these demonstrations. In other words, contingency 
measures are intended to achieve reductions over and beyond those 
relied on in the RFP and attainment demonstrations. Nothing in the CAA 
precludes a state from implementing such measures before they are 
triggered. 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); see also 
LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding contingency 
measures that were previously required and implemented where they were 
in excess of the attainment demonstration and RFP SIP).
2. Contingency Measures in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan
    Contingency measures for failure to meet RFP milestones are 
described in Section 9-4 of the Plan. The Supplement also discusses the 
RFP contingency measures in section 5.
3. Evaluation and Proposed Action
    We are deferring action on the RFP contingency measures in the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and Supplement. We note that once SJV is 
reclassified to Serious, the State will be obligated to demonstrate 
that its SIP provides for the implementation of BACM and BACT and for 
attainment as expeditiously as practicable, and no later than 2019. As 
part of this demonstration, the State will need to revise its RFP 
demonstration to establish new RFP targets, quantitative milestones, 
and RFP contingency measures for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
    Because we are proposing to approve the State's demonstration that 
attainment by the applicable Moderate area attainment date of December 
31, 2015 is impracticable in the SJV and to reclassify the area to 
Serious, contingency measures for failure to attain are not required as 
part of this Moderate area plan. Upon reclassification of the SJV area 
as a Serious area, California will be required to adopt failure-to-
attain contingency measures as part of the Serious area attainment plan 
for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.

J. Interpollutant Trading Ratios for Nonattainment New Source Review 
Permits

    The CAA's Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting 
provisions require that emissions from new or modified major stationary 
sources proposing to construct or modify in a nonattainment area be 
``offset'' by reductions from the same or other sources in the area 
(CAA section 173(c)). This ``offset'' requirement ensures that progress 
toward attaining the NAAQS is maintained while still allowing for the 
construction and modification of major stationary sources. Generally, 
the pollutant emitted at the new or modified source must be offset by 
reductions of the same pollutant. Under certain circumstances, however, 
the EPA may allow for ``interpollutant'' offsets--i.e., increased 
emissions of one pollutant (or a precursor to that pollutant) may be 
offset by reductions in a different precursor to the pollutant, or 
emissions of a certain precursor may be offset by reductions in the 
pollutant to which it is a precursor.
    Where a state intends to provide for such interpollutant trading, 
the state must provide a technical demonstration that shows the net air 
quality benefits of the interpollutant trade in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area, to ensure the trade does not jeopardize the 
attainment demonstration or progress toward attainment of the NAAQS. We 
refer to the rate of emission reduction in tons per day (tpd) that 
would offset the ambient effect of a 1 tpd increase in new source 
emissions as an ``interpollutant trading (IPT) ratio'' or an 
``interpollutant equivalency ratio''. In a July 2011 policy memorandum 
(``IPT memo''), EPA stated that ``any ratio involving PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursors submitted to the EPA for approval for use in a state's 
interpollutant offset program for PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas 
must be accompanied by a technical demonstration that shows the net air 
quality benefits of such ratio for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment 
area in which it

[[Page 1838]]

will be applied.'' \75\ The IPT memo provides general guidance on 
developing interpollutant offset ratios, which includes sensitivity 
simulations with a photochemical model when PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors 
are involved. In rough terms, the memorandum describes the process for 
calculating a ratio as taking the modeled impact in micrograms per 
cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) per tpd of the pollutant whose emissions 
are to be offset, and dividing by the [micro]g/m\3\ impact per tpd of 
the offsetting pollutant, i.e. the ratio of the sensitivities of 
ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels to emission changes in the 
pollutants.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Memorandum, dated July 21, 2011, Gina McCarthy, Assistant 
Administrator, to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, 
Subject: Revised Policy to Address Reconsideration of Interpollutant 
Trading Provisions for Fine Particles (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) (``IPT 
memo'').
    \76\ If 1 tpd of pollutant A is to be offset by R tpd of 
pollutant B, and the sensitivity of PM<INF>2.5</INF> to emissions in 
[micro]g/m\3\ per tpd are respectively S<INF>A</INF> and 
S<INF>B</INF>, then the pollutant and its offset have an equal 
ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> effect in [micro]g/m\3\ when 
S<INF>A</INF>*1= S<INF>B</INF>*R so R = S<INF>A</INF>/S<INF>B</INF>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan includes proposed interpollutant 
trading ratios for use in the District's NSR program. (Appendix H, p. 
H-3). The proposed ratios are 5.3 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
reductions to offset 1 tpd of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emission increase 
and 4.1 tpd of SO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions to offset 1 tpd of 
direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emission increase. Id. Attachment 1 to Appendix 
H includes a description of the approach used for determining these 
ratios. The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan refers to ``EPA's preferred 
method'' for estimating ratios (pp. H-4 and H-88). As discussed above, 
however, the EPA has provided only general guidance and has not 
identified a preferred method. The method described in the Plan does 
use the general concept in the EPA's IPT memo for computing a ratio of 
modeled sensitivities, but it contains internal inconsistencies and an 
insufficient rationale for the specific approach used to develop the 
ratios.
    An internal inconsistency of the approach used is that dividing the 
pollutant sensitivities provided in the sensitivity table gives ratios 
that do not match those provided in the trading ratio table (Appendix 
H, Tables 1 and 2, p. H-87). For example, for Fresno--1st Street site, 
the sensitivities given are 0.14 [micro]g/m\3\ per tpd of direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 0.03 for NO<INF>X</INF>; the ratio of these is 
4.7, but the corresponding trading ratio given is 4.0. Overall the 
differences in ratios range from +17 percent to -17 percent. These 
discrepancies may be a result of rounding within the sensitivity table, 
but there is not enough documentation to make this determination. 
Another inconsistency is that the interpollutant ratios provided in 
Appendix H do not match those provided in the WOEA (Staff Report 
Appendix B). For example, the WOEA sensitivities for Bakersfield-
California site imply that the NO<INF>X</INF>:PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
SO<INF>X</INF>:PM<INF>2.5</INF> ratios are both 4.25,\77\ but the 
corresponding Appendix H ratios are given as 7.0 and 5.2. This 
discrepancy may be due to different modeling runs having been used to 
establish the ratios, but this is not explained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ For example, NO<INF>X</INF>:PM<INF>2.5</INF> ratio = 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> sensitivity/NO<INF>X</INF> sensitivity = 0.34/0.08 
= 4.25 (Table 7, CARB Staff Report App. B., p.65).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specifics of the Plan's approach pose several difficulties. The 
Plan states that the sensitivity simulations used 50 percent reductions 
in emissions from ``NSR source categories'' (p. H-86). The latter is 
not defined. If ``NSR source categories'' are major stationary sources, 
then a 50 percent reduction in the overall category would be far larger 
than any likely emission increase or offset. It is not clear that the 
response of the model to this large a change is representative of the 
ambient effects that would occur from an actual interpollutant trade or 
for the aggregate of trades expected to occur. The Plan states that a 
50 percent reduction in annual average emissions was used, but it is 
not clear why this is appropriate for a NAAQS based on a 24-hour 
average. The Plan provides no rationale for why a 50 percent reduction 
is appropriate to use for assessing interpollutant ratios, including 
consideration of the robustness of the ratios under alternative 
reduction percentages.
    Another issue is that in general, the ambient effect of a trade 
will depend on the location of both the new source and the offset, 
since transport and atmospheric chemistry depend on location. The Plan 
implicitly recognizes this by providing ratios for multiple monitor 
locations, ranging from 3.4 to 8.1. However, the Plan then averages the 
ratios together, which would seem to guarantee that the final ratio 
does not reflect any actual trade or impacts at any particular 
location. A scheme in which the ratio varied by general geographic zone 
of source and of offset would better address the effect of actual 
trades. Alternatively, the use of the maximum of the available ratios 
would have provided a conservative analysis. The Plan's approach 
examined only design values and only at monitor locations, employing 
the same general procedure used for the attainment demonstration, i.e., 
the application of RRFs to monitored concentrations. It is not clear 
why this approach is appropriate for deriving interpollutant trading 
ratios for NSR. Trades will affect all concentrations, not just the 
98th percentile and not just their three-year average as used in design 
value calculations. They will also affect all locations, not just those 
with monitors. The procedure used does not employ information about 
concentrations away from monitors that are available from the modeling; 
these concentrations show the outcome of a trade at unmonitored 
locations, but are not reflected in the procedure.
    A more general concern with the Plan procedure is that it does not 
provide an overall rationale for the methodology grounded in the 
statutory purpose of NSR offsets. The CAA requires that emissions from 
new or modified major stationary sources be sufficiently offset ``so as 
to represent . . . reasonable further progress'' toward attainment of 
the NAAQS (CAA 173(a)(1)(A)), and the EPA's implementing regulations 
require that emission offsets provide a ``net air quality benefit in 
the affected area'' (40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, sec. IV. A.). The Plan 
does not explain how this requirement is satisfied when interpollutant 
trading is used. As mentioned above, the justification for an 
interpollutant ratio requires a technical demonstration that the new 
source emission increase and the offset are equivalent in their ambient 
effect. However, the precise sense in which changes in precursor 
emissions must be ``equivalent'' has not been defined; equivalency 
could be defined in terms of the maximum concentration from the model, 
the average over time and space of modeled concentrations above the 
NAAQS, or some other metric. The criteria for assessing equivalency 
should be provided with a rationale grounded in the underlying goals of 
NSR offsetting.
    Given these inadequacies in the technical demonstration and related 
documentation for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NSR interpollutant trading 
ratios provided in Appendix H of the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, we are 
proposing to disapprove these interpollutant trading ratios for NSR 
purposes.

K. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
    CAA section 176(c) requires Federal actions in nonattainment and 
maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or 
reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and 
achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the 
SIP's goals means that such

[[Page 1839]]

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, metropolitan planning organizations (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 
SIP. This demonstration is typically done 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 all control strategy SIPs. An attainment, maintenance, or 
RFP SIP should include budgets for the attainment year, each required 
RFP year, or the last year of the maintenance plan, as appropriate. 
Budgets are generally established for specific years and specific 
pollutants or precursors and must reflect all of the motor vehicle 
control measures contained in the attainment and RFP demonstrations (40 
CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v)).
    PM<INF>2.5</INF> plans should identify budgets for direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and all PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors whose on-road 
emissions are determined to significantly contribute to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels in the area for each RFP milestone year and the 
attainment year, if the plan demonstrates attainment. All direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP budgets should include direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
motor vehicle emissions from tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear. A 
state 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<INF>2.5</INF> 
budget. (40 CFR 93.102(b) and Sec.  93.122(f) and the conformity rule 
preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031-40036 (July 1, 2004)).
    Transportation conformity trading mechanisms are allowed under 40 
CFR 93.124 where a SIP establishes appropriate mechanisms for such 
trades. The basis for the trading mechanism is the SIP attainment 
modeling which established the relative contribution of each 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor pollutant.
    In general, only budgets in approved SIPs can be used for 
transportation conformity purposes; however, section 93.118(e) of the 
transportation conformity rule allows budgets in a submitted SIP to 
apply for conformity purposes before the SIP is approved under certain 
circumstances. First, there must not be any other approved SIP budgets 
that have been established for the same time frame, pollutant, and CAA 
requirement. Second, the EPA must find that the submitted SIP budgets 
are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. To be found 
adequate, the submittal must meet the conformity adequacy requirements 
of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The criteria for determining adequacy of 
submitted motor vehicle emissions budgets are provided at 40 CFR Sec.  
93.118(e)(4) and (5). The transportation conformity rule, however, does 
allow submitted motor vehicle emissions budgets that have been found 
adequate to replace approved budgets if the EPA has limited the 
duration of its approval to last only until it finds replacement 
budgets adequate (40 CFR Sec.  93.118(e)(1)).
2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan
    The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan includes budgets for direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> for the RFP years of 2014 and 2017 
and the projected attainment year of 2019. (2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, 
Appendix C, section C.11). The SJV has eight separate county-based 
MPOs; therefore, separate budgets are provided for each MPO as well as 
a total for the nonattainment area as a whole. The budgets reflect 
winter daily average emissions and are calculated using EMFAC2011, the 
currently approved emission model for California (78 FR 14533 (March 6, 
2013)).\78\ Winter annual day emissions are used in the Plan and the 
budgets because SJV's exceedances of the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard occur almost exclusively during the winter months (2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, p. 3-4 and Appendix G, p. 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ After EMFAC2011 was released in 2011, new information on 
statewide diesel fuel usage and economic forecasts became available 
to the State. For the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, CARB adjusted 
EMFAC2011 emissions estimates for heavy-duty trucks to reflect this 
new information (p. B-26). The EPA allowed the use of these 
adjustment factors in transportation conformity determinations in 
the SJV. See footnote 14 of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> budgets include tailpipe, brake wear, 
and tire wear emissions but exclude paved road, unpaved road, and road 
construction dust based on the District's conclusion that these source 
categories are insignificant contributors to PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels in 
the Valley (Appendix C, section C.11.2.). The Plan states it does not 
include budgets for SO<INF>2</INF> because on-road mobile exhaust 
estimates of SO<INF>x</INF> are less than 1 ton per day Valley-wide in 
2014 and 2017, which equates to less than 10 percent of the total 
SO<INF>x</INF> emissions inventory for those years (id.). Additionally, 
the Plan states that it does not include budgets for VOC because VOC 
emissions do not contribute significantly to the formation of secondary 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the SJV (id.). The Plan does not specifically 
address ammonia emissions for MVEB purposes but shows that ammonia 
emissions from on-road mobile sources contribute just over 1 percent of 
the total ammonia inventory in 2014 and 2017 (see Plan at Appendix B, 
Table B-5).
    The truck activity estimates in EMFAC2011 used to develop the 
budgets in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan are consistent with those 
used by CARB in its 2010 revisions to the In-Use Truck and Bus Rule. 
Since the 2010 updates, new economic data (e.g., statewide diesel fuel 
usage, truck sales) has become available which suggests that truck 
emissions will be lower in future years in the San Joaquin Valley than 
currently estimated in EMFAC2011. In order to account for this 
reduction in emissions from trucks in the budgets, results from 
EMFAC2011 are scaled by year-specific factors (SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Plan, Appendix C, section C.11.3 and Table C-1). The MPOs will also use 
these scaling factors in their conformity determinations.\79\ 
Reductions from certain State and local control measures are not 
included in the on-road emission inventories generated from EMFAC2011 
and must be subtracted from EMFAC2011 inventories used as the basis for 
the motor vehicle emissions budgets and the attainment demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ On January 14, 2014, we approved the use of these scaling 
factors by the SJV MPOs in the regional emissions analyses in their 
transportation conformity determinations. See letter dated January 
14, 2014, Matthew Lakin, Chief, Air Planning Office, EPA-Region 9 to 
John Taylor, Branch Chief, Transportation Planning Branch, CARB; 
Subject: Use of San Joaquin Valley Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle 
Recession Adjustment Methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 7, 2014, we received a letter from CARB stating that it 
intends to revise the previously-submitted 2014 and 2017 budgets to 
remove reductions resulting from implementation of the Carl Moyer and 
Proposition IB incentive grant programs but intends to make no other 
revisions to the budgets. The letter provided the proposed revised 
budgets. (Table 6 below). These changes make the budgets consistent 
with the attainment demonstration. The letter also stated that CARB 
would be taking the revised budgets to its Board in November 2014 for 
approval and an additional letter from CARB requested in the interim 
that the EPA consider these budgets under the Agency's

[[Page 1840]]

parallel processing procedures for SIP submittals.<SUP>80 81</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Letter from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to 
Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region 9, dated October 7, 
2014.
    \81\ Letter from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to 
Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region 9, dated November 
6, 2014, requesting parallel processing of the motor vehicle 
emissions budgets in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan.

                          Table 6--2006 PM2.5 Standard MVEB for the San Joaquin Valley
                                         [Winter daily average in tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        2014                      2017
                           County                            ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                 PM2.5         NOX         PM2.5         NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno......................................................          1.0         31.6          0.9         25.2
Kern (SJV)..................................................          1.2         43.2          1.0         34.4
Kings.......................................................          0.2          8.8          0.2          7.2
Madera......................................................          0.3          8.7          0.2          7.0
Merced......................................................          0.5         17.2          0.4         13.7
San Joaquin.................................................          0.7         20.0          0.6         15.9
Stanislaus..................................................          0.5         15.1          0.5         12.0
Tulare......................................................          0.5         14.3          0.4         10.7
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total *.................................................          4.9        159.0          4.2        126.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Letter, Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region 9,
  dated October 7, 2014, Attachment, Table C-4.
* Totals reflect disaggregated emissions and may not add exactly as shown here due to rounding. Attachment,
  Letter, Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region 9, dated
  October 7, 2014, with Attachment, revised Table C-4, ``Transportation Conformity Budgets'' to 2012 PM2.5 Plan.

    The 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan also includes a proposed trading 
mechanism for transportation conformity analyses that would allow 
future decreases in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from on-road mobile 
sources to offset any on-road increases in PM<INF>2.5</INF>, using a 
NO<INF>X</INF>:PM<INF>2.5</INF> ratio of 8:1. (Appendix C, section 
C.11.3 and Table C-2).
3. Evaluation and Proposed Actions
    We have evaluated the revised budgets against our adequacy criteria 
in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) as part of our review of the budgets' 
approvability (see section II.I (Table I-3) in the TSD for this 
proposal) and expect to have completed the adequacy review of these 
budgets before or concurrent with our final action on the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan.\82\ We posted the budgets on EPA's adequacy 
review Web page at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm from October 23, 2014 to November 24, 2014 and did not 
receive any comments on them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Under the Transportation Conformity regulations, the EPA 
may review the adequacy of submitted motor vehicle emission budgets 
simultaneously with the EPA's approval or disapproval of the 
submitted implementation plan. 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information about re-entrained road dust in the Plan 
and in accordance with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), we propose to concur with 
the District's finding that re-entrained road dust emissions from paved 
roads, unpaved roads, and road construction are not significant 
contributors to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment problem in the 
Valley and that these emissions therefore do not need to be addressed 
in the MVEBs. Additionally, based on the information about VOC, 
SO<INF>2</INF>, and ammonia emissions in the Plan and in accordance 
with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), we propose to find that transportation-
related emissions of VOC, SO<INF>2</INF>, and ammonia emissions are not 
significant contributors to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment problem 
in the SJV area and, accordingly, that MVEBs for these pollutants are 
not necessary.
    For the reasons discussed in section IV.G., above, we are proposing 
to approve the State's demonstration that it is impracticable to attain 
the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in the San Joaquin Valley by the 
applicable Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015 and 
proposing to reclassify the area as Serious. Because the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan does not demonstrate attainment, we do not 
address in this proposal any budgets for the attainment year of 2015 or 
2019.
    For reasons discussed in section IV.H. above, we are proposing to 
approve the RFP demonstration for 2014 and 2017 in the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan. The budgets, as given in Table 6 above, are 
consistent with the demonstration, are clearly identified and precisely 
quantified, and meet all other applicable statutory and regulatory 
requirements including meeting the adequacy criteria in 93.118(e)(4). 
For these reasons, the EPA proposes to approve the budgets listed in 
Table 6 above. We provide a more detailed discussion in Section II.H of 
the TSD, which can be found in the docket for today's action.
    CARB has requested that we limit the duration our approval of the 
budgets only until the effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding for 
any subsequently submitted budgets. (Letter, James N. Goldstene, 
Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, 
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, March 4, 2013). The 
transportation conformity rule allows us to limit the approval of 
budgets. (40 CFR 93.118(e)(1)). However, we can consider a state's 
request to limit an approval of its MVEB only if the request includes 
the following elements:
    [cir] An acknowledgement and explanation as to why the budgets 
under consideration have become outdated or deficient;
    [cir] A commitment to update the budgets as part of a comprehensive 
SIP update; and
    [cir] A request that the EPA limit the duration of its approval to 
the time when new budgets have been found to be adequate for 
transportation conformity purposes.
    (67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002) (limiting our prior approval of 
MVEB in certain California SIPs)).
    Because CARB's request does not include all of these elements, we 
cannot address it at this time. Once CARB has adequately addressed 
them, we intend to review the information and take appropriate action. 
If we propose to limit the duration of our approval of the MVEB in the 
2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, we will provide the public an opportunity 
to

[[Page 1841]]

comment. The duration of the approval of the budgets, however, would 
not be limited until we complete such a rulemaking.
    We have previously approved motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 
1997 annual and 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards (76 FR 69896, 69923 
(November 9, 2011)). These budgets will continue to apply for the 2006 
24-hour standard until we finalize our approval of the budgets in the 
2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan or find these budgets adequate. The budgets 
approved in 2011, however, will continue to apply in the SJV for 
determining transportation conformity for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
annual and 24-hour standards.
    As noted above, the State included a trading mechanism to be used 
in transportation conformity analyses that would use the proposed 
budgets in the 2012 Plan \83\ as allowed for under 40 CFR 93.124. This 
trading mechanism would allow future decreases in NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions from on-road mobile sources to offset any on-road increases 
in PM<INF>2.5</INF>, using a NO<INF>X</INF>:PM<INF>2.5</INF> ratio of 
8:1. To ensure that the trading mechanism does not impact the ability 
to meet the NO<INF>X</INF> budget, the Plan provides that the 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions available to supplement the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> budget would only be those remaining after the 
NO<INF>X</INF> budget has been met. The Plan also provides that each 
agency responsible for demonstrating transportation conformity shall 
clearly document the calculations used in the trading, along with any 
additional reductions of NO<INF>X</INF> or PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions 
in the conformity analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ The budgets and the trading program approved in 2011 will 
continue to apply in the SJV for determining transportation 
conformity for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> annual standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has reviewed the air quality modeling used to develop the 
8:1 NO<INF>X</INF>:PM<INF>2.5</INF> ratio and, while we are not 
proposing to take any action on it, we find that it is a reasonable 
method to use to develop ratios for transportation conformity purposes. 
We note that the ratio the State is proposing to use for transportation 
conformity purposes is derived from air quality modeling that evaluated 
the effect of reductions in local Kern County NO<INF>X</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels on ambient concentrations at the California 
Avenue-Bakersfield site (2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, Appendix G, p. 
68). The air quality modeling that the State performed to evaluate the 
effectiveness of regional (nonattainment wide) NO<INF>X</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> reductions on ambient concentrations showed 
NO<INF>X</INF>:PM<INF>2.5</INF> ratios that range from a high of 4.7 at 
the Stockton monitor to a low of 2.8 at the Corcoran monitor. See 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, Appendix G, p. 65. Because the 8:1 trading ratio 
is more stringent than any determined by the regional modeling, we are 
proposing to approve its use to trade excess NO<INF>X</INF> reductions 
for PM<INF>2.5</INF> increases. We are not, however, proposing to 
approve its use to trade excess PM<INF>2.5</INF> reductions for 
NO<INF>X</INF> increases, as this would result in under-control of 
NO<INF>X.</INF>
    We believe that the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan includes an 
approvable 8:1 NO<INF>X</INF>:PM<INF>2.5</INF> ratio trading mechanism 
for determining transportation conformity for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard. We therefore propose to approve the trading mechanism as 
described on p. C-32 in Appendix C of the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan as 
enforceable components of the transportation conformity program in the 
SJV for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard with the condition that 
trades are limited to substituting excess reductions in NO<INF>X</INF> 
for increases in PM<INF>2.5</INF>.

V. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment and Serious Area SIP 
Requirements

A. Reclassification as Serious and Applicable Attainment Date

    Section 188 of the Act outlines the process for classification of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas and establishes the applicable 
attainment dates. Under the plain meaning of the terms of section 
188(b)(1) of the Act, the EPA has general authority to reclassify at 
any time before the applicable attainment date any area that the EPA 
determines cannot practicably attain the standard by such date. 
Accordingly, section 188(b)(1) of the Act is a general expression of 
delegated rulemaking authority. In addition, subparagraphs (A) and (B) 
of section 188(b)(1) mandate that the EPA reclassify ``appropriate'' 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas at specified time frames (i.e., by 
December 31, 1991 for the initial PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas, 
and within 18 months after the SIP submittal due date for subsequent 
nonattainment areas). These subparagraphs do not restrict the EPA's 
general authority but simply specify that, at a minimum, it must be 
exercised at certain times.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ For a general discussion of EPA's interpretation of the 
reclassification provisions in section 188(b)(1) of the Act, see the 
General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13537-38 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed the impracticability demonstration in the Plan and 
Supplement and believe the State has adequately demonstrated that the 
San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area cannot practicably attain the 
2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard by the applicable attainment date of 
December 31, 2015 (see section IV.G, above). We have also reviewed 
recent PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring data for the San Joaquin Valley 
available in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. These data 
show that 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels in the SJV continue to be 
well above 35 [mu]/m\3\, the level of the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard, and the recent trends in the Valley's 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels are not consistent with a projection of 
attainment by the end of 2015 (see Table 7 below and Figure III-1 and 
Table III-1 in the TSD).

              Table 7--24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS Design Values \1\ in [mu]g/m\3\ for Monitors in the SJV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Site                AQS ID     2005    2006    2007    2008    2009    2010    2011    2012    2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bakersfield:
    Planz...................    60290016      54      60      68      70      70      65      55      47      60
    CA Ave..................    60290014      58      62      66      66      68      62      62      58      65
    Golden State Hwy........    60290010      60      64      69      64      66      64     n/a     n/a     n/a
Corcoran....................    60310004      55      58      61      52      53      49      46      43      49
Hanford.....................    60311004     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a      54      60
Visalia.....................    61072002      55      56      58      57      59      51      47      47      56
Fresno:
    Pacific.................    60195025      57      59      61      52      50      43      48      53      63
    Garland.................    60190011      60      58      63      58      60      54      58  59 \2\  62 \2\
Clovis......................    60195001      55      56      58      54      53      47      54      54      58
Tranquility.................    60192009     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a      31      30

[[Page 1842]]

 
Madera......................    60392010     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a      51      52
Merced:
    M Street................    60472510      45      45      48      50      51      45      39      40      49
    Coffee..................    60470003     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a      43      41      42
Turlock.....................    60990006     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a      55      51      49      53
Modesto.....................    60990005      49      51      55      54      55      49      50      44      51
Manteca.....................    60772010     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a      38      37
Stockton....................    60771002      40      41      45      51      50      44      38      36      45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. EPA, 2013 Design Value Reports, PM2.5 Detailed Information Updated 8/24/14, available at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html (``PM25_DesignValues_20112013_FINAL_08_28_14''). The term ``n/a'' means
  monitoring data is not available or does not meet minimum data completeness requirements (40 CFR part 50,
  appendix N).
\1\ The 24-hour design value for each monitor is based on the 3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour
  PM2.5 concentrations. See 40 CFR part 50 appendix N. For example, the 24-hour design value for 2013 is the
  average of the 98th percentile PM2.5 concentrations for 2011, 2012, and 2013. The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is
  attained when the design value is 35 [micro]g/m\3\ or less.
\2\ The Garland site was approved for replaced operation of the First Street site (AQS ID: 60190008) beginning
  with data collected in calendar year 2012. The design value reported represents a combined site record with
  the existing Garland site and old First Street site which ceased operation in early 2012.

    In accordance with section 188(b)(1) of the Act, the EPA is 
proposing to reclassify the SJV area from Moderate to Serious 
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard of 35 
[mu]g/m\3\, based on the EPA's determination that the SJV area cannot 
practicably attain this standard by the applicable attainment date of 
December 31, 2015.
    Under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, the attainment date for a 
Serious area ``shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later 
than the end of the tenth calendar year beginning after the area's 
designation as nonattainment. . . .'' The SJV area was designated 
nonattainment for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard effective December 
14, 2009.\85\ Therefore, upon final reclassification of the SJV area as 
a Serious nonattainment area, the latest permissible attainment date 
under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, for purposes of the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in this area, will be December 31, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 188(e) of the Act, a state may apply to EPA for a 
single extension of the Serious area attainment date by up to 5 years, 
which EPA may grant if the state satisfies certain conditions. Before 
EPA may extend the attainment date for a Serious area under section 
188(e), the state must: (1) Apply for an extension of the attainment 
date beyond the statutory attainment date; (2) demonstrate that 
attainment by the statutory attainment date is impracticable; (3) have 
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area 
in the implementation plan; (4) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
Administrator that the plan for the area includes the most stringent 
measures that are included in the implementation plan of any state or 
are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented 
in the area; and (5) submit a demonstration of attainment by the most 
expeditious alternative date practicable.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ For a discussion of EPA's interpretation of the 
requirements of section 188(e), see ``State Implementation Plans for 
Serious PM<INF>10</INF> Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date 
Waivers for PM<INF>10</INF> Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum 
to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994) 
(hereafter ``Addendum'') at 42002; 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000) 
(proposed action on PM<INF>10</INF> Plan for Maricopa County, 
Arizona); 66 FR 50252 (October 2, 2001) (proposed action on 
PM<INF>10</INF> Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona); 67 FR 48718 
(July 25, 2002) (final action on PM<INF>10</INF> Plan for Maricopa 
County, Arizona); and Vigil v. EPA, 366 F.3d 1025, amended at 381 
F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004) (remanding EPA action on PM<INF>10</INF> 
Plan for Maricopa County, Arizona but generally upholding EPA's 
interpretation of CAA section 188(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Serious PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 
Plans

    Upon reclassification as a Serious nonattainment area for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, California will be required to submit 
additional SIP revisions to satisfy the statutory requirements that 
apply to Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas, including the 
requirements of subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act.
    The Serious area SIP elements that California will be required to 
submit are as follows:
    1. Provisions to assure that the best available control measures 
(BACM), including best available control technology (BACT) for 
stationary sources, for the control of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors shall be implemented no later than 4 years 
after the area is reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B));
    2. a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan 
provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later 
than December 31, 2019, or where the state is seeking an extension of 
the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration that 
attainment by December 31, 2019 is impracticable and that the plan 
provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date 
practicable and no later than December 31, 2024 (CAA sections 188(c)(2) 
and 189(b)(1)(A));
    3. plan provisions that require reasonable further progress (RFP) 
(CAA 172(c)(2));
    4. quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years 
until the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate RFP 
toward attainment by the applicable date (CAA section 189(c));
    5. provisions to assure that control requirements applicable to 
major stationary sources of PM<INF>2.5</INF> also apply to major 
stationary sources of PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors, except where the 
state demonstrates to the EPA's satisfaction that such sources do not 
contribute significantly to PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that exceed the 
standard in the area (CAA section 189(e));
    6. a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions 
from all sources of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors in 
the area (CAA section 172(c)(3));
    7. contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet 
RFP or to attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section 
172(c)(9)); and
    8. A revision to the nonattainment new source review (NSR) program 
to lower the applicable ``major stationary source'' \87\ thresholds 
from 100 tons per year (tpy) to 70 tpy (CAA section 189(b)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ For any Serious area, the terms ``major source'' and 
``major stationary source'' include any stationary source that emits 
or has the potential to emit at least 70 tons per year of 
PM<INF>10</INF> (CAA section 189(b)(3)).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1843]]

    The EPA is currently developing a proposed rulemaking to provide 
guidance to states on the attainment planning requirements in subparts 
1 and 4 of part D, title I of the Act that apply to areas designated 
nonattainment for PM<INF>2.5</INF>. In the interim, EPA encourages the 
State to review the General Preamble and Addendum for guidance on how 
to implement these statutory requirements in the SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See generally the General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 
1992) and Addendum, 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Statutory Deadline for Submittal of the Serious Area Plan

    Section 189(b)(2) of the Act states, in relevant part, that the 
state must submit the required BACM provisions ``no later than 18 
months after reclassification of the area as a Serious Area'' and must 
submit the required attainment demonstration ``no later than 4 years 
after reclassification of the area to Serious.'' Thus, if a final 
reclassification of the area to Serious becomes effective in early 
2015, the Act provides the state with up to 18 months after this date 
(i.e., until late 2016) to submit a BACM demonstration and up to 4 
years after this date (i.e., until early 2019) to submit a Serious area 
attainment demonstration. Given the December 31, 2019 Serious area 
attainment date for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in this area 
under CAA section 188(c)(2), EPA expects the State to adopt and submit 
a Serious area attainment demonstration for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard well before the statutory SIP submittal deadline in section 
189(b)(2).
    The Act does not specify a deadline for the State's submittal of 
nonattainment NSR program revisions to lower the ``major stationary 
source'' threshold from 100 tons per year (tpy) to 70 tpy (CAA section 
189(b)(3)) following reclassification of a Moderate PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment under subpart 4. Pursuant 
to EPA's gap-filling authority in CAA section 301(a) and to effectuate 
the statutory control requirements in section 189 of the Act, the EPA 
proposes to require the State to submit these nonattainment NSR SIP 
revisions no later than 12 months from the effective date of final 
reclassification of the SJV area as Serious nonattainment for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. We believe this timeframe will give the 
State sufficient time to make these relatively straightforward 
revisions to its nonattainment NSR SIP while assuring that new or 
modified major sources locating in the SJV area will be subject to the 
lower statutory major source thresholds expeditiously. We are 
requesting comment on this proposed 12-month timeframe for submission 
of the nonattainment NSR SIP revisions. We note that nonattainment NSR 
SIP revisions that satisfy the requirement in CAA section 189(b)(3) for 
purposes of the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards may also satisfy this 
requirement for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard.

VI. Reclassification of Indian Country

    Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the San 
Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area. These tribes are 
listed in Table 8 below.

Table 8--Indian Tribes Located in San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Nonattainment
                                  Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians (including the Big Sandy Rancheria).
Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians (including the Cold Springs
 Rancheria).
North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians (including the North Fork
 Rancheria).
Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians (including the Picayune
 Rancheria).
Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe (including the Santa Rosa
 Rancheria).
Table Mountain Rancheria (including the Table Mountain Rancheria).
Tule River Indian Tribe (including the Tule River Reservation).
Tejon Indian Tribe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have considered the relevance of our proposal to reclassify the 
SJV nonattainment area as Serious for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard to each tribe located within the SJV area. We believe that the 
same facts and circumstances that support the proposal for the non-
Indian country lands also support the proposal for Indian country \89\ 
located within the SJV nonattainment area. The EPA is therefore 
proposing to exercise our authority under CAA section 188(b)(1) to 
reclassify areas of Indian country geographically located in the SJV 
nonattainment area. Section 188(b)(1) broadly authorizes the EPA to 
reclassify a nonattainment area--including any Indian country located 
within such an area--that EPA determines cannot practicably attain the 
relevant standard by the applicable attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ ``Indian country'' as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 refers to: 
``(a) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the 
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the 
issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through 
the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the 
borders of the United States whether within the original or 
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or 
without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the 
Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-
of-way running through the same.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Elevated PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels are a pervasive pollution problem 
throughout the SJV area. Directly-emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF> and its 
precursor pollutants (NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, VOC, and ammonia) 
are emitted throughout a nonattainment area and can be transported 
throughout that nonattainment area. Therefore, boundaries for 
nonattainment areas are drawn to encompass both areas with direct 
sources of the pollution problem as well as nearby areas in the same 
airshed. Initial classifications of nonattainment areas are coterminous 
with, that is, they match exactly, their boundaries. The EPA believes 
this approach best ensures public health protection from the adverse 
effects of PM<INF>2.5</INF> pollution. Therefore, it is generally 
counterproductive from an air quality and planning perspective to have 
a disparate classification for a land area located within the 
boundaries of a larger nonattainment area, such as the areas of Indian 
country contained within the SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area. 
Moreover, violations of the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard, which are 
measured and modeled throughout the nonattainment area, as well as 
shared meteorological conditions, would dictate the same conclusion. 
Furthermore, emissions increases in portions of a PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area that are left classified as Moderate could 
counteract the effects of efforts to attain the standard within the 
overall area because less stringent requirements would apply in those 
Moderate portions relative to those that would apply in the portions of 
the area reclassified to Serious.
    Uniformity of classification throughout a nonattainment area is 
thus a guiding principle and premise when an area is being 
reclassified. Equally, if the EPA believes it is likely that a given 
nonattainment area will not attain the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard by the 
applicable attainment date, then it may be an additional reason why it 
is appropriate to maintain a uniform classification within the area and 
thus to reclassify the Indian country together with the balance of the 
nonattainment area. In this particular case, we are proposing to 
determine, based on the State's demonstration and current ambient air 
quality trends, that the SJV nonattainment area cannot practicably 
attain the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards by the applicable Moderate 
area attainment date of December 31, 2015.
    In light of the considerations outlined above that support 
retention of a uniformly-classified PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment 
area, and our finding that is impracticable for the area to attain by

[[Page 1844]]

the applicable attainment date, we propose to reclassify the areas of 
Indian country within the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area to 
Serious for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard.
    The effect of reclassification would be to lower the applicable 
``major source'' threshold for purposes of the nonattainment new source 
review program and the Title V operating permit program from its 
current level of 100 tpy to 70 tpy (CAA sections 189(b)(3) and 
501(2)(B)) thus subjecting more new or modified stationary sources to 
these requirements. The reclassification may also lower the de minimis 
threshold under the CAA's General Conformity requirements (40 CFR part 
93, subpart B) from 100 tpy to 70 tpy. Under the General Conformity 
requirements, Federal agencies bear the responsibility of determining 
conformity of actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas that 
require Federal permits, approvals, or funding. Such permits, approvals 
or funding by Federal agencies for projects in these areas of Indian 
country may be more difficult to obtain because of the lower de minimis 
thresholds.
    Given the potential implications of the reclassification, the EPA 
has contacted tribal officials to invite government-to-government 
consultation on this rulemaking effort.\90\ The EPA specifically 
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal 
officials. We note that although eligible tribes may opt to seek EPA 
approval of relevant tribal programs under the CAA, none of the 
affected tribes will be required to submit an implementation plan to 
address this reclassification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ We sent letters to seven tribal officials regarding 
government-to-government consultation on September 30, 2014. EPA 
inadvertently did not send a letter to the Tejon Indian Tribe, 
therefore, we sent a letter to the chairperson of the Tejon Indian 
Tribe inviting government to government consultation on our proposed 
reclassification of the SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area on 
December 18, 2014. All eight letters can be found in the docket for 
today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment

    Under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to approve the 
following elements of the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and Supplement 
submitted by California to address the CAA's Moderate area planning 
requirements for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the San Joaquin 
Valley nonattainment area:
    1. The 2007 base year emissions inventories as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3);
    2. the reasonably available control measures/reasonably available 
control technology demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA 
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C);
    3. the reasonable further progress demonstration as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2);
    4. the demonstration that attainment by the Moderate area 
attainment date of December 31, 2015 is impracticable as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii); and
    5. SJVUAPCD's commitments to adopt and implement specific rules and 
measures in accordance with the schedule provided in Chapter 5 of the 
2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan to achieve the emissions reductions shown 
therein, and to submit these rules and measures to ARB within 30 days 
of adoption for transmittal to EPA as a revision to the SIP, as stated 
on p. 4 of SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 2012-12-19.
    In addition, the EPA is proposing to approve the 2014 and 2017 
motor vehicle emissions budgets as shown in Table 6 above because they 
are derived from an approvable RFP demonstration and meet the 
requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, 
provided the State completes its public review process and adopts and 
submits these budgets in final form prior to our final action on the 
Plan and Supplement. The EPA is also proposing to approve, in 
accordance with 40 CFR 93.124, the trading mechanism as described on p. 
C-32 in Appendix C of the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan as an enforceable 
component of the transportation conformity program for the SJV for the 
2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard, with the condition that trades are 
limited to substituting excess reductions in NO<INF>X</INF> for 
increases in PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
    The EPA is proposing to disapprove the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
interpollutant trading ratios provided in Appendix H of the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan for NNSR permitting purposes. Under section 
179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a SIP submittal that addresses 
a requirement of part D, title I of the Act or is required in response 
to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 
110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a sanctions clock. The NNSR interpollutant 
trading ratios provided in the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan were not 
submitted to meet either of these requirements. Therefore, if we take 
final action to disapprove this component of the Plan, no sanctions 
will be triggered. Disapproval of a SIP element also triggers the 
requirement under CAA section 110(c) for EPA to promulgate a FIP no 
later than 2 years from the date of the disapproval unless the State 
corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or 
plan revision, before the Administrator promulgates such FIP. 
Disapproval of these NNSR interpollutant trading ratios, however, would 
not create any deficiency in the plan and therefore would not trigger 
the obligation on EPA to promulgate a FIP under section 110(c).
    Finally, pursuant to CAA section 188(b)(1), the EPA is proposing to 
reclassify the San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area, 
including the Indian country within it, as Serious nonattainment for 
the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard based on the Agency's determination 
that the SJV area cannot practicably attain the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard by the Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015. 
Upon final reclassification as a Serious nonattainment area, California 
will be required to submit, within 18 months after the effective date 
of reclassification, provisions to assure that BACM shall be 
implemented no later than 4 years after the date of reclassification 
and to submit, within 4 years after the effective date of 
reclassification, a Serious area plan that satisfies the requirements 
of part D of title I of the Act, including a demonstration that the 
plan provides for attainment of the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard as 
expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2019, or by 
the most expeditious alternative date practicable and no later than 
December 31, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of CAA sections 
189(b) and 188(e).
    In addition, because the EPA is proposing to similarly reclassify 
areas of Indian country within the SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment 
area as Serious nonattainment for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard, 
consistent with our proposed reclassification of the surrounding non-
Indian country lands, EPA has invited consultation with interested 
tribes concerning this issue. We note that although eligible tribes may 
seek the EPA's approval of relevant tribal programs under the CAA, none 
of the affected tribes will be required to submit an implementation 
plan to address this reclassification.
    We will accept comments from the public on these proposals for the 
next 45 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments 
are provided in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of 
this preamble.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

[[Page 1845]]

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the PRA because it does not contain any information collection 
activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This 
proposed action would approve State law as meeting Federal requirements 
and would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by 
State law. Additionally, the proposed rule would reclassify the SJV 
nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, and would not itself regulate small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, and does not significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments. This proposed action would approve State law 
as meeting Federal requirements and would not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Additionally, the 
proposed action would reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious 
nonattainment for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, and would not itself 
impose any federal intergovernmental mandate. The proposed action would 
not require any tribes to submit implementation plans.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have Tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian Tribes.''
    Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the SJV 
nonattainment area for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS: The Big Sandy 
Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Cold Springs Rancheria of 
Mono Indians of California, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of 
California, the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California, 
the Santa Rosa Rancheria of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain 
Rancheria of California, the Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tule River 
Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation.
    EPA's proposed approvals of the SIP elements submitted by 
California to address the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in the SJV 
would not have tribal implications because the SIP is not approved to 
apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or 
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In 
those areas of Indian country, the proposed SIP approvals do not have 
tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on 
tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The EPA has concluded that the proposed reclassification might have 
tribal implications for the purposes of Executive Order 13175, but 
would not impose substantial direct costs upon the tribes, nor would it 
preempt Tribal law. We note that none of the tribes located in the SJV 
nonattainment area has requested eligibility to administer programs 
under the CAA. The proposed reclassification would affect the EPA's 
implementation of the new source review program because of the lower 
``major source'' threshold triggered by reclassification (70 tons per 
year for direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and precursors to PM<INF>2.5</INF>). 
The proposed reclassification may also affect new or modified 
stationary sources proposed in these areas that require Federal 
permits, approvals, or funding. Such projects are subject to the 
requirements of EPA's General Conformity rule, and Federal permits, 
approvals, or funding for the projects may be more difficult to obtain 
because of the lower de minimis thresholds triggered by 
reclassification.
    Given the potential implications, the EPA contacted tribal 
officials during the process of developing this proposed rule to 
provide an opportunity to have meaningful and timely input into its 
development. On September 30, 2014, we sent letters to leaders of the 
seven tribes with areas of Indian country in the SJV nonattainment area 
inviting government-to-government consultation on the rulemaking 
effort. We requested that the tribal leaders, or their designated 
consultation representatives, provide input or request government-to-
government consultation by October 27, 2014. We did not receive a 
response from any of the seven tribes. As noted above, the EPA 
inadvertently did not send a letter to the Tejon Indian Tribe at the 
time we sent letters to the other seven tribes. We contacted the 
chairperson of the Tejon Indian Tribe on December 18, 2014 to offer 
them an opportunity for government-to-government consultation. We 
intend to continue communicating with all eight tribes located within 
the boundaries of the SJV nonattainment area for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS as we move forward in developing a final rule. 
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This proposed action is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it would only approve a state 
air quality plan implementing a federal standard and reclassify the SJV 
nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, triggering Serious area planning requirements 
under the CAA. This proposed action does not establish an environmental 
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

[[Page 1846]]

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    EPA has determined that this action will not have potential 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. This proposed action would only approve a state air 
quality plan implementing a federal standard and reclassify the SJV 
nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, triggering additional Serious area planning 
requirements under the CAA.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic 
compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference.

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

    Dated: December 29, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2015-00270 Filed 1-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>