
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41338-41363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17196]



[[Page 41337]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 134

July 13, 2011

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 52





Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; 2008 San 
Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy; Proposed Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 41338]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516; FRL-9434-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; 
2008 San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part 
state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by California to 
provide for attainment of the 1997 fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards in the San 
Joaquin Valley (SJV). These SIP revisions are the SJV 2008 
PM2.5 Plan (revised 2010 and 2011) and SJV-related 
provisions of the 2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011). EPA is 
proposing to approve the emissions inventories; air quality modeling; 
the reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control 
technology, reasonable further progress, and attainment demonstrations; 
and the transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA 
is also proposing to grant California's request to extend the 
attainment deadline for the SJV to April 5, 2015 and to approve 
commitments to measures and reductions by the SJV Air Pollution Control 
District and the California Air Resources Board. Finally, it is 
proposing to disapprove the SIP's contingency measures. This proposed 
rule amends EPA's November 30, 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 74518) on the 
SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy.

DATES: Any comments must be received on or before August 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0516, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions.
     E-mail: wicher.frances@epa.gov.
     Mail or deliver: Frances Wicher, 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 
for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you 
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as 
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, and 
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comments. If you send e-mail directly to 
EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as 
part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comments due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comments.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 9, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in 
the docket are listed in the index, some may be publicly available only 
at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material) and some may not 
be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 
hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal 
business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section below.
    Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at 
the following locations:
     California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, 
California 95812.
     San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 1990 E. 
Gettysburg, Fresno, California 93726.
    The SIP materials are also electronically available at: http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/PM_Plans.htm and http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office 
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 972-
3957, wicher.frances@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. The PM2.5 NAAQS and the San Joaquin Valley 
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
II. California State Implementation Plan Submittals To Address 
PM2.5 Nonattainment in the San Joaquin Valley
    A. California's SIP Submittals
    1. SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan
    2. CARB 2007 State Strategy
    3. CARB 2011 Progress Report
    B. CAA Procedural Requirements for SIP Submittals
III. EPA's 2010 Proposed Action on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP
IV. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for PM2.5 Attainment 
SIPs
V. Review of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the SJV Portion 
of the Revised 2007 State Strategy
    A. Emissions Inventories
    1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories
    2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV PM2.5 SIP
    3. Proposed Action on the Emissions Inventories
    B. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available 
Control Technology Demonstration and Adopted Control Strategy
    1. Requirements for RACM/RACT
    2. RACM/RACT Demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 SIP
    a. The District's RACM/RACT Analysis and Adopted Control 
Strategy
    b. CARB's RACM Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy
    c. The Local Jurisdictions' RACM Analysis
    3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT Demonstration and Adopted 
Control Strategy
    C. Attainment Demonstration
    1. Requirements for Attainment Demonstrations
    2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan
    3. PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors Addressed in the 
SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP
    4. Extension of the Attainment Date
    5. Attainment Demonstration
    a. Enforceable Commitments
    i. The Commitment Represents a Limited Portion of Required 
Reductions
    ii. The State Is Capable of Fulfilling Its Commitment
    iii. The Commitment Is for a Reasonable and Appropriate 
Timeframe
    6. Proposed Action on the Attainment Demonstration
    D. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration
    1. Requirements for RFP
    2. The RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan
    3. Proposed Action on the RFP Demonstration
    E. Contingency Measures
    1. Requirements for Contingency Measures
    2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan
    3. Proposed Action on the Contingency Measures
    F. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
    1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
    2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2008 
PM2.5 Plan
    3. Updated Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the 2011 Progress 
Report and Proposed Revisions
    4. Proposed Action on the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
    5. Proposed Action on the Trading Mechanism
VI. EPA's Proposed Actions and Potential Consequences

[[Page 41339]]

    A. EPA's Proposed Approvals and Disapprovals
    B. CAA Consequences of a Final Disapproval
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The PM2.5 NAAQS and the San Joaquin Valley 
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established new national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5, particulate 
matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, including annual 
standards of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) based on a 
3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations and 24-
hour (daily) standards of 65 [micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of 
the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 40 CFR 50.7. EPA 
established these standards after considering substantial evidence from 
numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are 
associated with exposures to PM2.5 concentrations above the 
levels of these standards.
    Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant 
correlations between elevated PM2.5 levels and premature 
mortality. Other important health effects associated with 
PM2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and 
cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions, 
emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restricted 
activity days), changes in lung function and increased respiratory 
symptoms, as well as new evidence for more subtle indicators of 
cardiovascular health. Individuals particularly sensitive to 
PM2.5 exposure include older adults, people with heart and 
lung disease, and children. See EPA, Air Quality Criteria for 
Particulate Matter, No. EPA/600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/P-99/002bF, 
October 2004.
    PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a 
solid or liquid particle (primary PM2.5 or direct 
PM2.5) or can be formed in the atmosphere as a result of 
various chemical reactions from precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides, 
sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia (secondary 
PM2.5). See 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007).
    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required 
by Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the 
nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On January 5, 2005, EPA 
published initial air quality designations for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS, using air quality monitoring data for the 
three-year periods of 2001-2003 or 2002-2004. 70 FR 944. These 
designations became effective on April 5, 2005.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On October 17, 2006, EPA strengthened the 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 [micro]g/m\3\. At 
the same time, it retained the level of the annual PM2.5 
standards at 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\. 71 FR 61144. On November 13, 2009, 
EPA designated areas, including the SJV, with respect to the revised 
24-hour NAAQS. 74 FR 58688. California is now required to submit an 
attainment plan for the 35 [micro]g/m\3\ 24-hour standards no later 
than 3 years after the effective date of the designation, that is, 
no later than December 14, 2012. In this preamble, all references to 
the PM2.5 NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, are to the 
1997 24-hour PM2.5 standards of 65 [micro]g/m\3\ and 
annual standards of 15 [micro]g/m\3\ as codified in 40 CFR 50.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) nonattainment for both 
the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. 40 CFR Sec.  
81.305. The SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area is home to 4 
million people and is the nation's leading agricultural area. 
Stretching over 250 miles from north to south and averaging 80 miles 
wide, it is partially enclosed by the Coast Mountain range to the west, 
the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sierra Nevada range to 
the east. It encompasses over 23,000 square miles and includes all or 
part of eight counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, 
Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and the valley portion of Kern. For a precise 
description of the geographic boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley 
PM2.5 nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305. The local air 
district with primary responsibility for developing a plan to attain 
the PM2.5 NAAQS in this area is the San Joaquin Valley 
Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or District).
    Ambient annual and 24-hour PM2.5 levels in the urban 
Bakersfield area in the southern SJV are the highest recorded in the 
United States at 21.2 [micro]g/m\3\ and 65 [micro]g/m\3\, respectively, 
for the 2008-2010 period.\2\ These values have declined significantly 
since 2001. See Figures IB-1 and IB-2 in the technical support document 
(TSD) for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See EPA, Air Quality System, Design Value Report, June 1, 
2011. These values are the highest design values in the SJV. A 
design value is an ambient concentration calculated using a specific 
methodology from monitored air quality data and is used to compare 
an area's air quality to a NAAQS. The methodologies for calculating 
design values for the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are 
found in 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N, Sections 1(c)(1) and (c)(2), 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The levels and composition of ambient PM2.5 in the SJV 
differ by season. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Figures H-4 and H-5. 
Higher PM2.5 concentrations occur during the winter, between 
late November and February, when ambient PM2.5 is dominated 
by ammonium nitrate (a secondary particulate formed from nitrogen 
oxides (NOX) 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 are conducive to the formation of ammonium nitrate and 
which encourage wood burning. During the summer, PM2.5 
levels generally remain below 15 [micro]g/m\3\, the level of the annual 
standards. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Figures H-6 and H-7.

II. California State Implementation Plan Submittals To Address 
PM2.5 Nonattainment in the San Joaquin Valley

A. California's SIP Submittals

    Designation of an area as nonattainment starts the process for a 
state to develop and submit to EPA a state implementation plan (SIP) 
under title 1, part D of the CAA. This SIP must include, among other 
things, a demonstration of how the NAAQS will be attained in the 
nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable but no later than 
the date required by the CAA. Under CAA section 172(b), a state has up 
to three years after an area's designation as nonattainment to submit 
its SIP to EPA. For the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, these SIPs were 
due April 5, 2008. 40 CFR 51.1002(a).
    California has made five SIP submittals to address the CAA's 
PM2.5 planning requirements in the San Joaquin Valley. The 
two principal ones are the SJVAPCD's 2008 PM2.5 Plan (2008 
PM2.5 Plan or Plan) and the California Air Resources Board's 
(CARB's) State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan 
(2007 State Strategy). Together the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 
State Strategy present a comprehensive and innovative strategy for 
attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV.
    In addition to these submittals, the District and State have also 
submitted numerous rules that contribute to improving air quality in 
the San Joaquin Valley. See Appendices A and B of the TSD for this 
proposal.
1. SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan
    The 2008 PM2.5 Plan was adopted by the District's 
Governing Board on April 30, 2008 and by CARB on May 22, 2008 and 
submitted to EPA on June 30, 2008.\3\ It includes an attainment

[[Page 41340]]

demonstration, commitments by the District to adopt control measures to 
achieve emissions reductions from sources under its jurisdiction 
(primarily stationary sources), and motor vehicle emissions budgets 
(MVEB) used for transportation conformity purposes. The attainment 
demonstration includes air quality modeling, a reasonable further 
progress (RFP) plan, an analysis of reasonably available control 
measures/reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT), base year 
and projected year emissions inventories, and contingency measures. The 
2008 PM2.5 Plan also includes the District's demonstration 
that attainment of the PM2.5 standards in the SJV will 
require significant reductions in direct PM2.5 and 
NOX emissions (25 percent and 50 percent from 2005 levels, 
respectively) in addition to reductions in SOX emissions, 
that the most expeditious date for attaining the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley is April 5, 2015, and that all controls 
necessary for attainment by that date will be in place by the 
attainment year of 2014.\4\ On September 15, 2010, CARB submitted a 
minor revision to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan's control strategy to 
extend the adoption date for one control measure.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution: In the Matter of 
Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 
District 2008 PM2.5 Plan, April 30, 2008 (SJVUAPCD 
Governing Board Resolution), CARB Resolution No. 08-28, May 22, 
2008; and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to 
Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, June 30, 2008, 
with enclosures.
    \4\ While the applicable attainment date for PM2.5 
areas with a full five-year extension is April 5, 2015, reductions 
must be implemented by 2014 to achieve attainment by that date. See 
40 CFR 51.1007(b). We, therefore, refer to 2014 as the attainment 
year and April 5, 2015 as the attainment date.
    \5\ See letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to 
Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, September 
15, 2010, with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. CARB 2007 State Strategy
    To demonstrate attainment, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan relies in 
part on measures in CARB's 2007 State Strategy. The 2007 State Strategy 
was adopted on September 27, 2007 and submitted to EPA on November 16, 
2007.\6\ It describes CARB's overall approach to addressing, in 
conjunction with local plans, attainment of both the 1997 
PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS not only in the San Joaquin 
Valley but also in California's other nonattainment areas such as the 
South Coast Air Basin. It also includes CARB's commitments to propose 
15 defined State measures \7\ and to obtain specific amounts of 
aggregate emissions reductions of direct PM2.5 and 
NOX in the SJV from sources under the State's jurisdiction, 
which are primarily on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See CARB Resolution No. 07-28, September 27, 2007 with 
attachments and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, 
to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 16, 
2007, with enclosures.
    \7\ The 2007 State Strategy also includes measures to be 
implemented by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (Smog 
Check improvements) and the California Department of Pesticide 
Regulation (VOC reductions from pesticide use). See 2007 State 
Strategy, pp. 64-65 and CARB Resolution 7-28, Attachment B, p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted the ``Status Report on the State 
Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and 
Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 
State Strategy,'' dated March 24, 2009, adopted April 24, 2009 (2009 
State Strategy Status Report) \8\ which updates the 2007 State Strategy 
to reflect its implementation during 2007 and 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See CARB Resolution No. 09-34, April 21, 2009, with 
attachments and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, 
to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 
12, 2009 with enclosures. Only pages 11-27 of the 2009 State 
Strategy Status Report are submitted as a SIP revision. The balance 
is for informational purposes only. See Attachment A to the CARB 
Resolution No. 09-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In today's proposal, we are only evaluating those portions of the 
2007 State Strategy and its revisions (including the 2011 revisions 
described below) that are relevant for attainment of the 
PM2.5 standards in the San Joaquin Valley.
3. CARB 2011 Progress Report
    On May 18, 2011, CARB submitted the ``Progress Report on 
Implementation of PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for 
the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP 
Revisions,'' dated March 29, 2011 and adopted April 28, 2011 (2011 
Progress Report). This submittal, which updates both the 2007 State 
Strategy and SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan, shows that both CARB and 
the District have made significant progress in meeting their 
commitments to adopt measures and to reduce emissions. More 
specifically, it updates CARB's rulemaking calendar in the 2007 State 
Strategy (as revised in 2009) to reflect the current status of CARB's 
adopted measures and to change the expected action dates for several 
measures. It also updates the RFP demonstration, contingency measures, 
and transportation conformity MVEB in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan to 
reflect rule adoptions, changes to activity and emissions factors for 
certain source categories, and the impact on projected future emissions 
levels in the SJV of the recent economic recession.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ On June 21, 2011, CARB posted to its Web site technical 
revisions to the updated MVEB in the 2011 Progress Report. See 
http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm. We discuss 
these revisions in the section on MVEB below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District has also prepared a report documenting its progress in 
implementing the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. See SJVUAPCD, 2008 
PM2.5 Plan Progress Report, draft March 2011 (SJV 
PM2.5 Progress Report). This report, which is informational 
only and does not include any revisions to the SIP, was posted for 
public comment in March and was presented to the District's Governing 
Board at its June 2011 meeting.
    Future references in this proposal to the SJV 2008 PM2.5 
Plan and the 2007 State Strategy will be to the Plan as revised in 2010 
and 2011 and the Strategy as revised in 2009 and 2011, respectively, 
unless otherwise noted.

B. CAA Procedural Requirements for SIP Submittals

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state to 
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing 
prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet 
this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that 
adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public 
hearing was provided consistent with EPA's implementing regulations in 
40 CFR 51.102.
    Both the District and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and 
regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior 
to adoption and submittal of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The 
District conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, 
and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan on April 
30, 2008. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix J and SJVUAPCD 
Governing Board Resolution, p. 3. CARB provided the required public 
notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its May 22, 2008 
public hearing on the Plan. See CARB Resolution No. 08-28. The District 
also provided the required public notice and hearing on the 2010 
revision to the Plan. See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 10-
06-18.
    CARB conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, 
and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the 2007 State 
Strategy on September 27, 2007. See CARB Resolution No. 07-28. CARB 
also provided the required public notice, opportunity for public 
comment, and a public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009 adoption of 
the 2009 State Strategy Status Report and its April 28, 2011 adoption 
of the 2011 Progress Report.

[[Page 41341]]

See CARB Resolution No. 09-34 and CARB Resolution No. 11-24.
    The SIP submittals include proof of publication for notices of 
District and CARB public hearings, as evidence that all hearings were 
properly noticed. We find, therefore, that each of the five submittals 
that comprise the SJV PM2.5 SIP meets the procedural 
requirements for public notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 
110(l).
    CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires EPA to determine whether a SIP 
submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also 
provides that any plan that EPA has not affirmatively determined to be 
complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of law six 
months after the date of submittal. EPA's SIP completeness criteria are 
found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.
    The June 30, 2008 submittal of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 
became complete by operation of law on December 30, 2008. We determined 
that the 2010 revision to the Plan was complete on September 23, 
2010.\10\ The November 16, 2007 submittal of the 2007 State Strategy 
and the August 12, 2009 submittal of the 2009 revisions to the Strategy 
became complete by operation of law on May 16, 2008 and February 12, 
2010, respectively. We determined that the 2011 revision to the Plan 
was complete on June 13, 2011.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA-Region 9 to James Goldstene, 
CARB, September 23, 2010.
    \11\ Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA-Region 9 to James Goldstene, 
CARB, June 13, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's 2010 Proposed Action on the SJV PM2.5 SIP

    This is the second time that EPA has proposed action on 
California's SIP to address attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 
standards in the SJV. On November 30, 2010 (75 FR 74518), EPA proposed 
to approve in part and disapprove in part the 2008 PM2.5 
Plan and the related portions of the 2007 State Strategy.
    Specifically, we proposed to approve the emissions inventories as 
meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA and PM2.5 
implementation rule in 40 CFR part 41, subpart Z. We also proposed to 
approve the District's and CARB's commitments to adopt and implement 
specific measures and to achieve specific aggregate emissions 
reductions because their approval would strengthen the SIP.
    In addition, we proposed to find that volatile organic compounds 
(VOC) are a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and therefore needed to be addressed 
in the 2008 PM2.5 SIP's RACM/RACT, RFP, and attainment 
demonstrations and in other PM2.5 SIP control requirements, 
such as contingency measures. As submitted prior to our November 2010 
proposal, the Plan did not treat VOC as an attainment plan precursor 
but did contain information indicating that significant reductions in 
VOC emissions could significantly reduce ambient PM2.5 
concentrations in the SJV.
    We proposed to disapprove the air quality modeling analysis on 
which the 2008 PM2.5 Plan's RACM/RACT, RFP, and attainment 
demonstrations and the State's attainment date extension request were 
based because the Plan did not include sufficient documentation and 
analyses for EPA to determine the modeling's adequacy.
    Based on our proposed finding that VOC should be a PM2.5 
attainment plan precursor and our proposed disapproval of the air 
quality modeling, we proposed to disapprove the 2008 PM2.5 
Plan's RACM/RACT, RFP, and attainment demonstrations and the 
contingency measures as not meeting the applicable requirements of the 
CAA and PM2.5 implementation rule. We proposed to disapprove 
the attainment demonstration for the additional reason that it relied 
too extensively on enforceable commitments to reduce emissions in place 
of fully-adopted and submitted rules. We also proposed to disapprove 
the transportation conformity MVEB for the RFP milestone years of 2009 
and 2012 and the attainment year of 2014 because they were derived from 
unapprovable RFP and attainment demonstrations. Finally, based also on 
our proposed finding on VOC and our proposed disapproval of the air 
quality modeling as well as our proposed disapproval of the RACM/RACT 
and attainment demonstrations, we proposed to not grant the State's 
request to extend the attainment date for the PM2.5 NAAQS in 
the SJV to April 5, 2015.
    During the comment period for the November 2010 proposal, we 
received five comment letters from the public as well as comment 
letters from CARB and the District. Subsequent to the close of the 
comment period, CARB adopted and submitted revisions to the SJV 
PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy After considering 
information contained in the comment letters and these supplemental SIP 
submittals, we have substantially amended our November 2010 proposed 
action as described below. EPA will consider all significant comments 
submitted in response to both its November 2010 proposal and today's 
proposal before taking final action on the SJV PM2.5 SIP. 
However, EPA strongly encourages those who submitted comments on the 
November 2010 proposal to submit revised comments reflecting today's 
amended proposal during the comment period on this amended proposal.

IV. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for PM2.5 Attainment 
SIPs

    EPA is implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under Title 1, 
Part D, subpart 1 of the CAA, which includes section 172, 
``Nonattainment plan provisions.'' Section 172(a)(2) requires that a 
PM2.5 nonattainment area attain the NAAQS ``as expeditiously 
as practicable'' but no later than five years from the date of the 
area's designation as nonattainment. This section also allows EPA to 
grant up to a five-year extension of an area's attainment date based on 
the severity of the area's nonattainment and the availability and 
feasibility of controls. EPA designated the SJV as nonattainment for 
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS effective April 5, 2005, and thus the 
applicable attainment date is no later than April 5, 2010 or, should 
EPA grant a full five-year extension, no later than April 5, 2015.
    Section 172(c) contains the general statutory planning requirements 
applicable to all nonattainment areas, including the requirements for 
emissions inventories, RACM/RACT, attainment demonstrations, RFP 
demonstrations, and contingency measures.
    On April 25, 2007, EPA issued the Clean Air Fine Particle 
Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 72 FR 20586, 
codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z (PM2.5 implementation 
rule). The PM2.5 implementation rule and its preamble 
address the statutory planning requirements for emissions inventories, 
RACM/RACT, attainment demonstrations including air quality modeling 
requirements, RFP demonstrations, and contingency measures. This rule 
also addresses other matters such as which PM2.5 precursors 
must be addressed by the state in its attainment SIP and applicable 
attainment dates.\12\ We discuss each of

[[Page 41342]]

these CAA and regulatory requirements for PM2.5 attainment 
plans in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In June 2007, a petition to the EPA Administrator was filed 
on behalf of several public health and environmental groups 
requesting reconsideration of four provisions in the 
PM2.5 implementation rule. See Earthjustice, Petition for 
Reconsideration, ``In the Matter of Final Clean Air Fine Particle 
Implementation Rule,'' June 25, 2007. These provisions are (1) The 
presumption that compliance with the Clean Air Interstate Rule 
satisfies the NOX and SO2 RACT requirements 
for electric generating units; (2) the deferral of the requirement 
to establish emission limits for condensable particulate matter 
(CPM) until January 1, 2011; (3) revisions to the criteria for 
analyzing the economic feasibility of RACT; and (4) the use of out-
of-area emissions reductions to demonstrate RFP. These provisions 
are found in the PM2.5 implementation rule and preamble 
at 72 FR 20586 at 20623-20628, 40 CFR 51.1002(c), 72 FR 20586, 
20619-20620 and 20636, respectively. On May 13, 2010, EPA granted 
the petition with respect to the fourth issue. Letter, Gina 
McCarthy, EPA, to David Baron and Paul Cort, Earthjustice, May 13, 
2010. On April 25, 2011, EPA granted the petition with respect to 
the first and third issues but denied the petition with respect to 
the second issue given that the deferral period for CPM emissions 
limits had already ended. Letter, Lisa P. Jackson, EPA, to Paul 
Cort, Earthjustice, April 25, 2011. EPA intends to publish a Federal 
Register notice that will announce the granting of the latter 
petition with respect to certain issues and to initiate a notice and 
comment process to consider proposed changes to the 2007 
PM2.5 implementation rule.
    Neither the District nor the State relied on the first, third, 
or fourth of these provisions in preparing the 2008 PM2.5 
Plan or the 2007 State Strategy. The District has deferred some, but 
not all, CPM limits in its rules. This limited deferral does not 
affect the proposed approvals of the SJV PM2.5 SIP's 
RACM/RACT and expeditious attainment demonstrations. EPA will 
evaluate any rule adopted or revised by the District after January 
1, 2011 to assure that it appropriately addresses CPM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Review of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the SJV Portion of 
the Revised 2007 State Strategy

    We summarize our evaluation of the SJV PM2.5 SIP's 
compliance with applicable CAA and EPA regulatory requirements below. 
Our detailed evaluation can be found in the TSD for this proposal which 
is available online at www.regulations.gov in docket number EPA-R09-
OAR-2010-0516 or from the EPA contact listed at the beginning of this 
notice.

A. Emissions Inventories

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories
    CAA section 172(c)(3) requires a state to submit a plan provision 
that includes a ``comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual 
emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant.'' The 
PM2.5 implementation rule requires a state to include direct 
PM2.5 emissions and emissions of all PM2.5 
precursors in this inventory, even if it has determined that control of 
any of these precursors is not necessary for expeditious attainment. 40 
CFR 51.1008(a)(1) and 72 FR 20586 at 20648. Direct PM2.5 
includes condensable particulate matter. 40 CFR 51.1000. 
PM2.5 precursors are NOX, SO2, VOC, 
and ammonia. Id. The inventories should meet the data requirements of 
EPA's Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (codified at 40 CFR part 51 
subpart A) and include any additional inventory information needed to 
support the SIP's attainment demonstration and (where applicable) RFP 
demonstration. 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1) and (2).
    Baseline emissions inventories are required for the attainment 
demonstration and for meeting RFP requirements. As determined on the 
date of designation, the base year for these inventories should be the 
most recent calendar year for which a complete inventory was required 
to be submitted to EPA. The emissions inventory for calendar year 2002 
or other suitable year should be used attainment planning and RFP plans 
for areas initially designated nonattainment for the PM2.5 
NAAQS in 2005. 40 CFR 51.1008(b).
    EPA has provided additional guidance for PM2.5 emissions 
inventories in ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of 
Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulations,'' 
November 2005 (EPA-454/R-05-001).
2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV PM2.5 SIP
    The base year and future year baseline planning inventories for 
direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors for the SJV 
PM2.5 nonattainment area together with additional 
documentation for the inventories are found in Appendix B of the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan. Both average winter day and average annual day 
inventories are provided for the Plan's base year of 2005 and each 
baseline year from 2009 to 2014. These base year and baseline 
inventories incorporate reductions from Federal, State, and District 
measures adopted prior to 2007. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. B-1 
and 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1. A winter inventory is 
provided because the majority of high PM2.5 days in the SJV 
occur during the winter months between November and February. 2008 
PM2.5 Plan, Figures H-4 and H-5.
    Both base year and baseline inventories use the most current 
version of California's mobile source emissions model, EMFAC2007, for 
estimating on-road motor vehicle emissions. EPA has approved this model 
for use in SIPs and transportation conformity analyses. 73 FR 3464 
(January 18, 2008).
    Table 1 is a summary of the average annual day inventories of 
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors for the base 
year of 2005. These inventories provide the basis for the control 
measure analysis and the RFP and attainment demonstrations in the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan.
    As a starting point for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan's 
inventories, the District used CARB's inventory for the year 2002. An 
example of this inventory and CARB's documentation for its inventories 
can be found in Appendices A and F, respectively, of the 2007 State 
Strategy. The 2002 inventory for the SJV was projected to 2005 and 
future years using CARB's California Emissions Forecasting System 
(CEFSv 1.06). See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. B-1.

 Table 1--San Joaquin Valley Emissions Inventory Summary for Direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursors for the 2005 Base
                                                      Year
                                          [Tons per annual average day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Direct PM2.5         NOX             SO2             VOC           Ammonia
  Emissions inventory category  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      2005            2005            2005            2005             2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources.............            13.3            80.1            20.4           121.5             19.8
Area Sources...................            51.5            13.5             0.9           140.7            355.9
On-Road Mobile Sources.........            12.1           327.9             2.6            94.8              6.2
Off-Road Mobile Sources........             9.0           153.9             2.4            62.7              0
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................            86.0           575.4            26.4           419.8            382.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 41343]]

3. Proposed Action on the Emissions Inventories
    The inventories in the SJV PM2.5 SIP are based on the 
most current and accurate information available to the State and 
District at the time the Plan was developed and submitted (including 
using the latest EPA-approved version of California's mobile source 
emissions model, EMFAC2007), address comprehensively all source 
categories in the SJV, and are consistent with EPA's inventory 
guidance. For these reasons, EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 base 
year emissions inventory in the SJV PM2.5 SIP as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1) and to 
find that the baseline inventories in the SJV PM2.5 SIP 
provide an adequate basis for the RACM/RACT, RFP, and attainment 
demonstrations. We provide more detail on our review of the base year 
inventory as well as the projected year inventories in section II.A. of 
the TSD.
    Since late 2007, California has experienced an economic recession 
that has greatly reduced current levels of economic activity in the 
State's construction and goods movement sectors. The recession has 
resulted in lowered projected future levels of activity in this sector. 
2011 Progress Report, Appendix E. As a result, projected emissions 
levels from these categories are now substantially lower than those 
projected for 2008 and later in the Plan as submitted in 2008. At this 
time, California is addressing these recession impacts on future 
economic activity through adjustments to the baseline inventories for 
specific source categories. 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E. There are 
no recession-related adjustments to the 2005 base year inventory in the 
SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan.
    CARB also made technical changes to the inventories for diesel 
trucks, buses, and certain categories of off-road mobile source engines 
as part of its December 2010 rulemaking amending the In-Use On-Road 
Truck and Bus Rule and In-Use Off-Road Engine Rule. Id. The State 
estimates that these changes collectively reduce the 2005 base year 
NOX inventory in the SJV by approximately 6 percent and the 
PM2.5 inventory by 5 percent.\13\ These changes are small 
given the normal and unavoidable uncertainties in all emissions 
inventories and, therefore, do not change our basis for proposing to 
approve the base year inventory or to find the baseline inventories 
adequate for SIP planning purposes. We discuss the impact of these 
changes on the Plan's RFP and attainment demonstrations later in this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See attachment 1 to the letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy 
Executive Officer, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air 
Division, EPA Region 9, May 18, 2011 (CARB Progress Report 
supplement), in the docket for today's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that the State and District are currently working on 
revisions to the SJV PM2.5 SIP to address the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 standards. These revisions are due to EPA in December 
2012 and will include the most current inventory information that is 
available.

B. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control 
Technology Demonstration and Adopted Control Strategy

1. Requirements for RACM/RACT
    CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan ``provide 
for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures 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 national primary ambient air 
quality standards.'' EPA defines RACM as measures that a state finds 
are both reasonably available and contribute to attainment as 
expeditiously as practicable in its nonattainment area. Thus, what 
constitutes RACM/RACT in a PM2.5 attainment plan is closely 
tied to that plan's expeditious attainment demonstration. 40 CFR 
51.1010; 72 FR 20586 at 20612. States are required to evaluate RACM/
RACT for direct PM2.5 and all of its attainment plan 
precursors. 40 CFR 51.1002(c).
    Consistent with subpart 1 of Part D of the CAA, EPA is requiring a 
combined approach to RACM and RACT for PM2.5 attainment 
plans. Subpart 1, unlike subparts 2 and 4, does not identify specific 
source categories for which EPA must issue control technology documents 
or guidelines for what constitutes RACT, or identify specific source 
categories for state and EPA evaluation during attainment plan 
development. 72 FR 20586 at 20610. Rather, under subpart 1, EPA 
considers RACT to be part of an area's overall RACM obligation. Because 
of the variable nature of the PM2.5 problem in different 
nonattainment areas, EPA determined not only that states should have 
flexibility with respect to RACT and RACM controls but also that in 
areas needing significant emission reductions to attain the standards, 
RACT/RACM controls on smaller sources may be necessary to reach 
attainment as expeditiously as practicable. 72 FR 20586 at 20612, 
20615. Thus, under the PM2.5 implementation rule, RACT and 
RACM are those reasonably available measures that contribute to 
attainment as expeditiously as practicable in the specific 
nonattainment area. 40 CFR 51.1010; 72 FR 20586 at 20612.
    The PM2.5 implementation rule requires that attainment 
plans include the list of measures a state considered and information 
sufficient to show that the state met all requirements for the 
determination of what constitutes RACM/RACT in its specific 
nonattainment area. 40 CFR 51.1010. In addition, the rule requires that 
the state, in determining whether a particular emissions reduction 
measure or set of measures must be adopted as RACM/RACT, consider the 
cumulative impact of implementing the available measures and to adopt 
as RACM/RACT any potential measures that are reasonably available 
considering technological and economic feasibility if, considered 
collectively, they would advance the attainment date by one year or 
more. Id. Any measures that are necessary to meet these requirements 
which are not already either federally promulgated, part of the state's 
SIP, or otherwise creditable in SIPs must be submitted in enforceable 
form as part of a state's attainment plan for the area. 72 FR 20586 at 
20614.
    A more comprehensive discussion of the RACM/RACT requirement for 
PM2.5 attainment plans and EPA's guidance for it can be 
found in the PM2.5 implementation rule preamble (72 FR 20586 
at 20609-20633) and in section II.D. of the TSD.
2. RACM/RACT Demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 SIP
    For the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 State Strategy, the 
District, CARB, and the local agencies (through the SJV's eight 
metropolitan planning organizations (MPO)) each undertook a process to 
identify and evaluate potential reasonably available control measures 
that could contribute to expeditious attainment of the PM2.5 
standards in the SJV. These RACM/RACT analyses address control measures 
for sources of direct PM2.5, NOX and 
SO2, which are the State's selected attainment plan 
precursors for the 1997 PM2.5 standards in SJV (see section 
V.C.3 below). We describe each agency's efforts below.

[[Page 41344]]

a. District's RACM/RACT Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy
    The District's RACM/RACT analysis, which focuses on stationary and 
area source controls, is described in Chapter 6 and Appendix I of the 
2008 PM2.5 Plan. To identify potential RACM/RACT, the 
District reviewed potential measures from a number of sources including 
EPA's list of potential control measures in the preamble to the 
PM2.5 implementation rule (72 FR 20586 at 20621), measures 
in other nonattainment areas' plans, and measures suggested by the 
public during development of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 2008 
PM2.5 Plan, pp. 6-6 to 6-8. The identified potential 
measures, as well as existing District measures, are described by 
emissions inventory category in Appendix I. These measures address 
emissions of direct PM2.5, NOX and 
SO2. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 6-8 and Appendix I. 
Potential RACM/RACT controls for VOC or ammonia were not specifically 
identified or evaluated.
    From the set of identified potential controls for PM2.5, 
NOX, and SO2, the District selected measures for 
adoption and implementation based on the technological feasibility and 
practicality of emissions controls, the potential magnitude and timing 
of emissions reductions, cost effectiveness, and other acceptable 
criteria. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 6-7.
    After completing its RACM/RACT analysis for stationary and area 
sources under its jurisdiction, the District developed its ``Stationary 
Source Regulatory Implementation Schedule'' (2008 PM2.5 
Plan, Table 6-2) which gives the schedule for regulatory adoption and 
implementation of the selected RACM/RACT measures. The District also 
identified a number of source categories for which feasibility studies 
would be undertaken to refine the inventory and evaluate potential 
controls. These categories and the schedule for studying them are 
listed in Table 6-4 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.
    In the five years prior to the adoption of the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan, the District developed and implemented 
comprehensive plans to address attainment of the PM10 
standards (2003 PM10 Plan, approved 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 
2004)), the 1-hour ozone standards (2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan, 
approved 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010)), and the 8-hour ozone standards 
(2007 Ozone Plan, submitted November 16, 2007). These plans for other 
NAAQS have resulted in the adoption by the District of many new rules 
and revisions to existing rules for stationary and area sources. For 
the most part, the District's current rules are equivalent to or more 
stringent than those developed by other air districts. In addition to 
these stationary and area source measures, the District has also 
adopted an indirect source review rule, Rule 9510, to address increased 
indirect emissions from new industrial, commercial and residential 
developments. See SJVUAPCD Rule 9510 ``Indirect Source Review,'' 
adopted December 15, 2005, approved 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011). The 
District also operates incentive grant programs to accelerate turnover 
of existing stationary and mobile engines to cleaner units. See 2008 
PM2.5 Plan, Section 6.5 and SJV PM2.5 Progress 
Report, section 2.3.
    For the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the District identified and 
committed to adopt and implement 13 new control measures for direct 
PM2.5, NOX, and/or SOX. In Table 2 
below, we list these measures, which mostly involve strengthening 
existing District rules, their anticipated and actual adoption dates 
and their current SIP approval status. As can be seen from Table 2, the 
District has met its intended rulemaking schedule with one exception 
and has only two rule actions remaining (S-COM-6 and S-COM-10). Table 
6-3 in the Plan shows estimated emissions reductions from each rule for 
each year from 2009 to 2014; however, the District's commitment is only 
to the aggregate emissions reductions of direct PM2.5, 
NOX, and SO2 in each year. 2008 PM2.5 
Plan, p. 6-9 and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution, p. 5. We show 
these commitments in Table 3 below. In its SJV PM2.5 
Progress Report, the District updated the reduction estimates to 
reflect the rules as adopted. See Table 4 below.

      Table 2--San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2008 PM2.5 Plan Specific Rule Commitments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Expected adoption                             Current SIP
       Measure No.             District rule             date          Actual adoption date    approval status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S-AGR-1..................  4103--Open Burning..  2nd Q--2010.........  April 2010..........  Proposed approval
                                                                                              signed: June 29,
                                                                                              2011.
S-COM-1..................  4320--Advanced        3rd Q--2008.........  October 2008........  Approved. 75 FR
                            Emissions                                                         1715 (January 13,
                            Reductions for                                                    2010).
                            Boilers, Steam
                            Generators and
                            Process Heaters (>
                            5 MMBtu/hr).
S-COM-2..................  4307--Boilers, Steam  3rd Q--2008.........  October 2008........  Approved. 76 FR
                            Generators and                                                    5276 (January 31,
                            Process Heaters (2                                                2011).
                            to 5 MMBtu/hr).
S-COM-3..................  4308--Boilers, Steam  4th Q--2009.........  December 2009.......  Approved. 76 FR
                            Generators and                                                    16696 (March 25,
                            Process Heaters                                                   2011).
                            (0.075 to < 2 MM
                            Btu/hr).
S-COM-5..................  4703--Stationary Gas  3rd Q--2007.........  September 2007......  Approved. 74 FR
                            Turbines.                                                         53888 (October 21,
                                                                                              2009).
S-COM-6..................  Rule 4702--           4th Q--2010.........  Anticipated August    Most current
                            Reciprocating                               2011.                 revision of rule
                            Internal Combustion                                               approved: January
                            Engines.                                                          18, 2007 at 73 FR
                                                                                              1819 (January 10,
                                                                                              2008).
S-COM-7..................  4354--Glass Melting   3rd Q--2008.........  ....................  76 FR 37044, June
                            Furnaces.                                                         24, 2011.
S-COM-9..................  4902--Residential     1st Q--2009.........  March 2009..........  75 FR 24408 (May 5,
                            Water Heaters.                                                    2010).
S-COM-10.................  4905--Natural Gas-    4nd Q--2014.........  TBD.................  Most current
                            Fired, Fan Type                                                   revision of rule
                            Residential Central                                               approved: October
                            Furnaces.                                                         20, 2005 at 72 FR
                                                                                              29886 (May 30,
                                                                                              2007).
S-COM-14.................  4901--Wood Burning    3rd Q--2009.........  October 2008........  Approved. 74 FR
                            Fireplaces and Wood                                               57907 (November
                            Burning Heaters.                                                  10, 2009).
S-IND-9..................  4692--Commercial      2nd Q--2009.........  September 2009......  Proposed approval
                            Charbroiling.                                                     signed: June 9,
                                                                                              2011
S-IND-21.................  4311--Flares........  2nd Q--2009.........  June 2009...........  Action pending.

[[Page 41345]]

 
M-TRAN-1.................  9410--Employer Based  4th Q--2009.........  December 2009.......  Action pending.
                            Trip Reduction
                            Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 6-2, revised June 17, 2010. Anticipated adoption date for Rule 4702, SJVAPCD,
  District Highlights, June 16, 2011 Actions by the District Governing Board.


                  Table 3--San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2008 PM2.5 Plan Aggregate Emissions Reductions Commitments
                                                              [Tons per average annual day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2009            2010            2011            2012            2013            2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.....................................................            2.43            3.24            4.26            8.56            8.82            8.97
Direct PM2.5............................................            1.60            2.96            4.46            6.69            6.70            6.70
SO2.....................................................            0.06            0.11            0.16            0.92            0.92            0.92
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 4--San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Aggregate Creditable Emissions Reductions from
                                                  Adopted Rules
                                          [Tons per average annual day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2009              2012              2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.......................................................               2.4              10.2              11.4
Direct PM2.5..............................................               1.6               4.3               4.3
SO2.......................................................               0.1               3.5               3.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: SJVUAPCD, ``Table 3-1 Adjusted PM2.5 Emission Inventory; Table 3-2 Adjusted NOX Emission Inventory; and
  Table 3-3 Adjusted SOX Emission Inventory,'' March 2011 and TSD, Table F-4.

b. CARB's RACM Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy
    Source categories for which CARB has primary responsibility for 
reducing emissions in California include most new and existing on- and 
off-road engines and vehicles, motor vehicle fuels, and consumer 
products.
    Given the need for significant emissions reductions from mobile and 
area sources to meet the NAAQS in California nonattainment areas, the 
State of California has been a leader in the development of stringent 
control measures for on-road and off-road mobile sources and the fuels 
that power them. California has unique authority under CAA section 209 
(subject to a waiver by EPA) to adopt and implement new emission 
standards for many categories of on-road vehicles and engines and new 
and in-use off-road vehicles and engines.
    California's emissions standards have reduced new car emissions by 
99 percent and new truck emissions by 90 percent from uncontrolled 
levels. 2007 State Strategy, p. 37. The State is also working with EPA 
on goods movement activities and is implementing programs to reduce 
emissions from ship auxiliary engines, locomotives, harbor craft and 
new cargo handling equipment. In addition, the State has standards for 
lawn and garden equipment, recreational vehicles and boats, and other 
off-road sources that require newly manufactured equipment to be 80-98 
percent cleaner than their uncontrolled counterparts. Id. Finally, the 
State has adopted many measures that focus on achieving reductions from 
in-use mobile sources that include more stringent inspection and 
maintenance requirements in California's Smog Check program, truck and 
bus idling restrictions, and various incentive programs. Appendix A of 
the TSD includes a list of all measures adopted by CARB between 1990 
and the beginning of 2007. These measures, reductions from which are 
reflected in the Plan's baseline inventories, fall into two categories: 
Measures that are subject to a waiver of Federal pre-emption under CAA 
section 209 (section 209 waiver measures or waiver measures) and those 
for which the State is not required to obtain a waiver (non-waiver 
measures). Emissions reductions from waiver measures are fully 
creditable in attainment and RFP demonstrations and may be used to meet 
other CAA requirements, such as contingency measures. See section 
II.F.4.a.i. of the TSD and EPA's proposed approval of the SJV 1-Hour 
Ozone Plan at 74 FR 33933, 33938 (July 14, 2009) and final approval at 
75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010). Generally, the State's baseline non-waiver 
measures have been approved by EPA into the SIP and are fully 
creditable for meeting CAA requirements. See TSD Appendix A.
    CARB developed its proposed 2007 State Strategy after an extensive 
public consultation process to identify potential SIP measures. This 
process is described in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan at p. 7-11.\14\ 
Through this process, CARB identified and has committed to propose 15 
new defined measures. These measures focus on cleaning up the in-use 
fleet as well as increasing the stringency of emissions standards for a 
number of engine categories, fuels, and consumer products. They build 
on CARB's already comprehensive program described above that addresses 
emissions from all types of mobile sources through both regulations and 
incentive programs. See Appendix A of the TSD. Table 5 lists the 
defined measures in the 2007 State Strategy that contribute to 
attainment of the PM2.5 standards in the SJV and their 
current adoption and approval status. Table 6

[[Page 41346]]

provides the State's current estimate of the emissions reductions in 
the SJV from these measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ More information on this public process including 
presentations from the workshops and symposium that proceeded 
adoption of the 2007 State Strategy can be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm.
    \15\ California Assembly Bill 2289, passed in 2010, requires the 
Bureau of Automotive Repair to direct older vehicles to high 
performing auto technicians and test stations for inspection and 
certification effective 2013. Reductions shown for the SmogCheck 
program in the 2011 Progress Report do not include reductions from 
AB 2289 improvements. CARB Progress Report supplement, attachment 5.

Table 5--2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for Consideration
                           and Current Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Expected
         State measures            action year        Current status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Defined Measures in 2007 State Strategy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smog Check Improvements........       2007-2009  Elements approved 75 FR
                                                  38023 (July 1,
                                                  2010).\15\
Expanded Vehicle Retirement (AB            2007  Adopted by CARB, June
 118).                                            2009; by BAR,
                                                  September 2010.
Modification to Reformulated               2007  Approved, 75 FR 26653
 Gasoline Program.                                (May 12, 2010).
Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty                  2008  Proposed approval
 Trucks.                                          signed: June 29, 2011.
Accelerated Introduction of                2008  Prop 1B bond funds
 Cleaner Locomotives.                             awarded to upgrade
                                                  line-haul locomotive
                                                  engines not already
                                                  accounted for by
                                                  enforceable agreements
                                                  with the railroads.
                                                  Those cleaner line-
                                                  hauls will begin
                                                  operation by 2012.
Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Engines      2007, 2010  Waiver action pending.
Cleaner In-Use Agricultural                2009  Incentive program in
 Equipment.                                       progress. No credit
                                                  taken.
New Emissions Standards for                2013  Partial adoption, July
 Recreational Boats.                              2008, Additional
                                                  action expected 2013.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2009 State Strategy Update, p.4 and 2011 Progress Report, Table
  1. Additional information from http://www.ca.arb.gov. Only defined
  measures with direct PM2.5 or NOX reductions in the SJV are shown
  here.


Table 6--Expected Emissions Reductions From Defined Measures in the 2011
               Progress Report for the San Joaquin Valley
                           [Tons per day 2014]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            State measure               Direct PM2.5           NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smog Check Improvements (BAR).......               0.1               0.7
Expanded Vehicle Retirement.........  ................  ................
Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks....               1.7               1.1
Accelerated Intro. of Cleaner Line-                0.0               0.0
 Haul Locomotives...................
Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment (>               0.0               0.3
 25 hp).............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2011 Progress Report, p. 18. Only defined measures with direct
  PM2.5 or NOX reductions in the SJV are shown here.

    In addition to the State's commitment to propose defined new 
measures, the 2007 State Strategy includes an enforceable commitment 
for emissions reductions sufficient, in combination with existing 
measures and the District's commitments, to attain the PM2.5 
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley by the requested attainment date of 
April 5, 2015. For the SJV, these emissions reductions commitments were 
to achieve 5 tpd of direct PM2.5 and 76 tpd of 
NOX in the SJV by the attainment year of 2014. See 2007 
State Strategy, p. 63 and CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B, p. 6. 
The nature of this commitment is described in the State Strategy as 
follows:

    The total emission reductions from the new measures necessary to 
attain the federal standards are an enforceable State commitment in 
the SIP. While the proposed State Strategy includes estimates of the 
emission reductions from each of the individual new measures, it is 
important to note that the commitment of the State Strategy is to 
achieve the total emission reductions necessary to attain the 
federal standards, which would be the aggregate of all existing and 
proposed new measures combined. Therefore, if a particular measure 
does not get its expected emission reductions, the State still 
commits to achieving the total aggregate emission reductions, 
whether this is realized through additional reductions from the new 
measures or from alternative control measures or incentive programs. 
If actual emission decreases occur in any air basin for which 
emission reduction commitments have been made that are greater than 
the projected emissions reductions from the adopted measures in the 
State Strategy, the actual emission decreases may be counted toward 
meeting ARB's total emission reduction commitments.

CARB Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 3.
c. The Local Jurisdictions' RACM Analysis
    The local jurisdictions' RACM analysis was conducted by the SJV's 
eight MPOs.\16\ This analysis focused on potential NOX 
emissions reductions from transportation control measures (TCM). TCMs 
are, in general, measures designed to reduce emissions from on-road 
motor vehicles through reductions in vehicle miles traveled or traffic 
congestion. The results of the analysis are described in Chapter 7 (pp. 
7-8 to 7-11) of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. It addressed 
NOX but not direct PM2.5, SO2, or VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ These eight MPOs represent the eight counties in the San 
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area: The San Joaquin Council of 
Governments, the Stanislaus Council of Governments, the Merced 
County Association of Governments, the Madera County Transportation 
Commission, the Council of Fresno County Governments, Kings County 
Association of Governments, the Tulare County Association of 
Governments, and the Kern Council of Governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the SJV MPOs reviewed and 
updated the RACM analysis they performed for the SJV 2007 [8-hour] 
Ozone Plan, based on EPA's guidance in the preamble to the 
PM2.5 implementation rule. For the 2007 Ozone Plan, they 
developed a local RACM strategy after an extensive

[[Page 41347]]

evaluation of potential RACM for advancing the 8-hour ozone standard 
attainment date. After reviewing the 2007 Ozone Plan's local RACM 
analysis, EPA's suggested RACM, recently developed plans from other 
areas, and the potential emission reductions available from the 
implementation of TCMs in the SJV, the MPOs determined that there were 
no additional local RACM for NOX, beyond those measures 
already adopted, that could advance attainment of the PM2.5 
NAAQS in the SJV. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 7-11.
3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT Demonstration and Adopted Control 
Strategy
    We propose to find that there are, at this time, no additional 
reasonably available measures that individually or collectively would 
advance attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin 
Valley nonattainment area by one year or more. This proposal is based 
on our review of potential RACM/RACT in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 
and updated and revised 2007 State Strategy; the District's and State's 
adopted control strategies, including their commitments to adopt 
measures and their progress in meeting those commitments; and our 
proposed concurrence (discussed below in section V.C.3.) with the 
State's determination that SOX and NOX are and 
VOC and ammonia are not attainment plan precursors per 40 CFR 
51.1002(c). Therefore, we propose to find that the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan, together with the updated and revised 2007 State 
Strategy, provides for the implementation of RACM/RACT as required by 
CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1010.
    We are also proposing to approve, with the exception of the 
commitment to revise Rule 4702, ``Reciprocating Internal Combustion 
Engines,'' the District's commitments to adopt and implement specific 
control measures on the schedule identified in Table 6-2 (as amended 
June 15, 2010) in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, to the extent that 
these commitments have not yet been fulfilled, and to achieve specific 
aggregate emissions reductions of direct PM2.5, 
NOX and SOX by specific years as given in Table 
6-3 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The District had committed to 
revise Rule 4702 by December 2010, but now expects adoption to occur in 
August 2011. Because EPA is subject to a consent decree requiring that 
we approve or disapprove all elements of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 
Plan by no later than September 30, 2011,\17\ we are proposing to 
disapprove this element of the Plan; however, we will not need to 
finalize this proposed disapproval if the District adopts revisions to 
the rule that fulfill the commitment by the time of EPA's final action 
on the Plan. We note that the District's decision to include the 
commitment to revise this rule in its Plan was discretionary and that 
the Plan does not specifically rely upon emission reductions from this 
particular rule. Adoption of revisions to Rule 4702 is now expected in 
August 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Association of Irritated Residents v. U.S. EPA, Case 
No. 3:10-CV-03051-WHA, Consent Decree dated January 12, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also proposing to approve CARB's commitments to propose 
certain defined measures, as given in Table B-1 in 2011 Progress 
Report, Appendix B and to achieve the total aggregate emissions 
reductions necessary to attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards in 
the SJV, whether these reductions are realized from the new measures, 
alternative control measures, incentive programs, or other actual 
emissions decreases. See CARB Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007), 
Appendix B, p. 3. This commitment is to aggregate emissions reductions 
of 5 tpd direct PM2.5 and 76 tpd NOX in the San 
Joaquin Valley by 2014 as given on page 21 of the 2009 State Strategy 
Status Report.

C. Attainment Demonstration

1. Requirements for Attainment Demonstrations
    CAA section 172 requires a State to submit a plan for each of its 
nonattainment areas that demonstrates attainment of the applicable 
ambient air quality standard as expeditiously as practicable but no 
later than the specified attainment date. Under the PM2.5 
implementation rule, this demonstration should consist of four parts:
    (1) Technical analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources 
of emissions that are contributing to violations of the 
PM2.5 NAAQS;
    (2) Analyses of future year emissions reductions and air quality 
improvement resulting from already-adopted national, state, and local 
programs and from potential new state and local measures to meet the 
RACM/RACT and RFP requirements in the area;
    (3) Adopted emissions reduction measures with schedules for 
implementation; and
    (4) Contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) of the 
CAA.
    See 40 CFR 51.1007; 72 FR 20586 at 20605.

    The requirements for the first two parts are described in the 
sections on emissions inventories and RACM/RACT above (sections V.A. 
and V.B.) and in the sections on air quality modeling, PM2.5 
precursors, extension of the attainment date, and attainment 
demonstration that follow immediately below. Requirements for the third 
and fourth parts are described in the sections on the control strategy 
and contingency measures (sections V.B. and V.F.), respectively.
2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan
    The PM2.5 implementation rule requires states to submit 
an attainment demonstration based on modeling results. Specifically, 40 
CFR 51.1007(a) states:

    For any area designated as nonattainment for the 
PM2.5 NAAQS, the State must submit an attainment 
demonstration showing that the area will attain the annual and 24-
hour standards as expeditiously as practicable. The demonstration 
must meet the requirements of Sec.  51.112 and Appendix W of this 
part and must include inventory data, modeling results, and emission 
reduction analyses on which the State has based its projected 
attainment date. The attainment date justified by the demonstration 
must be consistent with the requirements of Sec.  51.1004(a). The 
modeled strategies must be consistent with requirements in Sec.  
51.1009 for RFP and in Sec.  51.1010 for RACT and RACM. The 
attainment demonstration and supporting air quality modeling should 
be consistent with EPA's PM2.5 modeling guidance.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EPA's modeling guidance can be found in ``Guideline on Air 
Quality Models'' in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W and ``Guidance on the 
Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 
Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and 
Regional Haze'', EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007.

See also, 72 FR 20586 at 20665.
    Air quality modeling is used to establish emissions attainment 
targets, the combination of emissions of PM2.5 and 
PM2.5 precursors that the area can accommodate without 
exceeding the NAAQS, and to assess whether the proposed control 
strategy will result in attainment of the NAAQS. Air quality modeling 
is performed for a base year and compared to air quality monitoring 
data in order to evaluate model performance. Once the performance is 
determined to be acceptable, future year changes to the emissions 
inventory are simulated to determine the relationship between emissions 
reductions and changes in ambient air quality throughout the air basin. 
The procedures for modeling PM2.5 as part of an attainment 
SIP are contained in EPA's ``Guidance on the Use of Models

[[Page 41348]]

and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals 
for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze'' 
(Guidance).
    The air quality modeling that underpins the SJV 2008 
PM2.5 Plan is described in Chapter 3 and documented in 
Appendices E-H and the several additional appendices submitted with the 
Plan in 2008. CARB supplemented this documentation in 2011. See Letter, 
John DaMassa, CARB to Frances Wicher, EPA, January 28, 2011 (CARB 
modeling supplement).
    We provide a brief description of the modeling and a summary of our 
evaluation of it below. More detailed information about the modeling 
and our evaluation are available in section II.D. of the TSD.
    CARB and the District jointly performed the air quality modeling 
for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. Significant time, money, and effort 
by CARB, the District, and many others have gone into preparing the air 
quality modeling to support the attainment demonstration in the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan for the San Joaquin Valley, including support for 
the multi-million dollar California Regional Particulate Air Quality 
Study (CRPAQS). CRPAQS is a cooperative effort involving California 
cities, State and local and air pollution control agencies, federal 
agencies, industry groups, academics, and contractors. Field data for 
CRPAQS were collected during the 14 months from December 1999 through 
February 2001 and included short-term, intensive monitoring during the 
fall and winter. The study's design placed emphasis on collecting 
sufficient continuous air quality and meteorological data, both at the 
surface and aloft, to support receptor and photochemical modeling. Data 
and modeling results based on the CRPAQS study provided solid 
underpinnings for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.
    The 2008 PM2.5 Plan uses multiple modeling analyses to 
demonstrate attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. The 
narrative mainly relies on several variants of an approach based on 
receptor modeling for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, but 
photochemical modeling is also included. The receptor modeling approach 
begins with Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) modeling, which distinguishes 
the ambient PM2.5 contributions of several broad emissions 
source categories based on how they match the chemical species 
components of PM2.5 measurements. The CMB results are then 
refined with emissions inventory data to distinguish additional source 
categories; an area of influence analysis to better reflect particular 
sources affecting a monitor; and information from past photochemical 
modeling to assess how secondarily-formed PM2.5 will respond 
to changes in precursor emissions. Several variants of this approach 
were used with CMB results from different locations and different base 
case years. This modeling only addresses the annual PM2.5 
standard.
    The Plan also includes an attainment demonstration using 
photochemical modeling with the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) 
model. This modeling incorporates data collected during CRPAQS and 
addresses both the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. Under 
EPA modeling guidance, this is considered the main attainment 
demonstration, with the receptor modeling as a corroborating analysis. 
Guidance, p. 4 and p. 103.
    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 NAAQS, and producing 
documentation to be submitted for EPA Regional Office review and 
approval prior to actual modeling.
    The 2008 PM2.5 Plan's modeling protocol is contained in 
Appendix F and includes descriptions of both the receptor modeling 
approaches and the photochemical modeling. Additional description of 
the photochemical modeling is covered in Appendix G, and also in the 
additional appendix entitled ``Regional Model Performance Analysis'' 
(RMPA). The protocol covers all of the topics recommended in the 
Guidance, except that it does not identify how modeling and other 
analyses will be archived or made available to the public. See 
Guidance, p. 117.
    The 2008 PM2.5 Plan's air quality model performance is 
discussed in the RMPA, starting at p. 6, and also more extensively in 
the CARB modeling supplement. In the Plan as submitted in 2008, 
modeling performance was not sufficiently documented for EPA to fully 
evaluate it, but CARB's modeling supplement provides an extensive 
statistical and graphical analysis demonstrating adequate model 
performance. The supplement included discussion of the evaluation 
results and also of sensitivity or diagnostic testing, both of which 
are necessary for confidence in the model and the performance 
statistics presented. The testing described by CARB provides assurance 
that the model is adequately simulating the physical and chemical 
processes leading to PM2.5 in the atmosphere and that the 
model responds in a scientifically reasonable way to emissions changes.
    The Plan as submitted in 2008 provided insufficient documentation 
about the deviations from EPA's guidance on performing the Speciated 
Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT); again the CARB modeling supplement 
provides a reasonable rationale for the deviations, about which EPA's 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards was consulted. The Plan 
cites several factors as justifying such deviations (e.g., the 
prevalence of ammonia, the dominance of ammonium nitrate, the effect of 
substantial controls on fugitive dust and direct carbon emissions (p. 
G-10 and p. 3-20)), and the CARB modeling supplement provides 
documentation on accounting for evaporation of the ammonium ion. The 
CARB modeling supplement also provides extensive documentation on the 
Relative Reduction Factors, which are the key results from the model 
for use in the attainment test, and the details of their calculation, 
which were not presented in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan as 
originally submitted. EPA proposes to conclude that the attainment 
tests are adequate and consistent with EPA guidance.
    In addition to a modeled attainment demonstration, which focuses on 
locations with an air quality monitor, EPA generally requires an 
unmonitored area analysis. This analysis is intended to ensure that a 
control strategy leads to reductions in PM2.5 at other 
locations that have no monitor but that might have baseline (and 
future) ambient PM2.5 levels exceeding the NAAQS. The 
unmonitored area analysis uses a combination of model output and 
ambient data to identify areas that might exceed the NAAQS if monitors 
were located there. The analysis should include, at a minimum, all 
counties designated nonattainment and the counties surrounding the 
nonattainment area. In order to examine unmonitored areas in all 
portions of the modeling domain, EPA recommends use of interpolated 
spatial fields of ambient data combined with gridded modeled outputs. 
Guidance, p. 29.
    The section in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan entitled 
``Unmonitored peaks'' presents an abbreviated simple screening

[[Page 41349]]

analysis, consisting of a filled concentration contour plot (Figure 3 
on p. G-20), and the observation that ``there are no areas with steep 
gradients that would result in higher design values than those measured 
at monitors.'' 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. G-15. This analysis 
departs significantly from the procedures recommended in the Guidance. 
However, the CARB modeling supplement documents a subsequent 
unmonitored area analysis that uses procedures recommended in the 
Guidance, including use of EPA's MATS software, and concludes that 
there are no unmonitored PM2.5 peaks in the modeling domain 
that would violate the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    In summary, despite shortcomings in the documentation within the 
2008 PM2.5 Plan as submitted in 2008, the CARB modeling 
supplement enables EPA to conclude that the modeling supporting the 
Plan is sound. EPA proposes to approve the air quality modeling and to 
find that the modeling provides an adequate basis for the RACM/RACT, 
RFP, and attainment demonstrations in the Plan.
Effect of Inventory Changes on the Air Quality Modeling and Attainment 
Demonstrations
    As discussed above in section V.A., CARB has recently updated the 
inventories for several mobile source categories for both the base and 
future years as well as revised the economic forecasts on which the 
future inventories were based. Relative to emissions in the Plan, the 
decreases in the base year 2005 emissions inventory due to the 
inventory updates are about 6 percent for NOX and 5 percent 
for direct PM2.5 emissions; the 2014 attainment year target 
emissions levels are unchanged. CARB Progress Report supplement, 
Attachment 1. EPA believes that these base year emission changes are 
small enough to be relatively minor in the context of the overall 
uncertainties in inventories and in photochemical modeling itself, and 
that the base case modeling remains valid. However, EPA assessed how 
these emission inventory changes would be expected to affect the 
attainment demonstration, which relies on emission reductions between 
the base year and the 2014 attainment target year. The emissions 
decreases in the base year tend to reduce the relative effect of 
controls, and to increase the projected PM2.5 concentrations 
in the attainment year. (This is because the base year ambient 
concentration is now known to result from a slightly lower level of 
emissions. The model must therefore be slightly under-predicting, and 
so the predicted attainment year concentration should be slightly 
higher to compensate.) To assess the effect of the inventory changes on 
the attainment demonstration, EPA used model sensitivity results in the 
2011 Progress Report supplement, Attachment 3. Taking into account the 
model's sensitivity to the inventory changes, EPA estimates that 
predicted ambient concentrations in the 2014 attainment year would be 
higher by only about 2.5 percent due to the emission inventory 
revisions, and that predicted design values for 2014 remain below the 
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA therefore proposes to find that the 
attainment demonstration remains valid, despite the emission inventory 
changes.
Pollutant Ratios Used To Determine PM2.5 Equivalency
    The 2011 Progress Report and the 2011 SJV Progress Report use a 
PM2.5 equivalency metric in a number of tables and 
demonstrations. Two ratios are used:
     9 tpd NOX to 1 tpd direct PM2.5
     1 tpd SOX to 1 tpd direct PM2.5
    The NOX:PM2.5 ratio is documented in 
supplemental information provided by CARB, entitled ``Precursor 
Effectiveness,'' which is available in the docket for this proposed 
rulemaking. In two separate runs of the CMAQ modeling application used 
for the attainment demonstration, CARB simulated an additional 10 
percent reduction in modeling domain NOX emissions and in 
direct PM2.5 emissions. These PM2.5 effects were 
divided by the emissions totals for each pollutant to give a 
concentration change per emissions change, or effectiveness, for each 
pollutant. This effectiveness shows the reduction of precursor 
emissions needed for a given concentration change, and so can be used 
to estimate an interpollutant equivalence ratio, the amount of one 
precursor that is equivalent to the other in terms of the effect on 
ambient concentrations of PM2.5. The direct PM2.5 
effectiveness was divided by the NOX effectiveness to arrive 
at a NOX:PM2.5 ratio for each monitor; the 
average of these is about 9. This method appears to be adequate for 
purposes of assessing the effect of area-wide emissions changes, such 
as are used in RFP, contingency measures, and conformity budgets, and 
EPA is proposing to allow its use here.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ EPA is proposing to approve the use of this NOX 
to PM2.5 interpollutant trading ratio to meet CAA 
planning requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the 
SJV. EPA is also proposing to approve the use of this ratio in 
transportation conformity determinations for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS but only until such time as EPA finds 
adequate or approves budgets developed specifically for the 2006 
standard. EPA is not proposing, at this time, to approve the use of 
this ratio in plans for future PM standards or in the District's new 
source review (NSR) permitting program.
    The District recently submitted revisions to its NSR rule, Rule 
2201, which require that interpollutant trading ratios used for 
purposes of satisfying PM2.5 NSR offset requirements 
first be approved by EPA into the SIP. See Rule 2201 (April 21, 
2011), section 4.13.3.2. The Rule 2201 submittal also states that 
the District intends to submit SJV-specific PM2.5 
interpollutant trading ratios for EPA's approval in a future SIP 
revision but will, in the interim, require project proponents to use 
the default ratios provided in the preamble to EPA's 
PM2.5 NSR rule (73 FR 28321 at 28339 (May 16, 2008)), 
until alternative trading ratios are approved by EPA into the SIP. 
See SJVAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to Rule 
2201 (New And Modified Stationary Source Review Rule), March 17, 
2011, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SOX:PM2.5 ratio is documented in 
supplemental information provided by the District which is available in 
the docket for this proposed rulemaking. See ``Atmospheric 
Interpollutant Equivalency between Direct Particulate Emissions and 
Secondary Particulate Formed from Gaseous Sulfur Oxide Emissions''; the 
spreadsheet ``Interpollutant Calculation''; and letter dated May 27, 
2009 from David Warner, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 
District to Mr. Joseph Douglas, California Energy Commission, 
Attachment II, ``Interpollutant Offset Ratio Explanation.'' After 
reviewing this documentation, EPA does not agree with the method used 
to develop the ratio.
    The approach used by the District to estimate inter-pollutant 
equivalency ratios rests on the incorrect assumption that ambient 
sensitivity to emissions reductions of a given precursor can be 
estimated as the ratio of concentration to emissions. This is the 
assumption of linear ``rollback'', and inherently cannot address the 
complexities of PM2.5 formation chemistry, which is 
nonlinear. It is in contrast to the State's approach for the 
NOX:PM2.5 ratio which used photochemical modeling 
results to take into account such nonlinearity. EPA's evaluation of the 
SOX:PM2.5 approach is discussed in greater detail 
in section II.B.4. of the TSD.
    EPA is proposing to not allow the use of this SOX to 
PM2.5 interpollutant trading ratio at this time to meet any 
CAA planning requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 standards in 
the SJV. We note that the State had proposed the use of this ratio to 
meet only the CAA requirement for contingency measures. See section 
V.E. below.

[[Page 41350]]

3. PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors Addressed in the SJV 
2008 PM2.5 SIP
    EPA recognizes NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia as 
the main precursor gases associated with the formation of secondary 
PM2.5 in the ambient air. These gas-phase PM2.5 
precursors undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere to form 
secondary particulate matter. Formation of secondary PM2.5 
depends on numerous factors including the concentrations of precursors; 
the concentrations of other gaseous reactive species; atmospheric 
conditions including solar radiation, temperature, and relative 
humidity; and the interactions of precursors with preexisting particles 
and with cloud or fog droplets. 72 FR 20586 at 20589.
    As discussed previously, a state must submit emissions inventories 
for each of the four PM2.5 precursor pollutants. 72 FR 20586 
at 20589 and 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1). However, the overall contribution of 
different precursors to PM2.5 formation and the 
effectiveness of alternative potential control measures will vary by 
area. Thus, the precursors that a state should regulate to attain the 
PM2.5 NAAQS can also vary to some extent from area to area. 
72 FR 20586 at 20589.
    In the PM2.5 implementation rule, EPA did not require 
that all potential PM2.5 precursors must be controlled in 
each specific nonattainment area. See 72 FR 20586 at 20589. Instead, 
for reasons explained in the rule's preamble, a state must evaluate 
control measures for sources of SO2 in addition to sources 
of direct PM2.5 in all nonattainment areas. 40 CFR 
51.1002(c) and (c)(1). A state must also evaluate control measures for 
sources of NOX unless the state and/or EPA determine that 
control of NOX emissions would not significantly reduce 
PM2.5 concentrations in the specific nonattainment area. 40 
CFR 51.1002(c)(2). In contrast, EPA has determined in the 
PM2.5 implementation rule that a state does not need to 
address controls for sources of VOC and ammonia unless the state and/or 
EPA make a technical demonstration that such controls would 
significantly contribute to reducing PM2.5 concentrations in 
the specific nonattainment area at issue. 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3) and (4). 
Such a demonstration is required ``if the administrative record related 
to development of its SIP shows that the presumption is not technically 
justified for that area.'' 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(5).
    ``Significantly contributes'' in this context means that a 
significant reduction in emissions of the precursor from sources in the 
area would be projected to provide a significant reduction in 
PM2.5 concentrations in the area. 72 FR 20586 at 20590. 
Although EPA did not establish a quantitative test for determining what 
constitutes a significant change, EPA noted that even relatively small 
reductions in PM2.5 levels are estimated to result in 
worthwhile public health benefits. Id.
    EPA further explained that a technical demonstration to reverse the 
presumption for NOX, VOC, or ammonia in any area could 
consider the emissions inventory, speciation data, modeling 
information, or other special studies such as monitoring of additional 
compounds, receptor modeling, or special monitoring studies. 72 FR 
20586 at 20596-20597. These factors could indicate that the emissions 
or ambient concentration contributions of a precursor, or the 
sensitivity of ambient concentrations to changes in precursor 
emissions, differs for a specific nonattainment area from the 
presumption EPA established for that precursor in the PM2.5 
implementation rule.
    The SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not explicitly identify the 
pollutants that have been selected as PM2.5 attainment plan 
precursors as defined in 40 CFR 51.1000. The Plan addresses 
NOX and SO2 in the RFP and attainment 
demonstrations and in the District's RACM/RACT analysis, and thereby 
implicitly identifies NOX and SO2 as attainment 
plan precursors. The Plan also includes supporting documentation for 
the inclusion of NOX as an attainment plan precursor and for 
the exclusion of ammonia. In our November 30, 2010 proposal, we noted 
that the Plan did not fully evaluate the impact of controlling VOC as a 
precursor for PM2.5 attainment and contained conflicting 
information on whether controlling VOC, in addition to SO2 
and NOX, may contribute significantly to reductions in 
ambient PM2.5 levels in the SJV. In 2011, however, CARB 
provided additional technical information supporting its position that 
VOC should not be considered a PM2.5 attainment plan 
precursor in the San Joaquin Valley. See letter, James Goldstene, CARB, 
to Frances Wicher, EPA, January 31, 2011, attachment 4 (CARB VOC 
supplement). We discuss below our evaluation of this additional 
technical information.
    As mentioned above, ambient contribution and ambient sensitivity to 
emissions changes may both be considered in determining whether the 
presumption for an attainment plan precursor should be reversed. The 
2008 PM2.5 Plan contains numerous qualitative statements 
that San Joaquin Valley's ambient PM2.5 levels are dominated 
by ammonium nitrate, and that NOX reductions are more 
effective at reducing ambient PM2.5 than reductions in the 
other precursors. Most of those statements are in Chapter 3 and 
Appendix F, and are based on excerpts of findings from the California 
Regional Particulate Air Quality Study (CRPAQS). Several of the cited 
CRPAQS documents are available at CARB's ``Central California Air 
Quality Studies'' Web site (at http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways).
    For the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan contains some qualitative descriptions of 
precursor ambient contributions. For example, the 2008 PM2.5 
Plan states on p. 2-8 that annual concentrations are driven by 
wintertime concentrations and further, that the highest short term 
concentrations are driven by ammonium nitrate, as found in the CRPAQS 
study:

    For most of the sites within the SJV, 50-75% of the annual 
average PM2.5 concentration could be attributed to a high 
PM2.5 period occurring from November to January. At non-
urban sites, the elevated PM2.5 was driven by secondary 
[ammonium nitrate].\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Quote from ``Initial Data Analysis of Field Program 
Measurements,'' DRI Document No. 2497, July 29, 2005; Judith C. 
Chow, L.W. Antony Chen, Douglas H. Lowenthal, Prakash Doraiswamy, 
Kihong Park, Steven D. Kohl, Dana L. Trimble, John G. Watson, Desert 
Research Institute.

    There are also quantitative data in the Plan's Appendix G (p. G-21, 
Table 2) and, projected to 2014, in the Receptor Modeling Documentation 
(RMD). Ammonium nitrate for 2000 monitored data ranges from 24-36 
percent of total PM2.5, and if projected to 2014, ranges 
from 36-51 percent, confirming the importance of NOX, one 
source of the nitrate in ammonium nitrate, as a precursor that 
significantly contributes to annual PM2.5 levels in the SJV.
    In addition to composition data, ambient sensitivity to emissions 
changes can also be a consideration in determining which pollutants 
should be regulated in the attainment plan for a specific area. For 
ammonium nitrate PM2.5, which is formed from both ammonia 
and NOX, a key issue is whether the control of either or 
both precursors would be effective at reducing ambient PM2.5 
concentrations. Among the findings cited in the 2008 PM2.5 
Plan that address this issue are that:

    Particulate [ammonium nitrate] concentrations are limited by the 
rate of [nitric acid] formation, rather than by the availability of 
[ammonia].

and


[[Page 41351]]


    Comparisons of ammonia and nitric acid concentrations show that 
ammonia is far more abundant than nitric acid, which indicates that 
ammonium nitrate formation is limited by the availability of nitric 
acid, rather than ammonia * * *. This study's analyses suggest that 
reductions in NOX emissions will be more effective in 
reducing secondary ammonium nitrate aerosol concentrations than 
reductions in ammonia emissions. Reductions in VOC emissions will 
reduce secondary organic aerosol concentrations and may reduce 
ammonium nitrate. * * * The results indicate ammonium nitrate 
formation is ultimately controlled by NOX emission rates 
and the other species, including VOCs and background ozone, which 
control the rate of NOX oxidation in winter, rather than 
by ammonia emissions.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Quote from Lurmann, F. et al., 2006, ``Processes 
Influencing Secondary Aerosol Formation in the San Joaquin Valley 
During Winter,'' Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 
(56): 1679-1693, cited at 2008 PM2.5 Plan p. 3-10.

    These findings are based on the relative abundance of ammonia 
relative to nitrate: There is so much ammonia present that 
significantly reducing its emissions would still leave ample ammonia to 
form ammonium nitrate. On the other hand, NOX is scarce 
(relative to ammonia), so reducing it could reduce ammonium nitrate 
significantly.
    Finally, sensitivity results from photochemical modeling were used 
in conjunction with the CMB results mentioned above. The 2014 RMD 
section on ``Review of control strategy effectiveness supported by CMAQ 
nitrate particulate evaluation'' shows the projected effect of a 50 
percent reduction of NOX emissions on PM2.5 
concentrations annually and in shorter seasonal episodes. For the 
annual concentration, the NOX reduction resulted in a 
predicted 5 [micro]g/m\3\ PM2.5 reduction, while for the 
winter episode the NOX reduction resulted in a predicted 28 
[micro]g/m\3\ PM2.5 reduction. 2014 RMD, p. 80. A 50 percent 
reduction in ammonia emissions, on the other hand, predicted 
PM2.5 reductions of only 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ on an annual 
basis and 0.3 [micro]g/m\3\ during the winter episode. RMD, p. 81. When 
compared to the annual and 24-hour NAAQS of 15 and 65 [micro]g/m\3\, 
respectively, the effect of NOX reductions appears to be 
significant while the effect of ammonia reductions does not. Thus, the 
data and modeling results presented in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 
as well as the results of the cited studies, support the inclusion of 
NOX and the exclusion of ammonia as PM2.5 
attainment plan precursors, consistent with the EPA presumptions in the 
PM2.5 implementation rule.
    EPA's presumption in the PM2.5 implementation rule is 
that VOC need not be an attainment plan precursor. 40 CFR 
51.1002(c)(3). This presumptive policy for VOC is largely based on 
uncertainties regarding the role of VOC in secondary organic aerosol 
(SOA) formation and in photochemical reactions that lead to the 
formation of certain free radical compounds (such as the hydroxyl 
radical [OH]), which participate in the formation of nitrate 
PM2.5. See 72 FR 20586 at 20593 (April 25, 2007). As 
explained in the preamble to the rule, this presumption may not be 
technically justified for a particular nonattainment area, i.e., where 
emissions of VOC significantly contribute to PM2.5 
concentrations in the specific nonattainment area at issue. 72 FR 20586 
at 20590-93, 20596-97. States or EPA may conduct a technical 
demonstration to reverse the presumptive exclusion of VOC as a 
PM2.5 attainment plan precursor based on the weight of 
evidence of available technical and scientific information. Id.
    We note that because the SJV is designated and classified as 
extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, VOC emission 
sources in this area are already subject to specific control 
requirements under subpart 2 of title I, part D of the Act. 
Nevertheless, EPA examined the available evidence on the effect of VOC 
reductions on ambient PM2.5 levels in the SJV, consistent 
with the PM2.5 implementation rule.
    The 2008 PM2.5 Plan contains inconclusive information on 
whether VOC should be considered a PM2.5 attainment plan 
precursor for the SJV nonattainment area. On the one hand, some 
information in the Plan indicates that VOC reductions may contribute to 
reduced ambient PM2.5 levels in the area. Table 2 in 
Appendix G (p. G-21) gives an organic carbon range of 38-49 percent of 
the total PM2.5 on an annual basis. This includes a 
secondary organic aerosol (SOA) contribution of 2-5 percent of total 
annual PM2.5. RMD at 19. This SOA contribution to overall 
PM2.5 levels appears to be non-negligible, although it may 
not necessarily be significant. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan also 
states: ``Secondary organic aerosols (SOA) contribute to a significant 
fraction of PM2.5. SOA is organic carbon particulate formed 
in the photochemical oxidation of anthropogenic and biogenic VOC 
precursor gases. Aromatic compounds are believed to be efficient SOA 
producers contributing to this secondary particulate.'' 2008 
PM2.5 Plan, p. 3-8. On a 24-hour episodic basis, the 
contribution of SOA could theoretically be higher than the annual 2-5 
percent, but SOA is formed mainly in the summer and so tends to be 
lower for the winter episodes of most concern in the SJV, due to 
decreased photochemical activity when the SJV winter's fog and clouds 
partially block sunlight. The SOA contribution to 24-hour 
PM2.5 is thus smaller than for annual PM2.5. 
Finally, the RMD at page 82 contains sensitivity analyses for VOC, 
similar to the ones described above for NOX and ammonia. The 
2014 RMD concludes: ``Finding: VOC reduction is effective for the 
annual standard and the winter episode for reduction of total carbon 
secondary particulates.'' It is not clear whether this refers only to 
SOA or to all secondary particulates including ammonium nitrate. The 
various statements above indicate VOC reductions may contribute to 
reducing ambient PM2.5 levels.
    On the other hand, some statements in the Plan indicate VOC should 
not be considered a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor. In 
response to comments on the VOC issue submitted during the District's 
public comment period, the Plan states that the ``modeling has shown 
that VOC reductions are not as effective in reducing secondary 
PM2.5 as NOX or SO2 reductions'' and 
that ``[a]ll of the technical evaluations for CRPAQS and prior 
assessments of regional particulate models have indicated that 
NOX is the dominant factor and VOC and ammonia are not.'' 
2008 PM2.5 Plan, pp. J-9 and p. J-19. These statements 
reflect the District's conclusion that VOC should not be considered an 
attainment plan precursor. This conclusion was also later explicitly 
stated by CARB. CARB VOC supplement. In addition, CARB later clarified 
that statements in the Receptor Modeling Document (cited above) were 
not intended to address the question of whether VOC should be a 
PM2.5 attainment plan precursor, and that the methodology 
used in the RMD does not substitute for actual photochemical modeling 
performed by CARB. (Personal communication, Karen Magliano, CARB, 
January 26, 2011.) As noted above, EPA agrees that the CMAQ 
photochemical modeling is the primary basis for the Plan's attainment 
demonstration.
    Given the later and more definitive statements against VOC as an 
attainment plan precursor, overall the evidence on SOA does not 
constitute a technical demonstration that VOC is a PM2.5 
attainment plan precursor in the San Joaquin Valley, and does not 
overcome the negative presumption for VOC as a PM2.5 
attainment plan precursor.
    However, the Plan's inconsistency on VOC as an attainment plan 
precursor applies not just to the SOA just discussed, but also to the 
indirect role

[[Page 41352]]

of VOC, which also requires a conclusion on its precursor status. VOC 
may be a PM2.5 precursor not just via formation of SOA, but 
also via its participation in the oxidant chemistry that leads to 
nitrate formation, a necessary step in the formation of ammonium 
nitrate PM2.5. As noted in the preamble to the 
PM2.5 implementation rule at pp. 20592-20593, the lightest 
organic molecules can participate in atmospheric chemistry processes 
that result in the formation of ozone and certain free radical 
compounds (such as the hydroxyl radical [OH]) and these in turn 
participate in oxidation reactions to form secondary organic aerosols, 
sulfates, and nitrates. NOX emissions must be oxidized to 
nitric acid before they form particulate ammonium nitrate. Two pathways 
for this oxidation to occur are (1) daytime oxidation by OH, which VOC 
radicals help create and which could be affected by VOC controls, and 
(2) nighttime oxidation by ozone, which might not be affected by VOC 
controls in the area.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Lurmann, F. et al., 2006, op cit., p. 1688.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some statements in the Plan seem to favor VOC as an attainment plan 
precursor in this indirect role. The discussion in the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan regarding ammonium nitrate (at p. 3-10, quoted 
above) also refers to VOC, which is identified as one of the 
controlling factors in NOX oxidation (which leads to 
ammonium nitrate PM2.5): ``Reductions in VOC emissions will 
reduce secondary organic aerosol concentrations and may reduce ammonium 
nitrate.'' The Plan also states: ``Relatively low non-methane organic 
compounds/nitrogen oxide ratios indicate the daytime photochemistry is 
VOC, sunlight, and background-ozone limited in winter.'' Id. Although 
these are only generic statements, if nitrate formation is VOC-limited 
under some circumstances, then VOC emissions reductions could lead to 
ambient PM2.5 reductions. On the other hand, in this same 
section, the Plan states that ``entrainment of aerosol nitrate formed 
aloft at night may explain the spatial homogeneity of nitrate in the 
San Joaquin Valley''. Id. Since this nighttime pathway may not be VOC-
limited, overall it is not clear whether VOC reductions would be 
effective for reducing PM2.5.
    Given the inconclusive statements about VOC in the Plan, EPA 
reviewed the results of several modeling and monitoring studies of 
PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley, and previously proposed a 
technical demonstration that VOC should be a plan precursor. See 75 F 
74518, 74530. Some of the study documents EPA reviewed are available on 
the ``Central California Air Quality Studies'' Web site (at http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways) and/or are cited in the Plan and are reports 
from contractors involved in CRPAQS. Others are papers from peer-
reviewed journals and are analyses using CRPAQS data or data from the 
earlier 1995 Integrated Monitoring Study (IMS95 study). We found that 
four monitoring studies and six modeling studies were relevant to the 
VOC precursor issue. A list of these studies as well as further 
information on them and excerpts from them are provided in section 
II.E. of the TSD. The monitoring studies all contain evidence that the 
VOC pathway for nitrate creation is important at least some of the time 
but differ as to how important it is relative to other pathways such as 
the nighttime ozone pathway, and are not conclusive on the efficacy of 
VOC controls. As noted above, the study by Lurmann et al., which is the 
most recent of the monitoring studies and which was quoted in the Plan, 
stated that the observed spatial homogeneity of ammonium nitrate could 
be explained by nighttime production aloft via the ozone pathway, 
followed by mixing down to the surface, as opposed to production during 
the day via the VOC pathway. As noted in the CARB VOC supplement, CARB 
technical staff involved in the CRPAQS work cite this study and agree 
with this conclusion.
    Unlike the monitoring studies, most of the modeling studies 
explicitly assessed the relative effectiveness of precursor controls, 
simulating the effect of 50 percent reductions in NOX, 
ammonia, and VOC. (One study does not explicitly address the VOC 
reductions, but states that background ozone flowing in from outside 
the nonattainment area is the most important oxidant, so that VOC 
controls in the SJV would have little effect.) The two earliest 
modeling studies are based on photochemical box modeling and differ on 
whether VOC controls would significantly affect PM2.5. Three 
later studies use more sophisticated photochemical grid models and find 
VOC control to be effective, though generally less so than 
NOX control. One study predicts VOC control to be about two-
thirds as effective as NOX control. The second study 
predicted VOC control to be effective, though only by a relatively 
small amount, at most 10 percent for a 50 percent reduction in VOC 
emissions, or only on certain days. The third grid modeling study 
predicts VOC control to give slightly more benefit than NOX 
control. In our November 2010 proposal, EPA indicated that although the 
models, input data, and results differ among these studies, the studies 
indicated that control of VOC could significantly reduce 
PM2.5 concentrations in the SJV.
    In its VOC supplement, however, CARB provided additional 
interpretation of these same studies. CARB makes several points about 
the modeling studies that argue against VOC as an attainment plan 
precursor in the SJV, namely their unreasonableness for this assessment 
and the lack of benefits shown in some of them. On the first of these 
main points, CARB argues that the hypothetical 50 percent VOC reduction 
evaluated in the modeling studies is not a reasonable basis for 
assessing VOC as a plan precursor, for at least two reasons. Its first 
reason is that this amount of reductions may not be feasible, 
especially given the VOC reductions already undertaken as part of other 
plans, such as the ozone plan for the SJV area. EPA agrees that 
reasonable assumptions are important for an attainment plan precursor 
technical demonstration; however, without an assessment from the State 
of the feasibility of a 50 percent VOC reduction, the model results 
cannot be dismissed on that basis. Indeed, an assessment of the 
feasible degree of VOC control in a RACM/RACT analysis would be 
required if VOC were considered an attainment plan precursor.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 72 FR 20586 at 20591 (``Assessments of which source 
categories are more cost effective or technically feasible to 
control should be part of the later RACT and RACM assessment, to 
occur after the basic assessment of which precursors are to be 
regulated is completed.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second reason offered in the CARB VOC supplement for why the 
modeled 50 VOC percent reduction may not be a reasonable basis for 
evaluation of VOC as an attainment plan precursor is that it considers 
VOC in isolation from the other PM2.5 precursors. CARB 
argues that because precursors interact in complex ways in the 
atmosphere, the expected effect of VOC controls should be evaluated in 
the context of the expected emission levels of the other precursors in 
the attainment demonstration. In particular, CARB notes that the 
existing NOX control program will provide substantial 
NOX emission reductions, and this will affect the benefit of 
VOC controls. Thus, it argues that while the modeling studies' VOC 
reduction results may be technically correct in themselves, they do not 
translate directly into measurable reductions in ambient 
PM2.5 concentrations per ton of VOC, nor do they support a 
need for additional VOC controls in the PM2.5 control 
strategy.

[[Page 41353]]

EPA agrees that the studies highlight a need to consider multiple 
precursor effects at once, in the context of what is needed for 
attainment in the target year, and that it makes sense to examine 
precursor interactions in assessing plan precursors.
    Another main point made by CARB in its VOC supplement about the 
modeling studies is that the more sophisticated ones, based on 
photochemical grid modeling, tended to show small benefits and 
sometimes disbenefits \24\ from VOC controls in the more realistic 
scenarios modeled. CARB pointed out that when NOX reductions 
are considered at the same time, two studies showed PM2.5 
disbenefits from VOC reduction at multiple locations, though in one 
this occurred only at some times. (No similar disbenefit was seen for 
additional NOX reductions when they were considered 
simultaneously with VOC reductions.) Thus, under the realistic 
assumption that NOX reductions will occur as a result of the 
Plan control strategy, according to these studies additional VOC 
reductions could be counterproductive, making it more difficult for the 
SJV to come into PM2.5 attainment. EPA agrees that these 
analyses raise legitimate questions about the efficacy of VOC 
reductions and do not support a reversal of the PM2.5 
implementation rule's presumption that VOC is not an attainment plan 
precursor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ VOC typically contributes to the formation of ozone and 
hydroxyl, which through its oxidizing effect can help convert 
NOX emissions to particulate nitrate. However, there are 
also direct VOC-NOX interactions that act as a ``sink'', 
forming e.g. peroxyaceytl nitrate (PAN), and removing both VOC and 
NOX from the photochemical reactions that lead to ozone 
and some particulate. Under some circumstances, VOC reductions can 
lessen the effect of this ``sink'', so that more NOX 
remains to form particulate, resulting in a PM2.5 
disbenefit from VOC control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, CARB notes that one of the studies showed a benefit from 
VOC control only at the very highest PM2.5 levels, above 80 
[mu]g/m\3\, well above current design values in the SJV which are more 
in the range of 50-60 [mu]g/m\3\. See CARB VOC supplement, p. 10.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ According to monitoring data in EPA's AQS database, there 
were 172 values over 80 [mu]g/m\3\ during 1999-2002; by contrast, 
there were only 24 values over 80 during 2007-2010. EPA's Air 
Quality System, Violation Day Count Report, May 13, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on an examination of model output throughout the episode, 
CARB hypothesizes that a different chemical regime is entered at high 
levels, for which this VOC sensitivity does occur, though this 
hypothesis apparently has not been explored with modeling tools such as 
process analysis. CARB staff involved in the CRPAQS modeling effort 
believes that, under current SJV conditions, the nighttime nitrate 
production route via background ozone is the main oxidation driver for 
nitrate PM2.5 in the SJV, and that the VOC-sensitive daytime 
oxidant route is of less importance. CARB VOC supplement, p. 10.
    After careful review, EPA is proposing to determine that the 
information submitted by CARB in the VOC supplement raises significant 
questions about the efficacy of VOC controls for reducing ambient 
PM2.5 concentrations in the SJV and demonstrates that the 
available technical information does not provide a sufficient basis for 
reversing the presumption in the PM2.5 implementation rule 
that VOC is not an attainment plan precursor in this area. Accordingly, 
EPA proposes to concur with CARB's determination that at this time, VOC 
should not be an attainment plan precursor in the SJV area.\26\ EPA 
also proposes to concur with the evaluation in the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan that, at this time, ammonia does not need to be 
considered an attainment plan precursor for purposes of attaining the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In its approval of the SJV 2003 PM10 plan, EPA 
determined that for the purposes of CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) and (e) 
and in the absence of final data from CRPAQS, VOC did not contribute 
significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standards 
in the SJV. See 69 FR 30006, 30011 (May 26, 2004). We note that EPA 
made that 2004 finding for a different NAAQS (the 24-hour and now 
revoked annual PM10 standards of 150 [mu]g/m\3\ and 50 
[mu]g/m\3\, respectively), based on criteria for evaluation of 
precursors that differ from those provided in the PM2.5 
implementation rule. See 72 FR 20586 at 20590-20594 and 40 CFR Sec.  
51.1000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's proposed concurrence on excluding ammonia and VOC as 
attainment plan precursors in the SJV is limited to the SIP for 
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA revised the 24-hour 
PM2.5 standards in 2006 to lower them to 35 [mu]g/m\3\. 
Evaluation of whether ammonia and VOC controls may be necessary for the 
expeditious attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 standards and any 
future revised standards may show that such controls would 
significantly contribute to lower PM2.5 levels in the SJV.
4. Extension of the Attainment Date
    CAA section 172(a)(2) provides that an area's attainment date 
``shall be the date by which attainment can be achieved as 
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date 
such area was designated nonattainment * * *, except that the 
Administrator may extend the attainment date to the extent the 
Administrator determines appropriate, for a period no greater than 10 
years from the date of designation as nonattainment considering the 
severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of 
pollution control measures.''
    Because the effective date of designations for the 1997 
PM2.5 standards is April 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), the initial 
attainment date for PM2.5 nonattainment areas is as 
expeditiously as practicable but not later than April 5, 2010. For any 
area that is granted a full five-year attainment date extension under 
section 172, the attainment date would be not later than April 5, 2015.
    Section 51.1004 of the PM2.5 implementation rule 
addresses the attainment date requirement. Section 51.1004(b) requires 
a state to submit an attainment demonstration justifying its proposed 
attainment date and provides that EPA will approve an attainment date 
when we approve that demonstration.
    States that request an extension of the attainment date under CAA 
section 172(a)(2) must provide sufficient information to show that 
attainment by April 5, 2010 is impracticable due to the severity of the 
nonattainment problem in the area and the lack of available and 
feasible control measures to provide for faster attainment. 40 CFR 
51.1004(b). States must also demonstrate that all RACM and RACT for the 
area are being implemented to bring about attainment of the standard by 
the most expeditious alternative date practicable for the area. 72 FR 
20586 at 20601.
    The 2008 PM2.5 Plan includes a demonstration that the 
attainment date for the SJV should be April 5, 2015, i.e., that the 
area qualifies for the full five-year extension of the attainment date 
allowable under section 172(a)(1). This demonstration is found in 
Chapter 9 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and is updated by 
information in Appendix C of the 2011 Progress Report.
    SJV's PM2.5 nonattainment problem is severe. The area 
typically records the highest ambient PM2.5 levels in the 
nation, with the 2008-2010 design value for the annual PM2.5 
levels in urban Bakersfield area of 21.2 [mu]g/m\3\. See EPA, Air 
Quality System, Design Value Report, June 1, 2011. The PM2.5 
problem in the San Joaquin Valley is complex, caused by both direct and 
secondary PM2.5 and compounded by the area's topographical 
and meteorological conditions that are very conducive to the formation 
and concentration of PM2.5 particles. See 2008 
PM2.5 plan, Chapter 3.
    As discussed in section V.B.2.a. above, the District's strategy for 
attaining the PM2.5 standard relies on reductions of direct 
PM2.5 as well as the PM2.5 precursor pollutants 
NOX and

[[Page 41354]]

SOX. The SJV needs significant reductions in direct 
PM2.5 and NOX to demonstrate attainment. Further 
reducing these pollutants is challenging because the State and District 
have already adopted stringent control measures for most sources of 
direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions. Moreover, 
attainment in the SJV depends upon emissions reductions that offset the 
emissions increases associated with projected increases in population.
    Reductions of direct PM2.5 are achieved primarily from 
open burning, commercial charbroiling, residential wood combustion, and 
in-use truck and bus control measures. These types of control measures 
present special implementation challenges (e.g., the large number of 
individuals subject to regulation and the difficulty of applying 
conventional technological control solutions). NOX 
reductions come largely from District rules for fuel combustion sources 
and from the State's mobile source rules.
    Because of the necessity of obtaining additional emissions 
reductions from these source categories in the SJV and the need to 
conduct significant public outreach if applicable control approaches 
are to be effective, EPA agrees with the District and CARB that the 
2008 PM2.5 Plan reflects expeditious implementation of the 
available control programs during the 2008-2014 time frame. EPA also 
agrees that the implementation schedule for the District's revised 
stationary source controls is expeditious, taking into account the time 
necessary for purchase and installation of the required control 
technologies.
    In addition, the State has adopted standards for many categories of 
on-road and off-road vehicles and engines, gasoline and diesel fuels, 
as well as improvements to California's vehicle inspection and 
maintenance program, and programs requiring the retrofitting and 
replacement of in-use trucks, buses and off-road equipment. The State 
is implementing these rules and programs as expeditiously as 
practicable, and it is not feasible to accelerate the schedule for new 
emissions standards under the State and Federal mobile source control 
program.
    EPA also expects that the District and CARB will continue to 
investigate opportunities to accelerate progress toward attainment as 
new control opportunities arise, and that these agencies will promptly 
adopt and expeditiously implement any new measures found to be feasible 
in the future.
    As discussed in section V.B.3. above, we are proposing to approve 
the RACM/RACT demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP. As 
discussed below in section V.C.6., we are also proposing to approve the 
attainment demonstration in the SIP. Based on these proposed approvals 
as well as the Plan's demonstration that April 5, 2015 is the most 
expeditious attainment date practicable, EPA is proposing to grant an 
extension of the attainment date for the 1997 PM2.5 
standards in the SJV to April 5, 2015 pursuant to CAA section 172(b)(2) 
and 40 CFR 51.1004(b).
5. Attainment Demonstration
    Table 7 below summarizes the reductions that are relied on in the 
2008 PM2.5 Plan to demonstrate attainment by April 5, 2015.

    Table 7--Summary of Reductions Needed for SJV's PM2.5 Attainment
                              Demonstration
                      [Tons per average annual day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Direct
                                           PM2.5       NOX        SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 2005 emissions level................       86.0      575.4       26.4
B. 2014 attainment target..............       63.3      291.2       24.6
C. Total reductions needed by 2014 (A-        22.7      284.2        1.8
 B)....................................
D. Adjustments to baseline/reductions         13.7      258.1        1.0
 from baseline (pre-2007) measures.....
    Percent of total reductions from         60%        91%        56%
     baseline measures/adjustments.....
E. Reductions needed from new measures         9.0       26.1        0.8
 (C-D).................................
    Percent of total reductions needed       40%         9%        44%
     from new measures.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The 2005 emissions level, 2014 attainment target, and total
  reductions needed by 2014 remain unchanged from the November 30, 2010
  proposal.

    As shown in this table, the majority of the emissions reductions 
that the State projects are needed for PM2.5 attainment in 
the SJV by 2015 come from baseline reductions. These baseline 
reductions include not only the benefit of numerous adopted District 
and State measures which generally have been approved by EPA either 
through the SIP process or the CAA section 209 waiver process but also 
the effect of the recent economic recession on projected future 
inventories. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E and Appendices A and 
B of the TSD. The remaining reductions needed for attainment are to be 
achieved through the District's and CARB's commitments to reduce 
emissions in the SJV. Since the submittal of the 2008 PM2.5 
Plan and 2007 State Strategy, the District and CARB have adopted 
measures (summarized in Table 8 below) that can be credited toward 
reducing their aggregate emissions reduction in their enforceable 
commitments.

Table 8--Reductions Needed for Attainment Remaining as Commitments Based
                       on SIP-Creditable Measures
                  [Tons per average annual day in 2014]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Direct
                                              PM2.5      NOX       SOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Total reductions needed from baseline        22.7     284.2       1.8
 and control strategy measures to attain..
B. Reductions from baseline measures......      13.7     258.1       1.0
C. Total reductions from approved/proposed       6.0      13.2       3.6
 for approval measures....................
    Total reductions remaining as                3.0      12.9       0.0
     commitments (A-B-C)..................
    Percent of total reductions needed         13.2%      4.5%      0.0%
     remaining as commitments.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 41355]]

a. Enforceable Commitments
    As shown above, measures already adopted by the District and CARB 
(both prior to and as part of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan) provide 
the majority of emissions reductions the State projects are needed to 
demonstrate attainment. The balance of the needed reductions is in the 
form of enforceable commitments by the District and CARB.
    The CAA allows approval of enforceable commitments that are limited 
in scope where circumstances exist that warrant the use of such 
commitments in place of adopted measures.\27\ Once EPA determines that 
circumstances warrant consideration of an enforceable commitment, it 
considers three factors in determining whether to approve the CAA 
requirement that relies on the enforceable commitment: (a) Does the 
commitment address a limited portion of the CAA-requirement; (b) is the 
state capable of fulfilling its commitment; and (c) is the commitment 
for a reasonable and appropriate period of time.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Commitments approved by EPA under CAA section 110(k)(3) are 
enforceable by EPA and citizens under CAA sections 113 and 304, 
respectively. In the past, EPA has approved enforceable commitments 
and courts have enforced these actions against states that failed to 
comply with those commitments. See, e.g., American Lung Ass'n of 
N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 
(3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 
F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for a Better Env't v. 
Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in par, 746 F. Supp. 
976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for Clean Air v. South Coast Air 
Quality Mgt. Dist., No. CV 97-6916-HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999). 
Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments, EPA could make a 
finding of failure to implement the SIP under CAA section 179(a), 
which starts an 18-month period for the State to correct the non-
implementation before mandatory sanctions are imposed.
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) provides that each SIP ``shall include 
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means 
or techniques * * * as well as schedules and timetables for 
compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the 
applicable requirement of the Act.'' Section 172(c)(6) of the Act, 
which applies to nonattainment SIPs, is virtually identical to 
section 110(a)(2)(A). The language in these sections of the CAA is 
quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any ``means or techniques'' 
that EPA determines are ``necessary or appropriate'' to meet CAA 
requirements, such that the area will attain as expeditiously as 
practicable, but no later than the designated date. Furthermore, the 
express allowance for ``schedules and timetables'' demonstrates that 
Congress understood that all required controls might not have to be 
in place before a SIP could be fully approved.
    \28\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld 
EPA's interpretation of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and 
the Agency's use and application of the three factor test in 
approving enforceable commitments in the 1-hour ozone SIP for 
Houston-Galveston. BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et al., 355 F.3d 
817 (5th Cir. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State 
Strategy, circumstances warrant the consideration of enforceable 
commitments as part of the attainment demonstration for this area. As 
shown in Table 7 above, the majority of emissions reductions that are 
needed to demonstrate attainment and RFP in the SJV come from rules and 
regulations that were adopted prior to 2007, i.e., they come from the 
baseline measures.
    As a result of these already-adopted District and State measures, 
most sources in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area were already 
subject to stringent rules prior to the development of the 2007 State 
Strategy and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, leaving fewer and more 
technologically challenging opportunities to reduce emissions. In the 
2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2009 revisions to the 2007 State 
Strategy, the District and CARB identified potential control measures 
that could achieve the additional emissions reductions needed for 
attainment. However, the timeline needed to develop, adopt, and 
implement these measures went well beyond the April 5, 2008 \29\ CAA 
deadline to submit the PM2.5 plan. As discussed above and 
below, since 2007, the District and State have made progress in 
adopting measures to meet their commitments, but have not completely 
fulfilled them. Given these circumstances, the 2008 PM2.5 
Plan's and 2007 State Strategy's reliance on enforceable commitments is 
warranted. We now consider the three factors EPA uses to determine 
whether the use of enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted measures 
to meet CAA planning requirements is approvable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The 2007 State Strategy was developed to address both the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. The 8-
hour ozone SIPs were due in November 2007, and the development and 
adoption of the State Strategy was timed to coordinate with this 
submittal date. 2007 State Strategy, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. The Commitment Represents a Limited Portion of Required Reductions
    For the first factor, we look to see if the commitment addresses a 
limited portion of a statutory requirement, such as the amount of 
emissions reductions needed for attainment in a nonattainment area.
    As shown in Table 8, the remaining portion of the enforceable 
commitments in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 State 
Strategy are 3.0 tpd direct PM2.5 and 12.6 tpd 
NOX after accounting for measures that are either approved 
or proposed for approval and revisions to the future year baseline 
inventories resulting from changes to the Plan's economic forecasts and 
other factors. When compared to the total reductions needed by 2014 for 
PM2.5 attainment in the SJV on a per-pollutant basis, these 
remaining commitments represent approximately 13.2 percent of the 
direct PM2.5 and 4.5 percent of the NOX needed to 
attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV.
    We find that the reductions remaining as enforceable commitments in 
the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy represent a 
limited portion of the total emissions reductions needed to meet the 
statutory requirement for attainment in the SJV and therefore satisfy 
the first factor. The level of reductions remaining as commitments is 
reasonably close to the 10 percent range that EPA has historically 
accepted in approving attainment demonstrations.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See, for example, our approval of the SJV PM10 
Plan at 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004), the SJV 1-hour ozone plan at 75 
FR 10420 (March 8, 2010), and the Houston-Galveston 1-hour ozone 
plan at 66 FR 57160 (November 14, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. The State Is Capable of Fulfilling Its Commitment
    For the second factor, we consider whether the State and District 
are capable of fulfilling their commitments. As discussed above, CARB 
has adopted and submitted a 2009 State Strategy Status Report and a 
2011 Progress Report, which update and revise the 2007 State Strategy. 
These reports show that CARB has made significant progress in meeting 
its enforceable commitments for the San Joaquin Valley and several 
other nonattainment areas in California. Additional ongoing programs 
that address locomotives and in-use agricultural equipment have yet to 
be quantified but are expected to reduce NOX and direct 
PM2.5 emissions in the SJV by 2014. See 2011 Progress 
Report, Appendix E, page 2.
    The District has already exceeded its commitments to reduce 
NOX emissions in 2014 by 9 tpd and SOx emissions 
by 0.9 tpd and has substantially met its commitment to reduce direct 
PM2.5 emissions by 6.7 tpd. See Tables 3 and 4. In addition, 
it is expecting to adopt revisions to District Rule 4702 (Reciprocating 
Internal Combustion Engines) later this year that are likely to achieve 
substantial NOX reductions by 2014. See SJVUAPCD, Draft 
Staff Report For Draft Amendments To Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion 
Engines-Phase 2), September 9, 2010. It is also continuing to work to 
identify and adopt additional measures to reduce emissions. Table F-5 
in the TSD describes a number of the feasibility studies currently 
underway at the District.
    Beyond the rules discussed above, both CARB and the District have 
well-funded incentive grant programs to reduce emissions from the on- 
and off-

[[Page 41356]]

road engine fleets. See, for examples, SJV PM2.5 Progress 
Report, section 2.3. Reductions from several of these programs have yet 
to be quantified and/or credited in the attainment demonstration but 
efforts are underway to do so. See, for example, ``Statement of 
Principles Regarding the Approach to State Implementation Plan 
Creditability of Agricultural Equipment Replaced Incentive Programs 
Implemented by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and San 
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District,'' December 2010.
    Finally, the SJV is designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 standard. The State must submit a plan to address 
attainment of that standard by December 2012. 74 FR 58688, 58689 
(November 13, 2009).
    Given the evidence of the State's and District's efforts to date 
and their continuing efforts to reduce emissions, we find that the 
State and District are capable of meeting their enforceable commitments 
to reduce emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX by 
2014 to the levels needed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards 
in the San Joaquin Valley by its proposed attainment date of April 5, 
2015.
iii. The Commitment Is for a Reasonable and Appropriate Timeframe
    For the third and last factor, we consider whether the commitment 
is for a reasonable and appropriate period of time.
    In order to meet the commitments to reduce emissions to the levels 
needed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the San Joaquin 
Valley, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy included 
an ambitious rule development, adoption, and implementation schedules, 
which both the District and CARB have substantially met. EPA considers 
these schedules to provide sufficient time to achieve by 2014 the few 
remaining reductions needed to attain by the proposed attainment date 
of April 5, 2015. We, therefore, conclude that the third factor is 
satisfied.
6. Proposed Action on the Attainment Demonstration
    In order to approve a SIP's attainment demonstration, EPA must make 
several findings and approve the plan's proposed attainment date.
    First, we must find that the demonstration's technical bases, 
including the emissions inventories and air quality modeling, are 
adequate. As discussed above in sections V.A. and V.C.2, we are 
proposing to approve both the emissions inventories and the air quality 
modeling on which the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan's attainment 
demonstration and other provisions are based.
    Second, we must find that the SIP submittal provides for 
expeditious attainment through the implementation of all RACM and RACT. 
As discussed above in section V.B., we are proposing to approve the 
RACM/RACT demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 SIP.
    Third, EPA must find that the emissions reductions that are relied 
on for attainment are creditable. As discussed in section V.C.5., the 
2008 PM2.5 Plan relies principally on adopted and approved/
waived rules to achieve the emissions reductions needed to attain the 
1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV by April 5, 2015. The 
balance of the reductions is currently in the form of enforceable 
commitments that account for 13.2 percent of the direct 
PM2.5 and 4.5 percent of the NOX emissions 
reductions needed from 2005 levels for attainment. See Table 8.
    EPA has previously accepted enforceable commitments in lieu of 
adopted control measures in attainment demonstrations when the 
circumstances warrant it and the commitments meet three criteria. As 
discussed above in section V.C.5., we find that circumstances here 
warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments and that the three 
criteria are met: (1) The commitments constitute a limited portion of 
the required emissions reductions, (2) both the State and the District 
have demonstrated their capability to meet their commitments, and (3) 
the commitments are for an appropriate timeframe. Based on these 
conclusions, we propose to allow the State to rely on these limited 
enforceable commitments in its attainment demonstration.
    Finally, for a PM2.5 nonattainment area that cannot 
attain within five years of its designation as nonattainment, EPA must 
grant an extension of the attainment date in order to approve the 
attainment demonstration for the area. As discussed above in section 
V.C.4., we propose to determine that a five-year extension of the 
attainment date is appropriate given the severity of the nonattainment 
problem in the SJV and availability and feasibility of control measures 
and, therefore, to grant the State's request to extend the attainment 
date in the SJV to April 5, 2015.
    For the foregoing reasons, we are proposing to approve the 
attainment demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP.

D. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration

1. Requirements for RFP
    CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that plans for nonattainment areas 
shall provide for reasonable further progress (RFP). RFP is defined in 
section 171(1) as ``such annual incremental reductions in emissions of 
the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may 
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring 
attainment of the applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date.''
    The PM2.5 implementation rule requires submittal of an 
RFP plan at the same time as the attainment demonstration for any area 
for which a state requests an extension of the attainment date beyond 
2010. For areas for which the state requests an attainment date 
extension to 2015, such as SJV, the RFP plan must demonstrate that in 
the applicable milestone years of 2009 and 2012, emissions in the area 
will be at a level consistent with generally linear progress in 
reducing emissions between the base year and the attainment year. 40 
CFR 51.1009(d). States may demonstrate this by showing that emissions 
for each milestone year are roughly equivalent to benchmark emissions 
levels for direct PM2.5 and each PM2.5 attainment 
plan precursor addressed in the plan. The steps for determining the 
benchmark emissions levels to demonstrate generally linear progress are 
provided in 40 CFR 51.1009(f).
    The RFP plan must describe the control measures that provide for 
meeting the reasonable further progress milestones for the area, the 
timing of implementation of those measures, and the expected reductions 
in emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 attainment 
plan precursors. See 40 CFR 51.1009(c).
2. The RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan
    CARB provided an updated and revised RFP demonstration for the SJV 
in Appendix C of the 2011 Progress Report. The demonstration addresses 
direct PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 and uses 
the 2005 annual average day inventory as the base year inventory and 
2014 as the attainment year. The control strategy measures that are 
relied on to demonstrate RFP and the emissions reductions from each 
measure in each year are given in the 2011 Progress Report, Appendix C, 
Table C-1 and supplemental information provided by the District.\31\ 
The revised RFP

[[Page 41357]]

demonstration is shown in Table 9 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See SJVUAPCD, ``Table 3-1 Adjusted PM2.5 
Emission Inventory; Table 3-2 Adjusted NOX Emission 
Inventory; and Table 3-3 Adjusted SOX Emission 
Inventory,'' March 2011.

 Table 9--RFP Demonstration Using Updated Control Measures and Baseline
                                  Data
                      [Tons per annual average day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Direct
                                              PM2.5      NOX       SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark emissions level.................        76       449        26
Revised projected controlled emissions            73       387        23
 level....................................
Emissions below benchmark emissions level.        -3       -62        -3
Percent below benchmark emissions level...       -4%      -14%      -12%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark emissions level.................        68       354        25
Revised projected controlled emissions            71       336        20
 level....................................
Emissions above/below benchmark emissions         +3       -18        -5
 level....................................
Percent above/below benchmark emissions          +4%       -5%      -20%
 level....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table H-4 in the TSD.

3. Proposed Action on the RFP Demonstration
    EPA has reviewed the revised RFP demonstration in the 2011 Progress 
Report and has determined that it was prepared consistent with 
applicable EPA regulations and policies. See Section II.H of the TSD. 
As can be seen from Table 9, controlled emissions levels for direct 
PM2.5, NOX, and SOX were below the 
benchmarks for 2009, demonstrating that the SJV met its RFP targets in 
that year. For 2012, the projected controlled emissions levels for 
direct PM2.5 are only slightly above the benchmark (by about 
4 percent) and the projected controlled levels for NOX and 
SOX are substantially below the benchmarks. We find that, 
overall, these projected controlled emissions levels represent 
generally linear progress for 2012.
    Based on our evaluation, which is summarized above and discussed in 
detail in section II.H. of the TSD, and our proposed concurrence 
(discussed above in section V.C.3.) with the State's determination that 
SOX and NOX are and VOC and ammonia are not 
attainment plan precursors per 40 CFR 51.1002(c), we propose to find 
that the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP provides for reasonable further 
progress as required by CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1009 and 
that the SJV has met its 2009 RFP benchmarks.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ As discussed above in section V.A., CARB has recently 
updated the inventories for several mobile source categories and 
estimates that these updates would reduce, if incorporated into 
those inventories, the Plan's 2005 base year NOX 
inventory by approximately 6 percent and the direct PM2.5 
inventory by approximately 5 percent. CARB Progress Report 
supplement, Attachment 1. EPA evaluated the potential impact of 
revising the 2005 base year inventories on the RFP demonstration and 
found that the Plan would continue to show the RFP. See Section 
II.H. of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures
    Under CAA section 172(c)(9), all PM2.5 attainment plans 
must include contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to 
meet RFP (RFP contingency measures) and contingency measures to be 
implemented if an area fails to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by 
the applicable attainment date (attainment contingency measures). These 
contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures 
that are ready to be implemented quickly without significant additional 
action by the state. 40 CFR 51.1012. They must also be measures not 
relied on in the plan to demonstrate RFP or attainment and should 
provide SIP-creditable emissions reductions equivalent to approximately 
one year of the emissions reductions needed for RFP. 72 FR 20586 at 
20642-43. Finally, the SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for the 
contingency measures and specify a schedule for their implementation. 
Id.
    Contingency measures can include Federal, State and local measures 
already adopted and implemented or scheduled for implementation that 
provide emissions reductions in excess of the reductions needed to 
provide for RFP or expeditious attainment. EPA has approved numerous 
SIPs under this interpretation. See, for example, 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 
1997) direct final rule approving Indiana ozone SIP revision; 62 FR 
66279 (December 18, 1997), final rule approving Illinois ozone SIP 
revision; 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001), direct final rule approving Rhode 
Island ozone SIP revision; 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001), final rule 
approving District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia ozone SIP 
revisions; and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001), final rule approving 
Connecticut ozone SIP revision. The State may use the same measures for 
both RFP and attainment contingency if the measures will provide 
reductions in the relevant years; however, should measures be triggered 
for failure to make RFP, the State would need to submit replacement 
contingency measures for attainment purposes.
2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan
    There are several types of contingency measures in the 2008 
PM2.5 SIP: A new commitment to an action by the District, 
surplus reductions in the RFP demonstration, post-2014 emissions 
reductions, a contingency provision in an adopted rule, and reductions 
from incentive funds and control strategy measures that are not relied 
on in the attainment and RFP demonstrations. We discuss each of these 
types of contingency measures below.
    The Plan does not calculate the emissions reductions that are 
equivalent to one year's worth of RFP. Based on information in the 
Plan, we have calculated one year's worth of RFP to be 2.5 tpd direct 
PM2.5, 31.6 tpd NOX, and 0.2 tpd SO2.. 
See section II.I. of the TSD.

[[Page 41358]]

    Request CARB To Accelerate State Measure Implementation--This 
proposed contingency measure (which could function as both a RFP and 
attainment contingency measure), requires the District's Governing 
Board to adopt a resolution requesting CARB to accelerate the adoption 
and/or implementation of any remaining CARB control measures that have 
not yet been adopted or fully implemented. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 
p. 9-7.
    Under CAA section 172(c)(9) and EPA's policies \33\ interpreting 
this section, contingency measures must require minimal additional 
rulemaking by the state and take effect within a few months of a 
failure to make RFP or to attain. This proposed contingency measure 
would require additional rulemaking at the District level and 
potentially substantial and lengthy additional rulemaking at the State 
level to be implemented. For these reasons, this proposed measure does 
not meet CAA requirements for contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 
57 FR 13498 at 13512 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Surplus Reductions in the RFP Demonstration--In the June 2008 
version of the Plan, the method used to calculate emissions reductions 
needed to meet RFP benchmarks withheld a certain percentage of those 
reductions for contingency purposes: 1 percent of the baseline 
PM2.5 inventory and 3 percent of the baseline NOX 
inventory. These percentages equate to roughly 1 tpd PM2.5 
and 17 tpd NOX being reserved for contingency. No reserve 
was included for SOX because SOX emissions levels 
were projected to be below the applicable benchmarks and these excess 
reductions served as contingency measures. See 2008 PM2.5 
Plan, p. 8-4.
    The 2011 Progress Report updates the RFP demonstrations in the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan. See 2011 Progress Report, Table C-1. The updated 
demonstration does not include a contingency measure reserve but rather 
shows that expected controlled emissions levels of NOX and 
SOx will be below the required RFP benchmarks. 
SOX reductions that are in excess of those needed to meet 
RFP and contingency are reserved for PM2.5 contingency 
measures at an interpollutant trading ratio of 1 tpd SOX to 
1 tpd direct PM2.5. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix A, p. 
2 and (for the trading ratio), SJV PM2.5 Progress Report, 
Table 2-2. These excess reductions are from SIP-approved or otherwise 
SIP-creditable adopted measures and therefore may be used to meet the 
contingency measure requirement. We do not, however, agree at this time 
with the use of a SOX to direct PM2.5 
interpollutant trading ratio of 1:1 as the State has not provided an 
adequate technical justification for such a ratio. See Section V.D.2 
above and section II.B.4.
    Post-Attainment Year Emissions Reductions--The 2008 
PM2.5 Plan relies on the incremental emissions reductions 
that will occur from existing controls in 2015 to provide for 
contingency measures for failure to attain. See p. 9-9. CARB estimates 
these incremental emissions reductions, including reductions expected 
from its In-use Truck and Bus and In-Use Off-Road Engine Rules, are 3 
tpd SO2 and 21 tpd NOX. CARB Progress Report 
supplement, Attachment 2. These excess reductions are from SIP-approved 
or otherwise SIP-creditable adopted measures and therefore may be used 
to meet the contingency measure requirement.
    Contingency Provision in Rule 4901 ``Wood Burning Fireplace and 
Wood Burning Heaters''--In October, 2008, the District revised Rule 
4901 to incorporate a contingency provision in section 5.6.5. This 
provision requires that 60 days after EPA finds the SJV nonattainment 
area has failed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the District 
will lower the level at which mandatory curtailment of residential wood 
burning is required from a predicted level of 30 [mu]g/m\3\ to 20 
[mu]g/m\3\. EPA approved this rule, including the contingency 
provision, on November 10, 2009. 74 FR 57907.
    This attainment contingency provision in Rule 4901 meets the 
statutory and regulatory requirements for attainment contingency 
measures: It is triggered by a failure to attain, requires no 
additional rulemaking by the District, will be fully implemented within 
60 days of being triggered, and is SIP approved. The District has 
preliminarily quantified the emissions reductions expected from this 
contingency provision at 1.6 tons of PM2.5 per winter 
average day.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Personal communications, Jessica Ferrio, SJVUAPCD, to 
Frances Wicher, EPA, August 27, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Control Strategy Reductions Not Included in the RFP and/or 
Attainment Demonstrations--In its resolution approving the SJV 
PM2.5 Plan, CARB required the District to adopt two 
additional contingency measures. See CARB Resolution No. 08-28, 
Attachment A. These measures are revisions to SJVUAPCD's Rule 4307 
(Boilers, 2 to 5 MMBtu) and Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines). 
While the District had already included these rule revisions as 
Measures S-COM-2 and S-COM-6 in the Plan's control strategy, it had not 
estimated or included the NOX emissions reductions from the 
measures in either the Plan's RFP or attainment demonstration.
    The District adopted revisions to Rule 4307 in October 2008. 
Reductions from these rule revisions are now included in the revised 
RFP and attainment demonstrations in the 2011 Progress Report and are 
no longer in excess of those demonstrations and, therefore, cannot be 
used to meet the contingency measure requirement.
    Revisions to Rule 4702 are not yet adopted. As discussed above, 
contingency measure must be fully-adopted measures. Therefore, expected 
emissions reductions from revisions to Rule 4702 cannot currently be 
used to meet the contingency measure requirement.
    Emissions Reductions From Incentive Funds--As noted previously, the 
District has several incentive grant programs that have the potential 
to generate considerable emissions reductions. The 2008 
PM2.5 Plan suggests the use of these reductions as 
contingency measures for failure either to meet RFP or to attain. While 
neither the CAA nor EPA policy bar the use of emissions reductions from 
incentive programs to meet all or part of an area's contingency measure 
obligation, the incentive programs must assure that the reductions are 
surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent in accordance with 
EPA guidance. See ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive 
Programs,'' EPA-452/R-01-001 (January 2001).
    The 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not identify the incentive 
grant programs expected to generate the emissions reductions, nor the 
quantity of the emissions reductions, that the District intends to use 
to meet the contingency measure requirement. Therefore, we are unable 
to determine if they are SIP creditable, surplus to attainment and/or 
RFP needs, or sufficient to provide the one-year's worth of RFP needed. 
For these reasons, this proposed measure does not currently meet the 
CAA requirements for contingency measures.
3. Proposed Action on the Contingency Measures
    We are not evaluating the provisions in the 2008 PM2.5 
SIP that address contingency measures for failure to meet the 2009 RFP 
benchmarks. Information in the 2011 Progress Report shows that SJV has 
met its 2009 benchmarks for direct PM2.5, NOX, 
and SOX. See 2011

[[Page 41359]]

Progress Report, Table C-1. Therefore, contingency measures for failure 
to meet the 2009 RFP benchmark no longer have any meaning or effect 
under the CAA and do not require any further review or action by EPA. 
In addition, as noted above, the purpose of RFP contingency measures is 
to provide a continued progress while the SIP is being revised to meet 
a missed RFP milestone. Failure to meet the 2009 benchmark would have 
required California to revise the SJV PM2.5 Plan to assure 
that the next milestone was met and that the Plan still provided for 
attainment. California has already prepared and submitted a revision to 
the SJV PM2.5 SIP that shows that the SIP continues to 
provide for RFP in 2012 and for attainment by April 5, 2015. This 
revision is the 2011 Progress Report, which is one of the submittals 
that EPA is proposing action on in this notice.
    The 2008 PM2.5 Plan includes suggestions for several 
potentially approvable contingency measures as well as several measures 
that do not currently meet the CAA's minimum requirements. The Plan 
does not, however, provide sufficient information for us to determine 
if the emissions reductions from some of the potentially approvable 
measures are SIP creditable (e.g., those from incentive grant programs) 
and does not quantify the expected emissions reductions.
    The 2011 Progress Report does show that there are surplus 
reductions in the RFP demonstration for 2012. Appendix C, Table C-1. As 
shown on Table 10, these reductions, however, do not provide emissions 
reductions equivalent to one year's worth of RFP when considered on a 
per-pollutant basis.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ In the 2011 Progress Report, the State asserts that these 
reductions are equal to at least one-year's worth of RFP when 
considered on a PM2.5 equivalency basis; that is, an air 
quality basis. To make this showing, the State relies in part on an 
interpollutant trading ratio of 1 ton of SOX reductions 
to 1 ton of PM2.5 reductions. As discussed in section 
V.D.2. of this notice and V.B.4. of the TSD, EPA has found that the 
technical demonstration submitted in support of this ratio is not 
adequate and is not allowing its use as part of the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan. EPA may consider additional technical 
information submitted by the State to support an appropriate trading 
ratio and will provide an opportunity for public comment on such new 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The continuing implementation of the State's mobile source program 
in combination with the District's contingency measure in Rule 4901, if 
triggered, will reduce emissions substantially in 2015 (the year after 
the attainment year of 2014). However, as shown on Table 10, these 
reductions do not provide emissions reductions equivalent to one year's 
worth of RFP when considered on a per-pollutant basis.
    Based on this evaluation, EPA proposes to disapprove the RFP and 
attainment contingency measures in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP 
pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1012.

  Table 10--Summary of Reductions From Contingency Measures in the SJV
                             2008 PM2.5 Plan
                      [Tons per average annual day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Direct
                                           PM2.5       NOX        SOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excess reductions in the RFP                   0         18          5
 demonstration that are available to
 meet the 2012 RFP contingency
 requirements (excess reduction in the
 2012 RFP demonstration)...............
Reductions from contingency provision          1.6       21          3
 in Rule 9401 and new 2015 reductions
 available to meet the attainment
 contingency requirement...............
Reductions equivalent to 1-year's worth        2.5       31.6        0.2
 of RFP................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
    CAA section 176(c) requires Federal actions in nonattainment and 
maintenance areas to conform to the goals of SIPs. This means that such 
actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS, (2) 
worsen the severity of an existing violation, or (3) delay timely 
attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone.
    Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal 
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the 
EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93, 
subpart A. Under this rule, 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 (RTPs) and 
transportation improvement programs (TIPs) conform to the applicable 
SIPs. This is typically determined by showing that estimated emissions 
from existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or 
equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB or budgets) 
contained in the SIP. An attainment or RFP SIP should include MVEB for 
the attainment year and each required RFP year, as applicable.
    An MPO must use budgets in a submitted but not yet approved SIP, 
after EPA has determined that the budgets are adequate. Budgets in 
submitted SIPs may not be used before they are found adequate or are 
approved. In order for us to find a budget adequate, the submittal must 
meet the conformity adequacy requirements of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and 
(5). Additionally, motor vehicle emissions budgets cannot be approved 
until EPA completes a detailed review of the entire SIP and determines 
that the SIP and the budgets will achieve their intended purpose (i.e., 
RFP, attainment or maintenance). The budget must also reflect all of 
the motor vehicle control measures contained in the attainment and RFP 
demonstrations. See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v).
    PM2.5 attainment and RFP plans should identify budgets 
for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 attainment plan 
precursors. Direct PM2.5 SIP MVEB should include 
PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions from tailpipes, brake wear, 
and tire wear. States must also consider whether re-entrained paved and 
unpaved road dust or highway and transit construction dust are 
significant contributors and should be included in the direct 
PM2.5 budget. See 40 CFR 93.102(b) and Sec.  93.122(f) and 
the conformity rule preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031-40036 (July 1, 
2004). The applicability of emission trading between conformity budgets 
for conformity purposes is described in 40 CFR 93.124(c).
2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 
Plan
    The 2008 PM2.5 Plan included MVEB for direct 
PM2.5 and NOX for the attainment year of 2014 and 
the RFP years of 2009 and 2012. See 2008 PM2.5

[[Page 41360]]

Plan, Section 7.2.2 and Appendix C. The direct PM2.5 budgets 
include tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear emissions but do not 
include paved road, unpaved road, and road and transit construction 
dust because these are not considered to be significant contributors to 
PM2.5 levels in the Valley. No budgets for SO2 
are included because on-road emissions of SO2 are also 
considered insignificant. No budgets for ammonia or VOC are included 
because these pollutants are not considered attainment plan precursors 
for the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the San Joaquin Valley. Id.
    In April 2010, based on our initial preliminary review of the Plan, 
EPA found the RFP budgets in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan as 
submitted in 2008 adequate and the attainment budgets inadequate for 
transportation conformity purposes.\36\ We published a notice of our 
findings at 75 FR 26749 (May 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See letter, Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, EPA 
Region 9, to James M. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, ``RE: 
Adequacy Status of San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Reasonable 
Further Progress and Attainment Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions 
Budgets,'' dated April 23, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Updated Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the 2011 Progress Report 
and Additional Revisions
    CARB submitted updated MVEB for the San Joaquin Valley in the 2011 
Progress Report, Appendices A and D. The updated MVEB were for direct 
PM2.5 and NOX for the RFP year of 2012 and the 
attainment year of 2014. No updated budgets were included for the RFP 
year of 2009 because there are no applicable conformity analysis years 
prior to 2012.
    The submittal also includes a proposed trading mechanism for 
transportation conformity analyses that would allow future decreases in 
NOX emissions from on-road mobile sources to offset any on-
road increases in PM2.5, using a 
NOX:PM2.5 ratio of 9:1. Transportation conformity 
trading mechanisms are allowed under 40 CFR 93.124. The basis for the 
trading mechanism is the SIP attainment modeling which establishes the 
relative contribution of each PM2.5 precursor pollutant.
    As proposed in the 2011 Progress Report, this trading mechanism 
would only be used, if needed, for conformity analyses for years after 
2014. To ensure that the trading mechanism does not impact the ability 
of the SJV to meet the NOX budget, the NOX 
emission reductions available to supplement the PM2.5 budget 
would only be those remaining after the 2014 NOX budget has 
been met. Clear documentation of the calculations used in the trade 
would be included in the conformity analysis. See 2011 Progress Report, 
Appendix D, footnote to Table D-2.
    On June 20, 2011, CARB posted on its website technical revisions to 
the updated MVEBs in the 2011 Progress Report that were referenced in a 
June 3rd letter to EPA.\37\ See CARB, ``Proposed 8-Hour Ozone State 
Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the 
PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity 
Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins,'' 
Appendix C, June 20, 2011, posted at http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm. These revised updated MVEBs are shown in table 
11 below. The technical revisions correct data entry errors in the 
budget calculations and remove the emission reductions attributed to 
SJVAPCD's Rule 9510, ``Indirect Source Review'' (ISR). EPA recently 
approved Rule 9510 into the California SIP but disallowed the use of 
emissions reductions from the rule for any SIP purpose including 
transportation conformity. See 75 FR 28509 (May 21, 2010) and 76 FR 
26609 (May 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See letter, James M. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to 
Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, EPA Region 9, June 3, 2011.

     Table 11--Revised Updated PM2.5 MVEB for the San Joaquin Valley
                      [Tons per average annual day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         2012                2014
             County              ---------------------------------------
                                    PM2.5      NOX      PM2.5      NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno..........................       1.5      35.7       1.1      31.4
Kern (SJV)......................       1.9      48.9       1.2      43.8
Kings...........................       0.4      10.5       0.3       9.3
Madera..........................       0.4       9.2       0.3       8.1
Merced..........................       0.8      19.7       0.6      17.4
San Joaquin.....................       1.1      24.5       0.9      21.6
Stanislaus......................       0.7      16.7       0.6      14.6
Tulare..........................       0.7      15.7       0.5      13.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Proposed Action on the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
    EPA has evaluated the revised updated budgets against our adequacy 
criteria in 40 CFR 93.318(e)(4) as part of our review of the budgets' 
approvability. The results of this review are documented in Section 
II.J. of the TSD. We are also posting a notice of availability on our 
transportation adequacy Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. EPA is not required under its 
Transportation Conformity rules to find budgets adequate prior to 
proposing approval of them. We will ultimately complete the adequacy 
review of these budgets. That could occur when we take a final action 
on this SIP or it could happen at an earlier date.
    As discussed in sections V.C. and V.D., we have completed our 
detailed review of the 2008 SJV PM2.5 SIP and supplemental 
submittals including the 2011 Progress Report. Based on this thorough 
review of these submittals, we are proposing to approve the attainment 
and RFP demonstrations in the 2008 SJV PM2.5 SIP. As 
discussed above, CARB has recently posted revisions to the updated 
budgets that were submitted in the 2011 Progress Report and intends to 
present these budgets for adoption as a SIP revision at its July 21, 
2011 Board meeting. After reviewing these revised updated MVEBs, we are 
proposing to find them to be consistent with the approvable attainment 
and RFP demonstrations and to find that they meet all other applicable 
statutory and regulatory requirements including the adequacy criteria 
in Sec.  93.118(e)(4) and (5). Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the 
revised updated MVEB based on the assumption that we will receive the 
revised budgets as a complete SIP revision from the State prior to our 
final

[[Page 41361]]

action on the SJV PM2.5 SIP. If CARB is unable to adopt and 
submit the revised updated budgets, then EPA intends to find inadequate 
and disapprove the updated MVEB contained in the 2011 Progress 
Report.\38\ If we disapprove the MVEB, a conformity freeze would take 
effect upon the effective date of the disapproval (usually 30 days 
after publication of the final action in the Federal Register). A 
conformity freeze means that only projects in the first four years of 
the most recent conforming RTP and TIP can proceed. During a freeze, no 
new RTPs, TIPs or RTP/TIP amendments can be found to conform. See 40 
CFR 93.120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ EPA cannot approve or find adequate the updated budgets 
included in the 2011 Progress Report because they include 
uncreditable reductions from the District's ISR rule and because of 
the technical error in the budget calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Proposed Action on the Trading Mechanism
    As noted above, CARB included a trading mechanism to be used in 
transportation conformity analyses that use the proposed budgets as 
allowed for under 40 CFR 93.124. This trading mechanism would allow 
future decreases in NOX emissions from on-road mobile 
sources to offset any on-road increases in PM2.5, using a 
NOX:PM2.5 ratio of 9:1. As proposed by CARB, the 
trading mechanism would only be used, if needed, for conformity 
analyses for years after 2014. To ensure that the trading mechanism 
does not affect the ability of the SJV to meet the NOX 
budget, the NOX emissions reductions available to supplement 
the PM2.5 budget would only be those remaining after the 
2014 NOX budget has been met. The trading mechanism will be 
implemented with the following criteria. The trading applies only to:
     Analysis years after the 2014 attainment year.
     On-road mobile emission sources.
     Trades using vehicle NOX emission reductions in 
excess of those needed to meet the NOX budget.
     Trades in one direction from NOX to direct 
PM2.5.
     A trading ratio of 9 tpd NOX to 1 tpd 
PM2.5.
    Clear documentation of the calculations used in the trade would be 
included in the conformity analysis. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix 
D, footnote to Table D-2.
    EPA has reviewed the 9:1 NOX:PM2.5 ratio and 
finds it is an appropriate ratio for trading between NOX and 
direct PM2.5 for transportation conformity purposes in the 
San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The method 
discussed in the documentation appears to be adequate for purposes of 
assessing the effect of area-wide emissions changes, such as are used 
in conformity budgets. See section V.D.2. above and II.B.4. of the TSD.
    EPA believes that the 2008 PM2.5 Plan as revised by the 
2011 Progress Report includes an approvable trading mechanism for 
determining transportation conformity after 2014. EPA is proposing to 
approve the trading mechanism and all of the criteria included in the 
footnote to Table D-2 as enforceable components of the transportation 
conformity program for the SJV for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 
is also proposing to approve the use of this ratio in transportation 
conformity determinations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 
but only until EPA finds adequate or approves budgets developed 
specifically for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Until that 
time, conformity will be determined using the budgets for the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

VI. EPA's Proposed Actions and Potential Consequences

A. EPA's Proposed Approvals and Disapprovals

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA proposes to approve, with the 
exception of the contingency measures and one commitment by the 
SJVUAPCD, California's SIP for attaining the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley and to grant the State's request for an 
extension of the attainment date. This SIP is composed of the 
SJVUAPCD's 2008 PM2.5 Plan as revised in 2010 and 2011 and 
the SJV-specific portions of CARB's 2007 State Strategy as revised in 
2009 and 2011 addressing CAA and EPA regulations for attainment of the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
    Specifically, EPA proposes to approve under CAA section 110(k)(3) 
the following elements of the SJV PM2.5 attainment SIP:
    1. The 2005 base year emissions inventories as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008;
    2. The reasonably available control measures/reasonably available 
control technology demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1010;
    3. The reasonable further progress demonstration as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1009;
    4. The attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA 
sections 172(c)(1) and (6) and 40 CFR 51.1007;
    5. The air quality modeling as meeting the requirements of the CAA 
and EPA guidance;
    6. The revised updated 2012 RFP year and 2014 attainment year motor 
vehicle emissions budgets as posted by CARB on June 21, 2011 contingent 
upon our receipt of a SIP revision because they are derived from 
approvable RFP and attainment demonstrations and meet the requirements 
of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A and CARB's trading 
mechanism to be used in transportation conformity analyses as allowed 
under 40 CFR 93.124;
    7. SJVUAPCD's commitments to the adoption and implementation 
schedule for specific control measures listed in Table 6-2 (amended 
June 15, 2010) of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan to the extent that 
these commitments have not yet been fulfilled, and to achieve specific 
aggregate emissions reductions of direct PM2.5, 
NOX and SOX by year, as listed in Table 6-3 of 
the PM2.5 Plan, except for the commitment to adopt revisions 
to Rule 4702; and
    8. CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, as 
listed in Table B-1 on page 1 of Appendix B of the 2011 Progress Report 
and to achieve aggregate emissions reductions by 2014 sufficient to 
provide for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as described 
in CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B.
    EPA also proposes to concur with the State's determination under 40 
CFR 51.1002(c) that SOX and NOX are and VOC and 
ammonia are not attainment plan precursors for the attainment of the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
    EPA proposes to grant, pursuant to CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) and 40 
CFR 51.1004(a), California's request to extend the attainment date for 
the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area to April 5, 
2015.
    EPA proposes to disapprove under CAA section 110(k)(3) the 
contingency measures provisions of the SJV PM2.5 attainment 
SIP as failing to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 
CFR 51.1012.
    Finally, EPA proposes to disapprove the commitment by the SJVUAPCD 
to adopt revisions to Rule 4702 ``Reciprocating Internal Combustion 
Engines'' by December 2010 because that date has passed and the 
District has not adopted revisions to the rule. We will not finalize 
this proposed disapproval, however, if the District adopts revisions to 
the rule that fulfill the commitment by the time of EPA's final action 
on the Plan.

B. CAA Consequences of a Final Disapproval

    EPA is committed to working with the District, CARB and the SJV 
MPOs to resolve the remaining issues that make the current 
PM2.5 attainment SIP for the

[[Page 41362]]

SJV not fully approvable under the CAA and the PM2.5 
implementation rule. However, should we finalize the proposed 
disapproval of the contingency measure provisions in the SJV 2008 
PM2.5 Plan or finalize a disapproval of the MVEB, the offset 
sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply in the SJV 
PM2.5 nonattainment area 18 months after the effective date 
of a final disapproval. The highway funding sanctions in CAA section 
179(b)(1) would apply in the area six months after the offset sanction 
is imposed. Neither sanction will be imposed under the CAA if 
California submits and we approve prior to the implementation of the 
sanctions, SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies identified in 
our proposed action. In addition to the sanctions, CAA section 
110(c)(1) provides that EPA must promulgate a Federal implementation 
plan addressing the deficient elements in the PM2.5 SIP for 
the SJV nonattainment area, two years after the effective date of any 
disapproval should we not approve a SIP revision correcting the 
deficiencies within the two years.
    Neither sanctions nor a FIP would be imposed should EPA disapprove 
the District's discretionary commitment to revise Rule 4702. Sanctions 
would not be imposed because the District's decision to include the 
commitment in its Plan was discretionary (i.e., not required to be 
included in the SIP), and EPA would not promulgate a FIP in this 
instance because the disapproval does not reveal a deficiency in the 
PM2.5 SIP that such a FIP must correct. This is because the 
failure of the District to adopt revisions to Rule 4702 would not 
adversely affect the 2008 PM2.5 SIP's compliance with the 
CAA's mandated requirements for RACM/RACT, RFP, and/or attainment 
demonstrations nor would it prevent EPA from granting an extension of 
the attainment date under CAA section 172(b).
    Because we are proposing to approve the RFP and attainment 
demonstrations and the motor vehicle emission budgets, we are proposing 
to issue a protective finding under 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3) to the 
disapproval of the contingency measures. Without a protective finding, 
final disapproval would result in a conformity freeze, under which only 
projects in the first four years of the most recent conforming Regional 
Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Programs can 
proceed. During a freeze, no new RTPs, TIPs or RTP/TIP amendments can 
be found to conform. See 40 CFR 93.120(a)(2). Under a protective 
finding, however, final disapproval of the contingency measures would 
not result in a transportation conformity freeze in the San Joaquin 
PM2.5 nonattainment area.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submittal that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submittals, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to partially approve and partially disapprove 
State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose 
additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq, 
because this proposed SIP partial approval and partial disapproval 
under CAA section 110 and subchapter I, part D will not in-and-of 
itself create any new information collection burdens but simply 
approves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and 
disapproves others. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not 
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This 
proposed partial approval and partial disapproval of the SIP under CAA 
section 110 and subchapter I, part D will not in-and-of itself create 
any new requirements but simply approves certain State requirements for 
inclusion into the SIP and disapprove others. Accordingly, it affords 
no opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from 
all or part of the rule. The fact that the CAA prescribes that various 
consequences (e.g., higher offset requirements) may or will flow from a 
final disapproval does not mean that EPA either can or must conduct a 
regulatory flexibility analysis for this action. Therefore, this action 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector.'' EPA has determined that the proposed partial approval and 
partial disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may 
result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, 
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private 
sector. This action proposes to partially approve and partially 
disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and 
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from 
this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct

[[Page 41363]]

effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely partially 
approves and partially disapproves certain State requirements for 
inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. 
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP 
EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove would 
not apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it 
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
action.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, 
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 
13045 because it because it is not an economically significant 
regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive 
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed partial 
approval and partial disapproval of the SIP under CAA section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D will not in-and-of itself create any new 
regulations but simply disapproves certain State requirements for 
inclusion into the SIP.

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

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of 
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would 
be inconsistent with the CAA.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submittals, EPA's 
role is to approve or disapprove State choices, based on the criteria 
of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve certain 
State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under CAA section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D and to disapprove others will not in-and-of itself 
create any new requirements. Accordingly, it does not provide EPA with 
the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, 
disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using 
practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 
12898.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 29, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2011-17196 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


