
[Federal Register: April 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 81)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 22307-22318]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25ap08-14]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0306; FRL-8558-7]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of 
Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of California; PM-10; 
Revision of Designation; Redesignation of the San Joaquin Valley Air 
Basin PM-10 Nonattainment Area to Attainment; Approval of PM-10 
Maintenance Plan for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin; Approval of 
Commitments for the East Kern PM-10 Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State of California's request 
to revise the designation for the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) serious 
nonattainment area for particulate matter of ten microns or less (PM-
10) (SJV nonattainment area) by splitting the area into two separate 
nonattainment areas: The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin serious PM-10 
nonattainment area and the East Kern serious PM-10 nonattainment area. 
EPA is also proposing to redesignate the SJVAB nonattainment area to 
attainment for the PM-10 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 
and proposing to approve the PM-10 maintenance plan, motor vehicle 
emissions budgets and conformity trading mechanism for the area. EPA is 
also proposing to exclude from use in determining that the area has 
attained the standard two exceedances that EPA has concluded were 
caused by exceptional events that occurred on July 4, 2007 and January 
4, 2008. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve enforceable commitments 
by the Kern County Air Pollution Control District and the California 
Air Resources Board to install a PM-10 monitor in the East Kern 
nonattainment area and to address Clean Air Act requirements under 
section 189(d) as necessary for the area.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by May 27, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2008-0306, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail: lo.doris@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or deliver: Doris Lo (Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be 
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an 
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If 
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all 
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may 
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location 
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an 
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3959, lo.doris@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of EPA's Proposed Actions
III. Proposed Revised Boundary Redesignation

[[Page 22308]]

    A. State's Submittal
    B. EPA's Evaluation of Request to Revise Boundary Designation
IV. Proposed Redesignation of the SJV Air Basin to Attainment for 
the PM-10 Standard and Approval of PM-10 Maintenance Plan
    A. EPA has determined that the area has attained the NAAQS
    B. The applicable implementation plan has been fully approved by 
EPA under section 110(k) of the CAA
    C. EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality is due 
to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
    D. The State has met all applicable requirements for the area 
under section 110 and Part D of the CAA
    1. Basic SIP Requirements under CAA Section 110
    2. SIP Requirements under Part D
    E. EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including a 
contingency plan, for the area under section 175A of the CAA
    1. An attainment emissions inventory to identify the level of 
emissions in the area sufficient to attain the NAAQS
    2. A demonstration of maintenance of the NAAQS for 10 years 
after redesignation
    3. Verification of continued attainment through operation of an 
appropriate air quality monitoring network
    4. Contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of 
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area
    F. Transportation conformity and motor vehicle emissions budgets
    1. CARB Methodology for Estimating PM-10 in the Emissions 
Budgets
    2. Adequacy of the 2007 Plan's Budgets
    3. Trading Mechanism
V. Proposed Commitments for East Kern
VI. Proposed Actions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On May 26, 2004, EPA approved the serious area PM-10 plan for the 
SJV nonattainment area, ``2003 PM10 Plan, San Joaquin Valley Plan to 
Attain Federal Standards for Particulate Matter 10 Microns and 
Smaller'' submitted by the State on August 19, 2003 and amendments to 
that plan submitted on December 30, 2003 (collectively, 2003 Plan). See 
69 FR 30006; 40 CFR 81.305. This plan provided for, among other things, 
the implementation of best available control measures (BACM). In 
addition, since the SJV nonattainment area had failed to meet its 
original serious area attainment deadline of December 31, 2001, the 
State was required under section 189(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 
the Act) to submit a plan that provided for an annual reduction in PM-
10 or PM-10 precursors of not less than five percent until attainment. 
A detailed discussion of the history of PM-10 planning in the SJV 
nonattainment area and of EPA's approval of the 2003 Plan can be found 
in its proposed and final actions and the associated dockets. 69 FR 
5412 (February 4, 2004); 69 FR 30006.
    On October 30, 2006, EPA determined that the SJV nonattainment area 
had attained the 24-hour PM-10 standard \1\ based on air quality data 
from 2003 through 2005. In this action we noted that there were several 
exceedances of the PM-10 standard that were likely due to exceptional 
events which EPA would address in subsequent actions. 71 FR 63642. 
Subsequently EPA issued a final action affirming that the PM-10 
standard has been attained in the SJV nonattainment area based on air 
quality data from 2004 through 2006. 73 FR 14687 (March 19, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The level of the national primary 24-hour ambient air 
quality standard for particulate matter is 150 micrograms per cubic 
meter ([mu]g/m\3\). The standard is attained when the expected 
number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average 
concentration above 150 [mu]g/m\3\, as determined in accordance with 
appendix K to 40 CFR part 50, is equal to or less than one. See 40 
CFR 50.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 16, 2007, the State submitted to EPA the ``2007 PM10 
Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation,'' September 20, 2007, 
for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or 
the District) (2007 Plan).\2\ On January 31, 2008, the State submitted 
a request to split the existing SJV serious PM-10 nonattainment area 
into two separate nonattainment areas: (1) The San Joaquin Valley Air 
Basin and (2) the western portion of the Kern County Air Pollution 
Control District (KCAPCD). Letter from James N. Goldstene, California 
Air Resources Board (CARB), to Deborah Jordan, EPA, with attachments, 
January 31, 2008 (Goldstene letter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The SJVAPCD District adopted the 2007 Plan on September 20, 
2007 and submitted it to the State on September 21, 2007. The State 
``* * * updated the attainment inventory * * * to reflect emission 
reductions achieved by ARB adopted measures that had not been 
accounted for'' before submitting the 2007 Plan to EPA on November 
16, 2007. (Staff Report, Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 
PM10 Maintenance Plan, Air Resources Board, Release Date: October 
12, 2007 (ARB Staff Report), pp. 7-8 and Appendix B). Thus the 
applicable emissions inventories in the 2007 Plan are found in the 
ARB Staff Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 29, 2008, the State submitted enforceable commitments 
by CARB and the KCAPCD to monitor for PM-10 in the western portion of 
the KCAPCD and to address CAA State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
requirements for this area as necessary. Letter from James N. 
Goldstene, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, with enclosures, February 29, 
2008.
    Finally, on January 23, 2008, the State submitted to EPA the 
``Exceptional Event Documentation, PM10, Fireworks, Bakersfield, CA, 
July 4, 2007'' and on April 15, 2008, the State submitted to EPA the 
``Natural Event Documentation, Bakersfield, California, January 4, 
2008.''

II. Summary of EPA's Proposed Actions

    First, EPA is proposing to grant the State's request to split the 
existing SJV nonattainment area into two separate nonattainment areas. 
EPA is then proposing to grant the State's request to redesignate the 
portion of the SJV nonattainment area located in the San Joaquin Valley 
Air Basin to attainment for the PM-10 standard and to approve the PM-10 
maintenance plan, motor vehicle emissions budgets and conformity 
trading mechanism for the area. EPA is also proposing to exclude from 
use in determining that the area has attained the PM-10 standard data 
showing exceedances caused by exceptional events that occurred on July 
4, 2007 and January 4, 2008. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve 
commitments by CARB and the KCAPCD to monitor for PM-10 in the western 
portion of the KCAPCD and to address CAA SIP requirements for the area 
as necessary.

III. Proposed Revised Boundary Designation

A. State's Submittal

    As stated above, on January 31, 2008, the State submitted a request 
to EPA to split the existing SJV PM-10 nonattainment area into two 
separate nonattainment areas: (1) The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and 
(2) the western portion of the KCAPCD. The State's submittal states 
that ``[t]his change will address the inconsistency between 
California's adopted air basin boundary for the San Joaquin Valley and 
the boundary U.S. EPA is using for PM10 planning.'' The State's 
submittal includes information about jurisdiction, geography, 
population and degree of urbanization, employment and traffic/commuting 
patterns, and emissions and air quality which supports the revised 
boundary designation. See Goldstene letter.

B. EPA's Evaluation of Request To Revise Boundary Designation

    The existing SJV nonattainment area includes the entire counties of 
San Joaquin, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus and Tulare and 
part of Kern County. The part of Kern County in the existing SJV 
nonattainment area is a region that straddles the Sierra Nevada and 
Tehachapi mountains and is located in two separate air basins: the SJV 
Air Basin and the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). The dividing line 
between

[[Page 22309]]

these two air basins coincides with the jurisdictional boundary between 
the KCAPCD and the SJVAPCD. This dividing line also coincides with the 
boundary that we are today proposing to draw between the two 
nonattainment areas which we are proposing to designate as the SJV Air 
Basin (SJVAB) PM-10 nonattainment area and the East Kern PM-10 
nonattainment area.\3\ Thus, if we finalize the revision to the 
boundary designation, the SJVAB nonattainment area will include only 
those areas that are in the SJV Air Basin (i.e., all of the seven 
counties mentioned above and the part of Kern County that is under the 
jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD) and the East Kern PM-10 nonattainment area 
will include the part of Kern County that is currently in the existing 
SJV nonattainment area, is in the MDAB and is under the jurisdiction of 
the KCAPCD.\4\ Together, these two new PM-10 nonattainment areas will 
cover the same geographic area as the original SJV PM-10 nonattainment 
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We are proposing to call the new area ``East Kern'' because 
it is the eastern part of Kern County that is currently within the 
existing SJV nonattainment area.
    \4\ The KCAPCD's jurisdiction also includes the remaining part 
of Kern County which extends eastward beyond the proposed East Kern 
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 107(d)(3)(D) of the CAA, the Governor of any state 
may, on the Governor's own motion, submit to EPA a revised designation 
of any area or portion thereof within the state.\5\ EPA is required to 
approve or deny a submittal of a revised designation within 18 months 
of receipt. The type of revised designation that the State of 
California submitted on January 31, 2008 involves a boundary change 
only and does not involve a change in status (e.g., from 
``nonattainment,'' to ``attainment'' or ``unclassifiable'') of any 
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Boundary changes are an inherent part of a designation or 
redesignation of an area under the CAA. See CAA section 
107(d)(1)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether to approve or deny a state's submittal of a 
request for a revised boundary designation under section 107(d)(3)(D), 
EPA uses the same factors Congress directed EPA to consider when the 
Agency initiates a revision to a designation of an area on its own 
motion under section 107(d)(3)(A). These factors include ``air quality 
data, planning and control considerations, or any other air quality-
related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate.'' In 
addition, because the State's revised designation involves 
nonattainment areas, we also take into account CAA section 
107(d)(1)(A), which provides that nonattainment areas are to include 
the geographic area that does not meet, or that contributes to ambient 
air quality in a nearby area that does not meet, the NAAQS for a given 
pollutant.
    California has provided a compelling technical justification as to 
why the proposed SJVAB and East Kern nonattainment areas should be 
designated as separate PM-10 planning areas. A summary of the State's 
reasoning follows:
    Jurisdiction. The proposed SJVAB area is under the jurisdiction of 
the SJVAPCD and the proposed East Kern area is under the jurisdiction 
of the KCAPCD. The proposed revised designation will align the boundary 
along these jurisdictional lines. This realignment will make the air 
quality planning and implementation process more efficient and 
straightforward since the local air pollution control agencies, SJVAPCD 
and KCAPCD, can only adopt and implement plans and rules in the area 
for which they have jurisdiction.
    Geography. The East Kern area is in the MDAB, a different air basin 
than the SJVAB area; it is separated from the SJVAB area by the Sierra 
Nevada and Tehachapi Mountain Ranges at elevations up to 7,500 feet. 
The Kern River Valley and the Cummings Valley in the East Kern area are 
located at approximately 2600 feet and 3800 feet, respectively. These 
elevations are comparable to other areas in the MDAB and much higher 
than the average elevation in the western portion of Kern County in the 
SJVAB which is between 450 and 500 feet. Eastern Kern County, which 
includes the proposed East Kern nonattainment area, is a vast arid 
desert while the SJVAB portion of Kern County is part of the urbanized, 
agricultural, and industrial SJV. The mountains surrounding the SJVAB 
form a bowl trapping air pollutants in the SJVAB, but the East Kern 
area is located above the inversion layer which traps air pollutants in 
the SJVAB and thus, experiences different weather from the SJVAB.
    Population and Degree of Urbanization. There are no major or fast 
growing population centers in eastern Kern County. Eastern Kern County 
covers approximately 3800 square miles, with a total population of 
approximately 131,000 (in 2005) and a low population density of 
approximately 35 persons per square mile. In the last decade (1995-
2005), population increased by 15,000 persons. The Kern River Valley 
and Cummings Valley, which are in the East Kern area, are sparsely 
populated; the greater Lake Isabella region in the Kern River Valley 
has approximately 15,000 inhabitants; and the west Tehachapi area in 
the Cummings Valley has approximately 13,000 inhabitants. In contrast, 
the western portion of Kern County in the SJVAB extends over 4400 
square miles, includes the urban Bakersfield area, housed 640,000 
persons (in 2005), and has a population density of approximately 145 
persons per square mile, which is four times the population density of 
eastern Kern County. In the last decade, the total population in 
western Kern County grew by 136,000 persons, nine times the population 
growth in eastern Kern County.
    Employment and Traffic/Commuting Patterns. Eastern Kern County, 
which includes the proposed East Kern nonattainment area, is not 
strongly integrated economically with western Kern County. People tend 
to live and work in eastern Kern County, and because of its geographic 
isolation there is no convenient commute to cities outside the region. 
The economy of western Kern is largely based on the oil and 
agricultural industries. The primary employer in eastern Kern County is 
the Tehachapi State Prison. Due to the geographic isolation, there is 
no convenient commute to cities outside the area. In 2005, vehicles 
traveled approximately 5.1 million miles per day throughout eastern 
Kern County. In contrast, in western Kern County vehicles traveled 
approximately 19.8 million miles per day, close to 4 times the average 
travel in eastern Kern County. Also, eastern Kern residents are not 
dependent on western Kern for economic activities such as employment, 
shopping, or other services. There are no significant commute patterns 
from eastern Kern County into the SJVAB, the MDAB, or the South Coast 
Air Basin or vice versa.
    Emissions. There are only a handful of major emission sources in 
eastern Kern County, which includes the proposed East Kern area, and 
projected source and industrial growth is minimal. Total primary PM-10 
emissions as well as nitrogen oxide emissions (NOX), the 
main precursor of secondary PM-10 in the area, are declining. Major 
sources of primary PM-10 include the Tehachapi State Prison (11.5 tons 
per year (tpy) in 2005), followed by two aggregate operations (9.7 tpy 
and 8.5 tpy); the two largest NOX sources are the Tehachapi 
State Prison (12.8 tpy) and two natural gas pumps that lift water to 
Tehachapi (14.8 tpy and 12.2 tpy). In contrast, western Kern County 
houses 35 major sources of primary PM-10 with emissions over 10 tpy and 
47 major sources of NOX with emissions over 10 tpy. Compared 
to the entire SJV PM-10 nonattainment area, sources in all of eastern 
Kern County contributed only eight percent of the direct PM-10

[[Page 22310]]

emissions and eight percent of the NOX emissions in 2005.
    Air Quality. The chemical composition of PM-10 in eastern Kern 
County, which includes the proposed East Kern area, differs 
significantly from the PM-10 chemical composition in the SJVAB area. 
While dust is the main component of PM-10 in eastern Kern County, 
NOX has been determined to be the only significant precursor 
for the SJVAB area. 69 FR 30006. Currently there is no Federal 
Reference Method (FRM) or Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitoring of 
PM-10 in the East Kern area. However, there is an Interagency 
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitor located 
in the Kern River Valley. This IMPROVE monitor has, since February 
2000, consistently measured PM-10 concentrations far below the PM-10 
standard. A summary of the maximum PM-10 daily values at the IMPROVE 
monitor is provided in Table 1 below.

         Table 1.--Summary of Maximum PM-10 Daily Values for the Domelands IMPROVE Monitor ([mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                            1st max         2nd max         3rd max         4th max
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001............................................              33              33              32              32
2002............................................             109              53              49              49
2003............................................              66              42              37              37
2004............................................              52              50              47              45
2005............................................              21              14               6               5
2006............................................              39              36              35             34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: IMPROVE Web site, http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Default.htm

    Based on the factors set forth above, EPA has considered the 
State's request in accordance with the criteria listed in CAA section 
107(d)(3)(A). We find that the State has sufficiently demonstrated that 
the SJVAB and East Kern should be separate nonattainment areas because 
they lie in separate air basins, are under different local 
jurisdictions, have different population densities and growth levels, 
do not share commute patterns, have different emissions sources and 
have different types of air pollutants. Pursuant to CAA section 
107(d)(3)(D), EPA is therefore proposing to approve the State's request 
to revise the boundary designation of the existing SJV PM-10 
nonattainment area by splitting the area into two separate PM-10 
nonattainment areas, the SJVAB and East Kern.
    As explained below, we are further proposing to redesignate the 
SJVAB to attainment for PM-10. Pending further air quality monitoring 
and until such time as the East Kern nonattainment area meets the CAA 
requirements for redesignation, the East Kern area would be classified 
as a serious PM-10 nonattainment area. Thus the East Kern nonattainment 
area would retain the classification and nonattainment designation that 
applied to it when it was part of the SJV nonattainment area and would 
likewise retain the attainment determination applicable to that area. 
In order to address the serious area PM-10 statutory requirements, 
KCAPCD and CARB have made the enforceable commitments discussed in 
section V. below.

IV. Proposed Redesignation of the SJVAB to Attainment for the PM-10 
Standard

    On November 16, 2007, the State submitted to EPA the 2007 Plan 
which addresses PM-10 maintenance plan requirements and includes a 
discussion of how the SJVAB (i.e., the portion of the current 
nonattainment area under the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD) meets the CAA 
redesignation requirements.
    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA states that an area can be 
redesignated to attainment if the following conditions are met:
    (1) EPA has determined that the area has attained the NAAQS.
    (2) The applicable implementation plan has been fully approved by 
EPA under section 110(k) of the CAA.
    (3) EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality is due 
to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.
    (4) The State has met all applicable requirements for the area 
under section 110 and Part D of the CAA.
    (5) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including a 
contingency plan, for the area under section 175A of the CAA.
    These requirements are discussed in more detail in a September 4, 
1992 EPA Memorandum, ``Procedures for Processing Request to Redesignate 
Areas to Attainment, John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 
Division'' (Calcagni memo). We discuss how these requirements are met 
for the SJVAB in detail below.

A. EPA Has Determined That the Area Has Attained the NAAQS

    The Calcagni memo states that there are two components involved in 
meeting this requirement. The first component relies on an analysis of 
quality-assured ambient air quality data and an ambient air monitoring 
network that is representative of the area of highest concentrations. 
For PM-10 in the SJVAB, EPA has reviewed the ambient air quality data 
and determined and affirmed that the PM-10 NAAQS has been attained for 
the years 2003 through 2006. See 71 FR 40952, 71 FR 63642, 72 FR 49046 
and 73 FR 14687. These determinations also discuss the adequacy of the 
monitoring network for the SJVAB.
    EPA has also evaluated the air quality data in EPA's Air Quality 
System (AQS) database for 2007 and through February 2008. This data has 
been included in the docket for this proposed rule. A summary of the 
2005-2007 data is provided in Table 2 below.

                           Table 2.--Summary of 2005--2007 PM-10 Attainment Statistics
                               [Based on Federal Reference Method PM-10 monitors]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Observed three   Estimated 24-
                                                  year 24-hour        hour
                Monitoring site                  maximum ([mu]g/   exceedance           Attainment status
                                                      m\3\)           days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno-Drummond................................             132               0  Attainment.
Fresno-1st Street..............................             117               0  Attainment.

[[Page 22311]]


Clovis.........................................             116               0  Attainment.
Bakersfield-Golden State Highway...............             154               0  Attainment.
Bakersfield-California Ave.....................             153               0  Attainment.
Oildale........................................             145               0  Attainment.
Corcoran.......................................             140               0  Attainment.
Hanford........................................             142               0  Attainment.
Merced.........................................              94               0  Attainment.
Stockton-Hazelton..............................              82               0  Attainment.
Stockton-Wagner................................              69               0  Attainment.
Modesto........................................              96               0  Attainment.
Turlock........................................              97               0  Attainment.
Visalia........................................             141               0  Attainment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA Air Quality System (AQS) Database.

    One exceedance of the PM-10 standard was recorded at the 
Bakersfield-Golden FEM \6\ on July 4, 2007. The State has flagged this 
exceedance as being caused by an exceptional event, fourth of July 
fireworks celebrations. EPA has reviewed the documentation for this 
event and has concurred with the State's request. Letter from Wayne 
Nastri, EPA, to Mary D. Nichols, California Environmental Protection 
Agency, April 21, 2008. For 2008, one exceedance of the PM-10 standard 
was recorded also at the Bakersfield-Golden federal equivalent monitor 
\7\ on January 4. The State has flagged this exceedance as being caused 
by an exceptional event, high winds. EPA has reviewed the documentation 
for this event and has concurred with the State's request. Letter from 
Wayne Nastri, EPA, to Mary D. Nichols, California Environmental 
Protection Agency, April 21, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Bakersfield-Golden monitoring site includes a special 
purpose FEM known as a Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance 
(TEOM) continuous automated analyzer. The exceedances on July 4, 
2007 and January 4, 2008 were recorded on the TEOM. Data are 
collected at the site using both a TEOM, which provides continuous 
PM-10 data for public reporting purposes, and a high-volume FRM. The 
FRM operates at a less than everyday schedule, as allowed by EPA 
regulations, and was not operating on July 4, 2007 or January 4, 
2008.
    \7\ See footnote 6 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPA's Exceptional Events Rule, the Agency may exclude data 
from regulatory determinations related to exceedances or violations of 
the NAAQS if the state adequately demonstrates that an exceptional 
event caused the exceedance or violation. 40 CFR Sections 50.1, 50.14. 
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the concurrence letters, EPA is 
proposing to exclude data showing exceedances on July 4, 2007 and 
January 4, 2008 in determining whether the SJVAB has continued to 
attain the PM-10 standard in 2007 and through February 2008. The 
concurrence letters explain how the State has met its burden to 
demonstrate that these exceedances qualify as exceptional events. Thus, 
EPA believes that according to the ambient air monitoring data for the 
SJVAB, the PM-10 NAAQS has been attained.
    The second component that may be included in the showing that a PM-
10 area has met the requirement that the NAAQS has been attained 
involves an analysis using air quality modeling. This component is 
addressed under the maintenance plan requirements discussion below.

B. The Applicable Implementation Plan Has Been Fully Approved by EPA 
Under Section 110(k) of the CAA

    The Calcagni memo states that the SIP for the area must be fully 
approved under section 110(k) of the CAA and must satisfy all 
requirements that apply to the area. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As 
stated above, on August 19, 2003 and December 30, 2003, the State 
submitted the 2003 Plan. This plan addressed all applicable 
requirements for the SJV serious PM-10 nonattainment area. On May 24, 
2004, EPA approved all components of the 2003 Plan except for the 
plan's contingency measures. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in 
approving a redesignation request. See Calcagni memo, p. 3; 
Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 
989-990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2001). The 
contingency measure requirement under CAA section 172(c)(9) was 
subsequently suspended on October 30, 2006 pursuant to EPA's 
determination of attainment under its Clean Data Policy. See 71 FR 
63642, 63663. Thus, since contingency measures are no longer a required 
element for the SJVAB, all applicable requirements have been approved 
under 110(k) of the CAA. See also section IV.D. below.

C. EPA Has Determined That the Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to 
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions

    The Calcagni memo states that the state must be able to reasonably 
attribute the improvement in air quality to emission reductions which 
are permanent and enforceable, (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) and the 
improvement should not be a result of temporary reductions (e.g., 
economic downturns or shutdowns) or unusually favorable meteorology. In 
making this showing, the state should estimate the emission reductions 
from adopted and implemented Federal, State and local control measures, 
and consider the emission rates, production capacities, and other 
related information to show that the air quality improvements are the 
result of implemented controls.
    The 2007 Plan provides a discussion and comparison of the air 
quality, meteorology and emissions trends since 1990. See 2007 Plan, 
pp. 23-28. First, the 2007 Plan discusses the significant improvements 
in PM-10 air quality since 1990, noting that from 1990 to 1992 there 
were 33 estimated exceedance days, from 1998 to 2000 there were 5.9 
exceedance days and from 2002 to 2004 there were 2.9 exceedance days. 
Id. Next the 2007 Plan states that this improvement has occurred while 
air quality plans and regulations have been adopted and notes that in 
the late 1980's, before the adoption of plans and regulations, ``* * * 
it was not uncommon to have 50

[[Page 22312]]

or more estimated annual exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard 
[with] peak measurements well above 250 micrograms per cubic meter 
([mu]g/m\3\), and annual averages of 80 [mu]g/m\3\.'' Id.
    The 2007 Plan also states that since 1990 the Valley has 
experienced rapid economic growth, citing to increases in population 
and vehicle miles traveled (2007 Plan, p. 26, Figure 3), while at the 
same time the PM-10 and PM-10 precursor emissions were decreasing (2007 
Plan, p. 26, Figure 4). The 2007 Plan also did not find any major 
sector-wide shutdowns, identifying at most ``* * * about 2 tons per day 
of PM-10 reductions from shutdowns during the attainment period of 
interest.'' 2007 Plan, p. 25. Thus, it does not appear that the air 
quality improvements were due to any economic downturns or shutdowns.
    The 2007 Plan also provides an analysis of the meteorological 
conditions, including wind speeds, precipitation, temperature and 
atmospheric stability, to determine if there were any favorable 
meteorological conditions that may have led to the improvement in air 
quality during 2003-2006. 2007 Plan, p. 27 and Appendix C. The 2007 
Plan found that compared to long-term averages, the period from 2003 to 
2006 had: No variation in average annual wind speeds; a higher than 
average level of precipitation with two dry years (2003 and 2004) and 
two wet years (2005 and 2006); warmer than average temperatures; and a 
lower than average stability level. The higher than average 
precipitation would favor lower PM-10 levels, but it is important to 
note that 2003 and 2004 were in fact dry years, ranking 98th and 122nd 
in wetness over a period of 128 years (1878 to 2006). The higher than 
average temperature could have increased the potential for high PM-10 
levels, but the higher stability level could have decreased the 
potential by providing more dispersion. The 2007 Plan concludes that 
these analyses indicate that there is no consistent pattern to show 
that there was favorable meteorology leading to the improvement in PM-
10 levels during 2003 to 2006. Id.
    The 2007 Plan further states that the SJVAPCD has adopted over 500 
new rules and amendments since 1992, many of which are for the purpose 
of reducing PM-10 or PM-10 precursor emissions. The 2007 Plan shows 
that all of the rules and commitments in the 2003 Plan have been 
adopted by the SJVAPCD and many of them have been approved by EPA and 
are thus federally enforceable. The SJVAPCD has adopted rules which 
control NOX and PM-10 emissions from cotton gins, boilers, 
steam generators, and process heaters, agricultural sources, dryers, 
dehydrators and ovens, glass melting furnaces, fugitive dust sources, 
open burning and other source categories. 2007 Plan, p. 27 and Appendix 
B. In addition, the State has adopted measures to meet its commitments 
in the 2003 Plan to achieve 10 tons per day (tpd) of NOX 
reductions and 0.5 tpd of PM-10 reductions. 2007 Plan, p. 17. The air 
quality improvements described above can be attributed to the 
reductions in NOX and PM-10 emissions achieved by these 
measures.
    The 2007 Plan shows decreases in the emissions inventories for the 
SJVAB from approximately 1000 tpd in 2000 to approximately 900 tpd in 
2005 and to approximately 800 tpd in 2010. ARB Staff Report, Appendix 
B. As discussed further in Section E.1. below, the emissions 
inventories are a summary of all source categories in the SJVAB and are 
developed based on information about emission rates, production 
capacities, and other source-related information. The emissions 
inventories in the 2007 Plan also include reductions from adopted and 
implemented Federal, State and local control measures. ARB Staff 
Report, Appendix B.
    EPA believes that the 2007 Plan has demonstrated that the 
improvement in PM-10 air quality for the SJVAB is a result of permanent 
and enforceable reductions in emissions and the improvement is not a 
result of temporary reductions or unusually favorable meteorology. The 
fact that, as discussed above, there were no economic downturns, 
shutdowns or meteorology impacting air quality and that the number of 
exceedance days and the estimated emissions have decreased over time 
while the population and vehicle miles traveled in the SJVAB have 
increased shows that the improvement in air quality can reasonably be 
attributed to the adoption of air quality plans and regulations during 
this time.

D. The State Has Met All Applicable Requirements for the Area Under 
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA

    The Calcagni memo states that a state must meet those requirements 
of section 110 and part D of the CAA that were applicable prior to the 
submittal of the redesignation request. CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).
1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA Section 110
    The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, the following: Submittal of 
a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice 
and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate 
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a 
source permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C 
requirement for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD); 
provisions for the implementation of part D requirements for New Source 
Review (NSR) permit programs; provisions for air pollution modeling; 
and provisions for public and local agency participation in planning 
and emission control rule development.
    On numerous occasions over the past 35 years, CARB and the SJVAPCD 
have submitted and we have approved provisions addressing the basic CAA 
section 110 provisions. There are no outstanding or disapproved 
applicable section 110 SIP submittals with respect to the State and the 
SJVAPCD.\8\ We propose to conclude that CARB and SJVAPCD have met all 
SIP requirements for the SJVAB area applicable for purposes of 
redesignation under section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The applicable California SIP for the SJV nonattainment area 
can be found at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/
Casips?readform&count=100&state=California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, we note that SIPs must be fully approved only with 
respect to applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in 
accordance with CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). Thus, for example, CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to 
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air 
quality problems in another state. However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) 
requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment 
area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that 
the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's 
designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate 
in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal 
requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless 
of the designation of any one particular area in the state.
    Thus, we do not believe that these requirements should be construed 
to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. In 
addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not 
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an 
area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes 
of

[[Page 22313]]

redesignation. The State will still be subject to these requirements 
after the SJVAB area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D 
requirements, which are linked to a particular area's designation and 
classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a 
redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing 
policy on applicability of the conformity SIP requirement for 
redesignations. See Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and final 
rulemakings at 61 FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24816 (May 
7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking at 61 FR 20458 
(May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking at 60 FR 62748 
(December 7, 1995). See also the discussion of this issue in the 
Cincinnati redesignation at 65 FR 37890 (June 19, 2000), and in the 
Pittsburgh redesignation at 66 FR 50399 (October 19, 2001). EPA 
believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's 
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
2. SIP Requirements Under Part D
    Subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title 1 of the CAA contain air quality 
planning requirements for PM-10 nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 of part 
D contains general requirements for areas designated as nonattainment. 
Subpart 4 of part D contains specific planning and scheduling 
requirements for particulate matter nonattainment areas. Subpart 4 of 
part D, section 189(a), (b) and (c) requirements apply to moderate and 
serious PM-10 nonattainment areas and 189(d) applies to areas which 
failed to attain by their serious area deadline. These requirements 
include: (1) An approved permit program for construction of new and 
modified major stationary sources; (2) provisions to ensure that 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) and reasonably available 
control measures (RACM) are implemented; (3) provisions to ensure that 
best available control measures (BACM) are implemented; (4) 
quantitative milestones to be achieved every 3 years and which 
demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment by the 
applicable attainment date; (5) provisions to ensure that the control 
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply 
to major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors except where the 
Administrator determined that such sources do not contribute 
significantly to PM-10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area; 
and(6) a demonstration of attainment and an annual PM-10 or PM-10 
precursor reduction of not less than five percent from the most recent 
emission inventory until attainment.
    In addition to these specific requirements for serious PM-10 
nonattainment areas, nonattainment areas must also meet the general 
planning requirements in subpart 1, section 172(c). These requirements 
include, among other things, provisions for the implementation of RACT, 
RFP, emissions inventories, and contingency measures.
    For the SJVAB, EPA determined that these requirements were met in 
its approval of the 2003 Plan with the exception of the contingency 
measure requirement that was subsequently suspended by the 
determination of attainment in accordance with EPA's Clean Data Policy 
and the NSR permit program for construction of new and modified major 
stationary sources. 69 FR 30006 and 71 FR 63642.
    EPA fully approved SJVAPCD NSR rules 2020 and 2201 on May 17, 2004 
(69 FR 27837). Recently we proposed to: (1) Correct aspects of that 
approval, and (2) approve revisions to the NSR rules that explicitly 
exempt certain small or minor agricultural sources from permitting 
requirements. 73 FR 9260 (February 20, 2008). In this proposed 
rulemaking, we stated that ``we believe that the adoption of the 
proposed revisions in place of the SIP as proposed to be corrected 
would not result in any change in emissions, any change in air quality, 
or any change in the area's ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS. 
Accordingly, we conclude that this SIP revision, if approved, will not 
interfere with any applicable requirements for attainment and 
reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the 
CAA and is approvable under section 110(l).'' 73 FR 9265.
    Although the SJVAPCD NSR program has been approved, and we have 
proposed approval of revisions to the rule, we also note that final 
approval of the NSR revisions is not a necessary prerequisite to 
finalizing our proposed approval of the State's redesignation request. 
EPA has determined in past redesignations that a NSR program does not 
have to be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area 
demonstrates maintenance of the standard without part D NSR in effect. 
The rationale for this position is described in a memorandum from Mary 
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 
14, 1994, entitled ``Part D NSR Requirements or Areas Requesting 
Redesignation to Attainment.'' See the more detailed explanations in 
the following redesignation rulemakings: Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-
12468, March 7, 1996); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-
20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, 53669, October 23, 
2001); Grand Rapids, MI (61 FR 31831, 31836-31837, June 21, 1996).
    The requirements of the PSD program will apply once the area has 
been redesignated. Thus, new major sources with significant PM-10 
emissions and major modifications of PM-10 at major sources as defined 
under 40 CFR 52.21 will be required to obtain a PSD permit. Currently, 
EPA is the PSD permitting authority in the SJVAB under a Federal 
implementation plan. See 40 CFR 52.270. However, the SJVAPCD can 
implement the Federal PSD program through a delegation agreement with 
EPA or, assuming that the SJVAPCD makes necessary modifications to its 
PSD rules, under an EPA-approved rule.
    With respect to the conformity requirement, section 176(c) of the 
CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that 
Federally supported or funded projects ``conform'' to the air quality 
planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine 
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects 
developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal 
Transit Act (``transportation conformity'') as well as to other 
Federally supported or funded projects (``general conformity''). State 
conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity 
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability 
that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate.
    EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP 
requirements as not applying for purposes of a redesignation request 
under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required 
after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where state 
rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265f 3d 426 (6th Cir. 
2001), upholding this interpretation. See, also, 60 FR 62748 (December 
7, 1995).
    Thus, EPA concludes that the State has met all requirements 
applicable under section 110 and part D for the SJVAB for purposes of 
redesignation. CAA Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).

E. EPA Has Fully Approved a Maintenance Plan, Including a Contingency 
Plan, for the Area Under Section 175A of the CAA

    Section 175A of the CAA provides the requirements for maintenance 
plans. These requirements are further clarified in the Calcagni memo. 
The provisions to be included in maintenance plans are:

[[Page 22314]]

    (1) An attainment emissions inventory to identify the level of 
emissions in the area sufficient to attain the NAAQS;
    (2) A demonstration of maintenance of the NAAQS for 10 years after 
redesignation;
    (3) Verification of continued attainment through operation of an 
appropriate air quality monitoring network; and
    (4) Contingency provisions that EPA deems necessary to assure that 
the State will promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs 
after redesignation of the area. We discuss how these requirements are 
met for the SJVAB below.
1. An Attainment Emissions Inventory To Identify the Level of Emissions 
in the Area Sufficient To Attain the NAAQS
    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires all plan submittals to 
include a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual 
emissions from all sources in the nonattainment area. In demonstrating 
maintenance in accordance with CAA section 175A and the Calcagni memo, 
the state should provide an attainment emissions inventory to identify 
the level of emissions in the area sufficient to attain the NAAQS. 
Where the state has made an adequate demonstration that air quality has 
improved as a result of the SIP, the attainment inventory will 
generally be an inventory of actual emissions at the time the area 
attained the standard. EPA's primary guidance in evaluating these 
inventories is the document entitled, ``PM-10 Emissions Inventory 
Requirements,'' EPA, OAQPS, EPA-454/R-94-033 (September 1994) which can 
be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/pm10eir.pdf.
    The 2007 Plan includes detailed emissions inventories for 
NOX, directly emitted PM-10, volatile organic compounds 
(VOC) and oxides of sulfur (SOX).\9\ The emissions 
inventories are projected from a 2002 baseyear inventory because it was 
the most comprehensive inventory available. The baseyear inventory 
meets the CAA requirement for a comprehensive, accurate and current 
inventory and is used as the basis for forecasting future year 
inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The 2007 Plan's emissions inventories are found in Appendix 
B of the ARB Staff Report. As mentioned above and in the ARB Staff 
Report, the State ``* * * updated the attainment inventory * * * to 
reflect emission reductions achieved by ARB adopted measures that 
had not been accounted for'' before submitting the 2007 Plan to EPA 
on November 16, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2007 Plan includes projected inventories for 2005, 2010 and 
2020 for NOX, PM-10, VOC and SOX. The baseyear 
and projected year inventories all include a detailed breakdown of the 
stationary and mobile source emissions categories. The emissions for 
each of the categories are estimated based on the best available 
information on number of sources, size of sources, growth, control 
measures, emissions factors, and other criteria.
    The 2007 Plan selects the 2005 PM-10 and NOX inventories 
as the attainment emission inventories because the SJV nonattainment 
area first attained the PM-10 standard during 2003-2005 (and continues 
to attain the standard through February 2008). 2007 Plan, pp. 5-6. The 
2007 Plan also includes inventories for VOC and SOx; however, EPA has 
determined that NOX is the only significant PM-10 precursor 
for the SJV nonattainment area and thus the proposed SJVAB. 69 FR 
30006. Table 3 summarizes the 2007 Plan's NOX and PM-10 
emissions.

        Table 3.--Annual PM-10 and NOX Emissions (Tons Per Day) 2007 Plan (ARB Staff Report, Appendix B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2005            2010            2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM-10...........................................................             284             282             290
NOX.............................................................             606             521             328
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NOX emission inventory continues to be reduced 
substantially in the future. While the PM-10 emission inventory is 
projected to increase slightly in 2020, we believe the increase is 
insignificant when compared to the substantial NOX 
decreases. See 2007 Plan, pp. 5-6 and Appendix B of the ARB Staff 
Report.
    EPA believes that the selection of 2005 for the attainment year 
inventory and 2020 for the maintenance year inventory is appropriate 
since the SJVAB was determined to have attained the PM-10 NAAQS in 
2005. We have reviewed the 2007 Plan's attainment year and maintenance 
year emissions inventories and determined that they are accurate and 
comprehensive and meet the requirements of EPA guidance and the CAA.
2. A Demonstration of Maintenance of the NAAQS for 10 Years After 
Redesignation
    Section 175A of the CAA requires a demonstration of maintenance of 
the NAAQS for 10 years after designation. A state may generally 
demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future 
emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level of 
the attainment inventory, or by modeling to show that the future 
anticipated mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a 
violation of the NAAQS. Under the Act, the showing should be based on 
the same level of modeling used for the attainment demonstration 
required as part of the approved attainment plan.
    Consistent with EPA's modeling guidance (The Guideline on Air 
Quality Models (GAQM), 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W and the PM-10 SIP 
Development Guideline (PMSDG), EPA 450/2-86-001, June 1987), the 2003 
Plan's attainment demonstration was based on the use of two receptor 
models: Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) and rollback. 69 FR 5412, 5424-5425 
and 69 FR 30006. The 2007 Plan also uses CMB and rollback to 
demonstrate maintenance of the 24-hour PM-10 standard until 2020.\10\ 
See 2007 Plan, pp. 6-11. The results of the modeling show that all 
monitoring sites in the SJVAB nonattainment area will be below the 
NAAQS in 2020, with the highest projected value of 134 [mu]g/m\3\ at 
Bakersfield-Golden and Corcoran. See 2007 Plan, Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 2007 Plan also includes a maintenance demonstration for 
the annual PM-10 standard; however, the annual PM-10 standard was 
revoked effective December 18, 2006. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). 
Therefore we do not address this demonstration here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the modeling for the maintenance plan, the 2007 Plan 
shows that total annual emissions of NOX will decrease from 
606 tpd in 2005 to 521 tpd in 2010 and 328 tpd in 2020 and total annual 
emissions of PM-10 will decrease from 284 tpd in 2005 to 282 tpd in 
2010 and slightly increase to 290 tpd in 2020. As discussed above, the 
emissions inventories meet EPA

[[Page 22315]]

requirements and the general decline in inventories provides assurance 
that the SJVAB will maintain its attainment levels through 2020.
    Based on our review of the information presented in the 2007 Plan, 
we believe that the State has met EPA requirements for demonstrating 
maintenance of the PM-10 standard for the SJVAB.
3. Verification of Continued Attainment Through Operation of an 
Appropriate Air Quality Monitoring Network
    In demonstrating maintenance, continued attainment of the NAAQS can 
be verified through operation of an appropriate air quality monitoring 
network. The Calcagni memo states that the maintenance plan should 
contain provisions for continued operation of air quality monitors that 
will provide such verification. The memo also states that states should 
ensure that they have the legal authority to implement and enforce all 
measures necessary to attain and to maintain the NAAQS. Finally, the 
memo states that the state submittal should indicate how it will track 
the progress of the maintenance plan (e.g., with periodic emissions 
inventory updates or modeling input updates) and monitor the triggers 
for contingency measures.
    In the 2007 Plan the SJVAPCD commits to continued operation of its 
air quality monitoring network for verification of attainment. See 2007 
Plan, pp. 12-13. The SJVAPCD's authority to continue operating after 
redesignation to attainment is provided for in the California Health 
and Safety Code sections 40150 and 40161. Id. at 15. The SJVAPCD also 
plans to verify continued attainment of the PM-10 standard through an 
annual report to its Board which will include, among other things, 
tracking of adoption and implementation of control measures, tracking 
of air quality data and comparison of predicted versus current 
emissions reductions estimates. Id. As discussed further below, since 
the SJVAPCD has selected a contingency measure trigger that is based on 
ambient air quality levels, the continued operation of the monitoring 
network and tracking of its data will provide adequate notice of when 
contingency measures are needed.
4. Contingency Provisions to Promptly Correct Any Violation of the 
NAAQS That Occurs After Redesignation of the Area
    Contingency provisions are required under section 175A of the CAA. 
These contingency measures are distinguished from those generally 
required for nonattainment areas under section 172(c)(9) in that they 
are not required to be fully adopted measures that will take effect 
without further action by the State in order for the maintenance plan 
to be approved. The Calcagni memo states that the contingency 
provisions of the maintenance plan should clearly identify the measures 
to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and 
implementation, and a specific time limit for action by the state. The 
memo also states that the contingency provisions should identify 
indicators or triggers which will be used to determine when the 
contingency measures need to be implemented. While the memo suggests 
inventory or monitoring indicators, it states that contingency 
provisions will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Finally, the 
Calcagni memo states that the contingency provisions must require the 
state to implement all measures contained in the part D nonattainment 
plan for the area prior to redesignation.
    The 2007 Plan selects an action level or trigger based on an 
exceedance of the PM-10 NAAQS of 155 [mu]g/m\3\.\11\ See 2007 Plan, p. 
16. In addition, the District may also consider other factors such as a 
succession of values just below but near the level of the PM-10 
standard. Id. EPA believes that an exceedance of 155 [mu]g/m\3\ is an 
appropriate trigger level. The SJVAB has several continuous PM-10 
monitors, and a single measurement of 155 [mu]g/m\3\ at one of these 
monitors would not constitute a violation of the PM-10 NAAQS. Even if a 
measurement of 155 [mu]g/m\3\ is recorded at a one-in-six day FEM, a 
violation is not necessarily being recorded as the State might need to 
evaluate the possibility that the measurement is due to an exceptional 
event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ An exceedance is defined as a daily value that is above the 
level of the 24-hour standard (150 [mu]g/m\3\) after rounding to the 
nearest 10 [mu]g/m\3\ (i.e. values ending in 5 or greater are to be 
rounded up). Thus, a recorded value of 154 [mu]g/m\3\ would not be 
an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150 [mu]g/m\3\ whereas a 
recorded value of 155 [mu]g/m\3\ would be an exceedance since it 
would be rounded to 160 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, 
section 1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2007 Plan states that if the SJVAB monitors an exceedance of 
155 [mu]g/m\3\, the District commits to take appropriate action within 
18 months of the exceedance date. This action will first involve a 
determination of whether the exceedance was due to an exceptional event 
in accordance with EPA's Exceptional Events Rule and an analysis of 
what caused the exceedance and the necessary controls to address it. 
Id. If the exceedance is not due to an exceptional event, the District 
commits to determine the possible causes of the exceedance and to 
determine if emissions reductions from adopted measures that are not 
needed to maintain the PM-10 NAAQS are available to serve as 
contingency measures. These measures can be found in the SJVAPCD's 2007 
Ozone Plan (April 30, 2007) and the SJVAPCD's Proposed 2008 PM2.5 Plan 
(March 13, 2008) and include more stringent controls on open burning, 
gas turbines, boilers, glass melting, residential water heaters, wood 
burning fireplaces and heaters and commercial charbroiling. See Table 
6-1 of SJVAPCD's 2007 Ozone Plan and Table 6-3 of SJVAPCD's Proposed 
2008 PM2.5 Plan.
    If there are no reductions available from adopted measures, the 
District commits in the 2007 Plan to proceed with identifying control 
measures from feasibility studies such as those found in its 2007 Ozone 
Plan and Proposed 2008 PM2.5 Plan (see Table 6-2 of 2007 Ozone Plan and 
Table 6-5 of Proposed PM2.5 Plan) and prioritize measures most relevant 
for reducing PM-10 emissions. 2007 Plan, pp. 16-17. The SJVAPCD has 
also provided clarification that if additional control measures are 
necessary, the SJVAPCD will adopt and implement the control measures 
within the 18-month timeframe for appropriate action. Letter from Seyed 
Sadredin, SJVAPCD, to Deborah Jordan, EPA, April 17, 2008.
    Finally, the 2007 Plan states that the State, District and local 
governments have adopted and implemented all measures in the 2003 Plan. 
2007 Plan, p. 17 and Appendix B.
    Based on the discussion above and EPA's review of the 2007 Plan, we 
believe the plan adequately addresses the contingency measure 
requirement under section 175A of the CAA.
Conclusion
    Based on our review of the 2007 Plan, and for the reasons discussed 
above, we conclude that the CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements for 
redesignation to attainment and an approvable maintenance plan for the 
SJVAB have been met. We are therefore proposing to approve the 2007 
Plan as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and 
proposing to redesignate the SJVAB nonattainment area to attainment for 
the PM-10 NAAQS.

F. Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans, programs and 
projects in the nonattainment or maintenance areas that are funded or

[[Page 22316]]

approved under title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 53) must conform to the applicable SIP. In short, a 
transportation plan and program are deemed to conform to the applicable 
SIP if the emissions resulting from the implementation of that 
transportation plan and program are less than or equal to the motor 
vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) established in the SIP for the 
attainment year, maintenance year and other analysis years. See, 
generally, 40 CFR part 93.
    The 2007 Plan provides for attainment year MVEBs for 2005 and 
maintenance year MVEBs for 2020.\12\ The 2005 attainment year MVEBs 
will replace the current MVEBs for 2008 and 2010 from the 2003 Plan. 
See 40 CFR 93.118(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See footnotes 2 and 9 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before an emissions budget in a submitted SIP revision may be used 
in a conformity determination, we must first determine that it is 
adequate. The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor 
vehicle emissions budgets are adequate for transportation conformity 
purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). We have described our 
process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in the 
preamble to revisions to EPA's conformity regulations. 69 FR 40004 
(July 1, 2004). Applicability of emission trading between conformity 
budgets for conformity purposes is described in 40 CFR 93.124(b).
1. CARB Methodology for Estimating PM-10 in the Emissions Budgets
    CARB's mobile source emission model, EMFAC2007, was used to 
estimate direct PM-10 and NOX emissions from motor vehicles 
in the 2007 Plan. EMFAC2007 was approved by EPA on January 18, 2007 (72 
FR 733464), for use in SIPs and transportation conformity analyses. 
EMFAC2007 produces emissions for a wide range of motor vehicles 
(passenger cars, trucks, motorcycles, buses and motor homes) for 
calendar years out to 2040. Particulate emissions include tire and 
brake wear as well as vehicle exhaust and evaporative emissions.
    The methodology used in the 2007 Plan to estimate fugitive dust 
(e.g., paved and unpaved road emissions) is consistent with the methods 
previously approved in EPA's action on the 2003 Plan. 69 FR 30006 and 
69 FR 5412, 5414. No further action is required to approve these 
methodologies for use in future transportation conformity 
determinations in the SJVAB.
2. Adequacy of the 2007 Plan's Budgets
    The 2007 Plan includes county by county subarea motor vehicle 
emissions budgets for 2005 and 2020 for direct PM-10 and 
NOX. The 2007 Plan budgets are first summarized in Table 6, 
``Revised Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the Attainment Year, (tons 
per average annual day),'' and in Table 7, ``Motor Vehicle Emission 
Budgets for Maintenance of PM10 NAAQS, (tons per average annual day),'' 
of the 2007 Plan; however, these estimates were updated by CARB, based 
on updated vehicle activity data, and the updated budgets were included 
in the ARB Staff Report (p. 12) as part of the 2007 Plan submittal to 
EPA. Thus, the budgets found on page 12 of ARB Staff Report supercede 
the budgets in Tables 6 and 7 of the locally adopted 2007 Plan. See 
November 16, 2007 submittal letter from James N. Goldstene, CARB, to 
Wayne Nastri, EPA, enclosure ``V. Updated transportation conformity 
budgets and supporting documentation.'' Table 4 below reflects the 
updated and submitted transportation conformity budgets for the 2007 
Plan. The direct PM-10 budgets include emissions of re-entrained dust 
from motor vehicle travel on paved and unpaved roads, vehicular 
exhaust, vehicle brake and tire wear, and emissions from highway and 
transit project construction. The emissions budgets for NOX 
include only exhaust from on-road vehicles. Since the 2007 Plan does 
not consider VOC to be a significant contributor to the PM-10 
nonattainment problem, in accordance with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iii), no 
VOC budgets are included. Additional details regarding the budgets are 
presented in the 2007 Plan, Appendix D, ``Detailed Conformity 
Calculations.''
    Based on our evaluation of the criteria outlined in section 
93.118(e)(4) of the conformity rule, EPA proposes to find the PM-10 and 
NOX motor vehicle emissions budgets contained in the 2007 
Plan (and in Table 4 below) adequate and proposes to approve them. EPA 
proposes to approve the budgets because they come from a SIP which EPA 
concludes demonstrates timely attainment and maintenance and the 
budgets are consistent with all of the control measures assumed in the 
attainment demonstration and maintenance plan. We also find adequate 
and propose to approve the individual county level subarea budgets for 
NOX and PM-10, as shown in Table 4 below, consistent with 
section 93.124(d), which allows for a nonattainment area with more than 
one Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to establish subarea 
emission budgets for each MPO or make a collective conformity 
determination for the entire nonattainment area. Note that, if an 
individual MPO cannot show conformity to its individual county budget, 
then the remaining MPOs in the SJVAB cannot make any new conformity 
determinations.\13\ If approved, the 2005 and 2020 motor vehicle 
emissions budgets must be used for transportation conformity purposes. 
As mentioned earlier, the county subarea motor vehicle emissions 
budgets that EPA is proposing to approve are listed in Table 4 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ CAA section 176(c) states that conformity applies to SIPs 
in nonattainment and maintenance areas, rather than individual 
metropolitan planning areas within a single state. When subarea 
budgets area created for each MPO, the sum of the subarea budgets 
equals the total amount of emissions the area can have from the 
transportation sector and still attain and maintain the NAAQS. When 
one subarea lapses, then the other MPOs cannot show that their 
planned transportation activities would conform to the SIP for the 
whole area until the lapse is resolved. See ``Companion Guidance for 
the July 1, 2004, Final Transportation Conformity Rule: Conformity 
Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance 
Areas for Existing and New Air Quality Standards'' (EPA 420-B-04-
012).

               Table 4.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Subarea Budgets (Tons Per Day) 2007 PM-10 Plan *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2005                            2020
                     County                      ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       PM-10            NOx            PM-10            NOx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno..........................................            13.5            59.2            16.1            23.2
Kern **.........................................            12.1            88.3            14.7            39.5
Kings...........................................             3.1            16.7             3.6             6.8
Madera..........................................             3.6            13.9             4.7             6.5
Merced..........................................             6.2            39.2             6.5            13.9
San Joaquin.....................................             9.1            42.6            10.6            16.7
Stanislaus......................................             5.6            29.7             6.7            10.7

[[Page 22317]]


Tulare..........................................             7.3            25.1             9.3            10.1
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................            60.5           314.7            72.2          127.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The budgets are based on attainment and maintenance of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS.
** MVEBs in Table 2 are only for the SJVAB portion of Kern County.

3. Trading Mechanism
    Transportation conformity is demonstrated for each county in the 
SJVAB when emissions for both PM-10 and NOX are estimated to 
be below the motor vehicle emission budgets for each pollutant for all 
analysis years. However, for analysis years beyond 2010, in our prior 
approval of the 2003 Plan, we approved a trading mechanism that allows 
emissions to be traded from NOX to PM-10 budgets. 69 FR 
30006 and 69 FR 5412, 5414.
    The trading mechanism specified that if, after including reductions 
from additional measures, the direct PM-10 budget still cannot be met, 
an MPO could adjust (i.e., increase) its PM-10 subarea budget by 
trading from its NOX budget. This trade from the 
NOX subarea budget to the PM-10 subarea budget can only 
occur if the estimated emissions of NOX from the planned 
transportation network are less than the NOX subarea budget 
for a given analysis year. The 1.5 tpd NOX to 1 tpd PM-10 
ratio would be used, as follows, to determine the NOX 
reductions needed to offset the excess direct PM-10 emissions:

(PM-10 estimate--PM-10 budget) * 1.5 = tpd of NOX reductions 
needed to offset excess PM-10

    A subarea has demonstrated conformity if, after trading, the 
estimates of NOX and PM-10 emissions from the planned 
transportation network are at or below the adjusted NOX and 
direct PM-10 budgets. For every analysis year, and in each subsequent 
conformity determination, the transportation agency must repeat these 
steps to determine whether the budgets can be met, or whether they need 
to be adjusted using this trading mechanism.
    The 2007 Plan requests that this trading mechanism remain 
unchanged, but available for use after 2005, the revised attainment 
year. Since the first analysis year, for conformity purposes, will be 
2010, EPA is proposing to continue to approve use of the trading 
mechanism for conformity analysis years after 2005. As stated in the 
2003 Plan approval (69 FR 5412, 5414-5417; 69 FR 30006), EPA continues 
to believe that trading mechanisms cannot be reviewed through the 
adequacy process, and instead need full EPA approval before they can be 
used.

V. Proposed Commitments for East Kern

    In order to address CAA requirements for the East Kern 
nonattainment area, the State submitted on February 29, 2008 
enforceable commitments to install a FRM/FEM in East Kern and if a 
violation is recorded to submit the appropriate SIP. Specifically, the 
State submitted a resolution approved by the Governing Board of the 
KCAPCD on February 27, 2008 committing to, with assistance from the 
State, install a FRM/FEM. Kern County Air Pollution Control Board 
Resolution 2008-001-02. Further, the resolution states that the KCAPCD 
will develop for submittal through the State to EPA, a serious 
nonattainment area SIP that meets the requirements of CAA section 189 
in the event of a violation of the PM-10 standard. Id. On March 3, 
2008, CARB's Executive Officer issued Executive Order S-08-004 
approving as a SIP revision the KCAPCD commitments and committing to 
submit a SIP addressing section 189 in the event that the area violates 
the PM-10 standard. Given the low concentrations recorded at the 
IMPROVE monitor and the relatively minimal expected growth, we believe 
this is a reasonable approach for the area.

VI. Proposed Actions

    Based on our review of the State's request, EPA believes the State 
has addressed all the necessary requirements for a revised designation 
and is proposing to approve the State's request under section 
107(d)(3)(D) to revise the designation for the SJV PM-10 nonattainment 
area by splitting the area into two separate serious PM-10 
nonattainment areas, the SJVAB PM-10 nonattainment area and the East 
Kern PM-10 nonattainment area. Also, based on EPA's review of the 2007 
Plan submitted by the State, EPA believes that the CAA requirements 
under section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignations and section 175A for 
maintenance plans have been met for the SJVAB and EPA is therefore 
proposing to redesignate the newly created serious SJVAB nonattainment 
area to attainment for the PM-10 NAAQS and to approve the SJVAPCD's PM-
10 maintenance plan, budgets and conformity trading mechanism for the 
area. EPA is also proposing to exclude from use in determining that the 
SJVAB has attained the PM-10 NAAQS two exceedances that it has 
concluded were caused by exceptional events on July 4, 2007 and January 
4, 2008. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve commitments from KCAPCD 
and CARB to install a FRM/FED in the newly created East Kern serious 
PM-10 nonattainment area and to address section 189(d) CAA requirements 
for it in the event the FRM/FED records a violation of the PM-10 
standard.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
action merely proposes to approve a revised boundary designation, a 
redesignation to attainment for the SJVAB, a maintenance plan for the 
SJVAB, motor vehicle emissions budgets and conformity trading mechanism 
for the area and commitments for East Kern, all of which are either 
requested or submitted by the State, and does not impose any additional 
requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this proposed rule does not impose 
any additional enforceable duty, it does not contain any unfunded 
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small

[[Page 22318]]

governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4).
    Executive Order 13175 (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.'' Seven Indian tribes have reservations 
located within the boundaries of the proposed SJVAB. EPA plans to 
consult with representatives of the seven Tribes and will continue to 
work with the Tribes, as provided for in Executive Order 13175. 
Accordingly, EPA has addressed Executive Order 13175 to the extent that 
it applies to this action. This proposed action also does not have 
Federalism implications because it does 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, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This proposed 
action merely proposes to approve requests or submittals from the State 
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. Executive Order 12898 
establishes a Federal policy for incorporating environmental justice 
into Federal agency actions by directing agencies to identify and 
address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority and low-income populations. Today's action 
involves proposed approvals of a revised boundary designation, a 
redesignation to attainment for the SJVAB, a maintenance plan for the 
SJVAB, motor vehicle emissions budgets and conformity trading mechanism 
for the area and commitments for East Kern. It will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse effects on any communities in the 
area, including minority and low-income communities.
    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant. The requirements of section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do 
not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Parts 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

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

     Dated: April 21, 2008.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
 [FR Doc. E8-9139 Filed 4-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
