Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of California; PM-10; Revision of Designation; Redesignation of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin PM-10 Nonattainment Area to Attainment; Approval of PM-10 Maintenance Plan for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin; Approval of Commitments for the East Kern PM-10 Nonattainment Area, 22307-22318 [E8-9139]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
without the permission of the Coast
Guard Patrol Commander.
(c) Effective Date. The third week in
October. The exact dates and times for
this event will be determined annually.
11. Add § 100.918 to read as follows:
without the permission of the Coast
Guard Patrol Commander.
(c) Effective Date. The third or fourth
week in June. The exact dates and times
for this event will be determined
annually.
§ 100.918
MI.
Dated: April 4, 2008.
John E. Crowley, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8–8864 Filed 4–24–08; 8:45 am]
Detroit APBA Gold Cup, Detroit,
(a) Regulated Area. A regulated area is
established to include all waters of the
Detroit River, Belle Isle, Michigan,
bound on the west by the Belle Isle
Bridge (position 42°20′20″ N, 083°00′00″
W to 42°20′24″ N, 083°59′45″ W), and
on the east by a north-south line drawn
through Waterworks Intake Crib Light
(Light List Number 8350; position
42°21′06″ N, 082°58′00″ W) (NAD 83).
(b) Special Local Regulations. The
regulations of § 100.901 apply. No
vessel may enter, transit through, or
anchor within the regulated area
without the permission of the Coast
Guard Patrol Commander.
(c) Effective Date. The first or second
week in June. The exact dates and times
for this event will be determined
annually.
12. Add § 100.919 to read as follows:
§ 100.919 International Bay City River
Roar, Bay City, MI.
(a) Regulated Area. A regulated area is
established to include all waters of the
Saginaw River bounded on the north by
the Liberty Bridge, located at 43°36.3′ N,
083°53.4′ W, and bounded on the south
by the Veterans Memorial Bridge,
located at 43°35.8′ N, 083°53.6′ W.
(NAD 83).
(b) Special Local Regulations. The
regulations of § 100.901 apply. No
vessel may enter, transit through, or
anchor within the regulated area
without the permission of the Coast
Guard Patrol Commander.
(c) Effective Date. The third or fourth
week in June. The exact dates and times
for this event will be determined
annually.
13. Add § 100.920 to read as follows:
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
§ 100.920
MI.
Tug Across the River, Detroit,
(a) Regulated Area. A regulated area is
established to include all waters of the
Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan,
bounded on the south by the
International boundary, on the west by
083°03′ W, on the east by 083°02′ W,
and on the north by the U.S. shoreline
(DATUM: NAD 83). This position is
located on the Detroit River in front of
Hart Plaza, Detroit, MI.
(b) Special Local Regulations. The
regulations of § 100.901 apply. No
vessel may enter, transit through, or
anchor within the regulated area
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0306; FRL–8558–7]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Designation of
Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; State of California; PM–10;
Revision of Designation;
Redesignation of the San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin PM–10 Nonattainment
Area to Attainment; Approval of PM–10
Maintenance Plan for the San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin; Approval of
Commitments for the East Kern PM–10
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
the State of California’s request to revise
the designation for the San Joaquin
Valley (SJV) serious nonattainment area
for particulate matter of ten microns or
less (PM–10) (SJV nonattainment area)
by splitting the area into two separate
nonattainment areas: The San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin serious PM–10
nonattainment area and the East Kern
serious PM–10 nonattainment area. EPA
is also proposing to redesignate the
SJVAB nonattainment area to attainment
for the PM–10 national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) and
proposing to approve the PM–10
maintenance plan, motor vehicle
emissions budgets and conformity
trading mechanism for the area. EPA is
also proposing to exclude from use in
determining that the area has attained
the standard two exceedances that EPA
has concluded were caused by
exceptional events that occurred on July
4, 2007 and January 4, 2008. Finally,
EPA is proposing to approve enforceable
commitments by the Kern County Air
Pollution Control District and the
California Air Resources Board to install
a PM–10 monitor in the East Kern
nonattainment area and to address
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22307
Clean Air Act requirements under
section 189(d) as necessary for the area.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
May 27, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2008–0306, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions.
2. E-mail: lo.doris@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Doris Lo (Air-2),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through
https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
https://www.regulations.gov is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA
will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the public
comment. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–
3959, lo.doris@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Actions
III. Proposed Revised Boundary
Redesignation
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
22308
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
A. State’s Submittal
B. EPA’s Evaluation of Request to Revise
Boundary Designation
IV. Proposed Redesignation of the SJV Air
Basin to Attainment for the PM–10
Standard and Approval of PM–10
Maintenance Plan
A. EPA has determined that the area has
attained the NAAQS
B. The applicable implementation plan has
been fully approved by EPA under
section 110(k) of the CAA
C. EPA has determined that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions
D. The State has met all applicable
requirements for the area under section
110 and Part D of the CAA
1. Basic SIP Requirements under CAA
Section 110
2. SIP Requirements under Part D
E. EPA has fully approved a maintenance
plan, including a contingency plan, for
the area under section 175A of the CAA
1. An attainment emissions inventory to
identify the level of emissions in the area
sufficient to attain the NAAQS
2. A demonstration of maintenance of the
NAAQS for 10 years after redesignation
3. Verification of continued attainment
through operation of an appropriate air
quality monitoring network
4. Contingency provisions to promptly
correct any violation of the NAAQS that
occurs after redesignation of the area
F. Transportation conformity and motor
vehicle emissions budgets
1. CARB Methodology for Estimating PM–
10 in the Emissions Budgets
2. Adequacy of the 2007 Plan’s Budgets
3. Trading Mechanism
V. Proposed Commitments for East Kern
VI. Proposed Actions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On May 26, 2004, EPA approved the
serious area PM–10 plan for the SJV
nonattainment area, ‘‘2003 PM10 Plan,
San Joaquin Valley Plan to Attain
Federal Standards for Particulate Matter
10 Microns and Smaller’’ submitted by
the State on August 19, 2003 and
amendments to that plan submitted on
December 30, 2003 (collectively, 2003
Plan). See 69 FR 30006; 40 CFR 81.305.
This plan provided for, among other
things, the implementation of best
available control measures (BACM). In
addition, since the SJV nonattainment
area had failed to meet its original
serious area attainment deadline of
December 31, 2001, the State was
required under section 189(d) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) to
submit a plan that provided for an
annual reduction in PM–10 or PM–10
precursors of not less than five percent
until attainment. A detailed discussion
of the history of PM–10 planning in the
SJV nonattainment area and of EPA’s
approval of the 2003 Plan can be found
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
in its proposed and final actions and the
associated dockets. 69 FR 5412
(February 4, 2004); 69 FR 30006.
On October 30, 2006, EPA determined
that the SJV nonattainment area had
attained the 24-hour PM–10 standard 1
based on air quality data from 2003
through 2005. In this action we noted
that there were several exceedances of
the PM–10 standard that were likely due
to exceptional events which EPA would
address in subsequent actions. 71 FR
63642. Subsequently EPA issued a final
action affirming that the PM–10
standard has been attained in the SJV
nonattainment area based on air quality
data from 2004 through 2006. 73 FR
14687 (March 19, 2008).
On November 16, 2007, the State
submitted to EPA the ‘‘2007 PM10
Maintenance Plan and Request for
Redesignation,’’ September 20, 2007, for
the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District (SJVAPCD or the
District) (2007 Plan).2 On January 31,
2008, the State submitted a request to
split the existing SJV serious PM–10
nonattainment area into two separate
nonattainment areas: (1) The San
Joaquin Valley Air Basin and (2) the
western portion of the Kern County Air
Pollution Control District (KCAPCD).
Letter from James N. Goldstene,
California Air Resources Board (CARB),
to Deborah Jordan, EPA, with
attachments, January 31, 2008
(Goldstene letter).
On February 29, 2008, the State
submitted enforceable commitments by
CARB and the KCAPCD to monitor for
PM–10 in the western portion of the
KCAPCD and to address CAA State
Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements
for this area as necessary. Letter from
James N. Goldstene, CARB, to Wayne
Nastri, EPA, with enclosures, February
29, 2008.
Finally, on January 23, 2008, the State
submitted to EPA the ‘‘Exceptional
Event Documentation, PM10, Fireworks,
Bakersfield, CA, July 4, 2007’’ and on
1 The level of the national primary 24-hour
ambient air quality standard for particulate matter
is 150 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). The
standard is attained when the expected number of
days per calendar year with a 24-hour average
concentration above 150 µg/m3, as determined in
accordance with appendix K to 40 CFR part 50, is
equal to or less than one. See 40 CFR 50.6.
2 The SJVAPCD District adopted the 2007 Plan on
September 20, 2007 and submitted it to the State
on September 21, 2007. The State ‘‘* * * updated
the attainment inventory * * * to reflect emission
reductions achieved by ARB adopted measures that
had not been accounted for’’ before submitting the
2007 Plan to EPA on November 16, 2007. (Staff
Report, Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007
PM10 Maintenance Plan, Air Resources Board,
Release Date: October 12, 2007 (ARB Staff Report),
pp. 7–8 and Appendix B). Thus the applicable
emissions inventories in the 2007 Plan are found in
the ARB Staff Report.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
April 15, 2008, the State submitted to
EPA the ‘‘Natural Event Documentation,
Bakersfield, California, January 4,
2008.’’
II. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Actions
First, EPA is proposing to grant the
State’s request to split the existing SJV
nonattainment area into two separate
nonattainment areas. EPA is then
proposing to grant the State’s request to
redesignate the portion of the SJV
nonattainment area located in the San
Joaquin Valley Air Basin to attainment
for the PM–10 standard and to approve
the PM–10 maintenance plan, motor
vehicle emissions budgets and
conformity trading mechanism for the
area. EPA is also proposing to exclude
from use in determining that the area
has attained the PM–10 standard data
showing exceedances caused by
exceptional events that occurred on July
4, 2007 and January 4, 2008. Finally,
EPA is proposing to approve
commitments by CARB and the
KCAPCD to monitor for PM–10 in the
western portion of the KCAPCD and to
address CAA SIP requirements for the
area as necessary.
III. Proposed Revised Boundary
Designation
A. State’s Submittal
As stated above, on January 31, 2008,
the State submitted a request to EPA to
split the existing SJV PM–10
nonattainment area into two separate
nonattainment areas: (1) The San
Joaquin Valley Air Basin and (2) the
western portion of the KCAPCD. The
State’s submittal states that ‘‘[t]his
change will address the inconsistency
between California’s adopted air basin
boundary for the San Joaquin Valley and
the boundary U.S. EPA is using for
PM10 planning.’’ The State’s submittal
includes information about jurisdiction,
geography, population and degree of
urbanization, employment and traffic/
commuting patterns, and emissions and
air quality which supports the revised
boundary designation. See Goldstene
letter.
B. EPA’s Evaluation of Request To
Revise Boundary Designation
The existing SJV nonattainment area
includes the entire counties of San
Joaquin, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced,
Stanislaus and Tulare and part of Kern
County. The part of Kern County in the
existing SJV nonattainment area is a
region that straddles the Sierra Nevada
and Tehachapi mountains and is located
in two separate air basins: the SJV Air
Basin and the Mojave Desert Air Basin
(MDAB). The dividing line between
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
these two air basins coincides with the
jurisdictional boundary between the
KCAPCD and the SJVAPCD. This
dividing line also coincides with the
boundary that we are today proposing to
draw between the two nonattainment
areas which we are proposing to
designate as the SJV Air Basin (SJVAB)
PM–10 nonattainment area and the East
Kern PM–10 nonattainment area.3 Thus,
if we finalize the revision to the
boundary designation, the SJVAB
nonattainment area will include only
those areas that are in the SJV Air Basin
(i.e., all of the seven counties mentioned
above and the part of Kern County that
is under the jurisdiction of the
SJVAPCD) and the East Kern PM–10
nonattainment area will include the part
of Kern County that is currently in the
existing SJV nonattainment area, is in
the MDAB and is under the jurisdiction
of the KCAPCD.4 Together, these two
new PM–10 nonattainment areas will
cover the same geographic area as the
original SJV PM–10 nonattainment area.
Under section 107(d)(3)(D) of the
CAA, the Governor of any state may, on
the Governor’s own motion, submit to
EPA a revised designation of any area or
portion thereof within the state.5 EPA is
required to approve or deny a submittal
of a revised designation within 18
months of receipt. The type of revised
designation that the State of California
submitted on January 31, 2008 involves
a boundary change only and does not
involve a change in status (e.g., from
‘‘nonattainment,’’ to ‘‘attainment’’ or
‘‘unclassifiable’’) of any area.
In determining whether to approve or
deny a state’s submittal of a request for
a revised boundary designation under
section 107(d)(3)(D), EPA uses the same
factors Congress directed EPA to
consider when the Agency initiates a
revision to a designation of an area on
its own motion under section
107(d)(3)(A). These factors include ‘‘air
quality data, planning and control
considerations, or any other air qualityrelated considerations the Administrator
deems appropriate.’’ In addition,
because the State’s revised designation
involves nonattainment areas, we also
take into account CAA section
107(d)(1)(A), which provides that
nonattainment areas are to include the
geographic area that does not meet, or
3 We are proposing to call the new area ‘‘East
Kern’’ because it is the eastern part of Kern County
that is currently within the existing SJV
nonattainment area.
4 The KCAPCD’s jurisdiction also includes the
remaining part of Kern County which extends
eastward beyond the proposed East Kern area.
5 Boundary changes are an inherent part of a
designation or redesignation of an area under the
CAA. See CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
that contributes to ambient air quality in
a nearby area that does not meet, the
NAAQS for a given pollutant.
California has provided a compelling
technical justification as to why the
proposed SJVAB and East Kern
nonattainment areas should be
designated as separate PM–10 planning
areas. A summary of the State’s
reasoning follows:
Jurisdiction. The proposed SJVAB
area is under the jurisdiction of the
SJVAPCD and the proposed East Kern
area is under the jurisdiction of the
KCAPCD. The proposed revised
designation will align the boundary
along these jurisdictional lines. This
realignment will make the air quality
planning and implementation process
more efficient and straightforward since
the local air pollution control agencies,
SJVAPCD and KCAPCD, can only adopt
and implement plans and rules in the
area for which they have jurisdiction.
Geography. The East Kern area is in
the MDAB, a different air basin than the
SJVAB area; it is separated from the
SJVAB area by the Sierra Nevada and
Tehachapi Mountain Ranges at
elevations up to 7,500 feet. The Kern
River Valley and the Cummings Valley
in the East Kern area are located at
approximately 2600 feet and 3800 feet,
respectively. These elevations are
comparable to other areas in the MDAB
and much higher than the average
elevation in the western portion of Kern
County in the SJVAB which is between
450 and 500 feet. Eastern Kern County,
which includes the proposed East Kern
nonattainment area, is a vast arid desert
while the SJVAB portion of Kern County
is part of the urbanized, agricultural,
and industrial SJV. The mountains
surrounding the SJVAB form a bowl
trapping air pollutants in the SJVAB,
but the East Kern area is located above
the inversion layer which traps air
pollutants in the SJVAB and thus,
experiences different weather from the
SJVAB.
Population and Degree of
Urbanization. There are no major or fast
growing population centers in eastern
Kern County. Eastern Kern County
covers approximately 3800 square
miles, with a total population of
approximately 131,000 (in 2005) and a
low population density of
approximately 35 persons per square
mile. In the last decade (1995–2005),
population increased by 15,000 persons.
The Kern River Valley and Cummings
Valley, which are in the East Kern area,
are sparsely populated; the greater Lake
Isabella region in the Kern River Valley
has approximately 15,000 inhabitants;
and the west Tehachapi area in the
Cummings Valley has approximately
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22309
13,000 inhabitants. In contrast, the
western portion of Kern County in the
SJVAB extends over 4400 square miles,
includes the urban Bakersfield area,
housed 640,000 persons (in 2005), and
has a population density of
approximately 145 persons per square
mile, which is four times the population
density of eastern Kern County. In the
last decade, the total population in
western Kern County grew by 136,000
persons, nine times the population
growth in eastern Kern County.
Employment and Traffic/Commuting
Patterns. Eastern Kern County, which
includes the proposed East Kern
nonattainment area, is not strongly
integrated economically with western
Kern County. People tend to live and
work in eastern Kern County, and
because of its geographic isolation there
is no convenient commute to cities
outside the region. The economy of
western Kern is largely based on the oil
and agricultural industries. The primary
employer in eastern Kern County is the
Tehachapi State Prison. Due to the
geographic isolation, there is no
convenient commute to cities outside
the area. In 2005, vehicles traveled
approximately 5.1 million miles per day
throughout eastern Kern County. In
contrast, in western Kern County
vehicles traveled approximately 19.8
million miles per day, close to 4 times
the average travel in eastern Kern
County. Also, eastern Kern residents are
not dependent on western Kern for
economic activities such as
employment, shopping, or other
services. There are no significant
commute patterns from eastern Kern
County into the SJVAB, the MDAB, or
the South Coast Air Basin or vice versa.
Emissions. There are only a handful of
major emission sources in eastern Kern
County, which includes the proposed
East Kern area, and projected source and
industrial growth is minimal. Total
primary PM–10 emissions as well as
nitrogen oxide emissions (NOX), the
main precursor of secondary PM–10 in
the area, are declining. Major sources of
primary PM–10 include the Tehachapi
State Prison (11.5 tons per year (tpy) in
2005), followed by two aggregate
operations (9.7 tpy and 8.5 tpy); the two
largest NOX sources are the Tehachapi
State Prison (12.8 tpy) and two natural
gas pumps that lift water to Tehachapi
(14.8 tpy and 12.2 tpy). In contrast,
western Kern County houses 35 major
sources of primary PM–10 with
emissions over 10 tpy and 47 major
sources of NOX with emissions over 10
tpy. Compared to the entire SJV PM–10
nonattainment area, sources in all of
eastern Kern County contributed only
eight percent of the direct PM–10
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
22310
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
emissions and eight percent of the NOX
emissions in 2005.
Air Quality. The chemical
composition of PM–10 in eastern Kern
County, which includes the proposed
East Kern area, differs significantly from
the PM–10 chemical composition in the
SJVAB area. While dust is the main
component of PM–10 in eastern Kern
County, NOX has been determined to be
the only significant precursor for the
SJVAB area. 69 FR 30006. Currently
there is no Federal Reference Method
(FRM) or Federal Equivalent Method
(FEM) monitoring of PM–10 in the East
Kern area. However, there is an
Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitor located in the Kern River
Valley. This IMPROVE monitor has,
since February 2000, consistently
measured PM–10 concentrations far
below the PM–10 standard. A summary
of the maximum PM–10 daily values at
the IMPROVE monitor is provided in
Table 1 below.
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM PM–10 DAILY VALUES FOR THE DOMELANDS IMPROVE MONITOR (µg/m3)
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1st max
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
2nd max
33
109
66
52
21
39
3rd max
33
53
42
50
14
36
4th max
32
49
37
47
6
35
32
49
37
45
5
34
Source: IMPROVE Web site, https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Default.htm
Based on the factors set forth above,
EPA has considered the State’s request
in accordance with the criteria listed in
CAA section 107(d)(3)(A). We find that
the State has sufficiently demonstrated
that the SJVAB and East Kern should be
separate nonattainment areas because
they lie in separate air basins, are under
different local jurisdictions, have
different population densities and
growth levels, do not share commute
patterns, have different emissions
sources and have different types of air
pollutants. Pursuant to CAA section
107(d)(3)(D), EPA is therefore proposing
to approve the State’s request to revise
the boundary designation of the existing
SJV PM–10 nonattainment area by
splitting the area into two separate
PM–10 nonattainment areas, the SJVAB
and East Kern.
As explained below, we are further
proposing to redesignate the SJVAB to
attainment for PM–10. Pending further
air quality monitoring and until such
time as the East Kern nonattainment
area meets the CAA requirements for
redesignation, the East Kern area would
be classified as a serious PM–10
nonattainment area. Thus the East Kern
nonattainment area would retain the
classification and nonattainment
designation that applied to it when it
was part of the SJV nonattainment area
and would likewise retain the
attainment determination applicable to
that area. In order to address the serious
area PM–10 statutory requirements,
KCAPCD and CARB have made the
enforceable commitments discussed in
section V. below.
IV. Proposed Redesignation of the
SJVAB to Attainment for the PM–10
Standard
On November 16, 2007, the State
submitted to EPA the 2007 Plan which
addresses PM–10 maintenance plan
requirements and includes a discussion
of how the SJVAB (i.e., the portion of
the current nonattainment area under
the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD) meets
the CAA redesignation requirements.
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA states
that an area can be redesignated to
attainment if the following conditions
are met:
(1) EPA has determined that the area
has attained the NAAQS.
(2) The applicable implementation
plan has been fully approved by EPA
under section 110(k) of the CAA.
(3) EPA has determined that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions.
(4) The State has met all applicable
requirements for the area under section
110 and Part D of the CAA.
(5) EPA has fully approved a
maintenance plan, including a
contingency plan, for the area under
section 175A of the CAA.
These requirements are discussed in
more detail in a September 4, 1992 EPA
Memorandum, ‘‘Procedures for
Processing Request to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment, John Calcagni, Director,
Air Quality Management Division’’
(Calcagni memo). We discuss how these
requirements are met for the SJVAB in
detail below.
A. EPA Has Determined That the Area
Has Attained the NAAQS
The Calcagni memo states that there
are two components involved in
meeting this requirement. The first
component relies on an analysis of
quality-assured ambient air quality data
and an ambient air monitoring network
that is representative of the area of
highest concentrations. For PM–10 in
the SJVAB, EPA has reviewed the
ambient air quality data and determined
and affirmed that the PM–10 NAAQS
has been attained for the years 2003
through 2006. See 71 FR 40952, 71 FR
63642, 72 FR 49046 and 73 FR 14687.
These determinations also discuss the
adequacy of the monitoring network for
the SJVAB.
EPA has also evaluated the air quality
data in EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS)
database for 2007 and through February
2008. This data has been included in the
docket for this proposed rule. A
summary of the 2005–2007 data is
provided in Table 2 below.
TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF 2005—2007 PM–10 ATTAINMENT STATISTICS
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
[Based on Federal Reference Method PM–10 monitors]
Observed
three year 24hour maximum
(µg/m3)
Monitoring site
Estimated 24hour exceedance days
Attainment
status
132
117
0
0
Attainment.
Attainment.
Fresno-Drummond .............................................................................................................................
Fresno-1st Street ...............................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
22311
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF 2005—2007 PM–10 ATTAINMENT STATISTICS—Continued
[Based on Federal Reference Method PM–10 monitors]
Observed
three year 24hour maximum
(µg/m3)
Monitoring site
Estimated 24hour exceedance days
Attainment
status
116
154
153
145
140
142
94
82
69
96
97
141
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Clovis .................................................................................................................................................
Bakersfield-Golden State Highway ....................................................................................................
Bakersfield-California Ave .................................................................................................................
Oildale ................................................................................................................................................
Corcoran ............................................................................................................................................
Hanford ..............................................................................................................................................
Merced ...............................................................................................................................................
Stockton-Hazelton ..............................................................................................................................
Stockton-Wagner ...............................................................................................................................
Modesto .............................................................................................................................................
Turlock ...............................................................................................................................................
Visalia ................................................................................................................................................
Source: EPA Air Quality System (AQS) Database.
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
One exceedance of the PM–10
standard was recorded at the
Bakersfield-Golden FEM 6 on July 4,
2007. The State has flagged this
exceedance as being caused by an
exceptional event, fourth of July
fireworks celebrations. EPA has
reviewed the documentation for this
event and has concurred with the State’s
request. Letter from Wayne Nastri, EPA,
to Mary D. Nichols, California
Environmental Protection Agency, April
21, 2008. For 2008, one exceedance of
the PM–10 standard was recorded also
at the Bakersfield-Golden federal
equivalent monitor 7 on January 4. The
State has flagged this exceedance as
being caused by an exceptional event,
high winds. EPA has reviewed the
documentation for this event and has
concurred with the State’s request.
Letter from Wayne Nastri, EPA, to Mary
D. Nichols, California Environmental
Protection Agency, April 21, 2008.
Under EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule,
the Agency may exclude data from
regulatory determinations related to
exceedances or violations of the NAAQS
if the state adequately demonstrates that
an exceptional event caused the
exceedance or violation. 40 CFR
Sections 50.1, 50.14. Therefore, for the
reasons set forth in the concurrence
letters, EPA is proposing to exclude data
showing exceedances on July 4, 2007
and January 4, 2008 in determining
6 The Bakersfield-Golden monitoring site includes
a special purpose FEM known as a Tapered Element
Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) continuous
automated analyzer. The exceedances on July 4,
2007 and January 4, 2008 were recorded on the
TEOM. Data are collected at the site using both a
TEOM, which provides continuous PM–10 data for
public reporting purposes, and a high-volume FRM.
The FRM operates at a less than everyday schedule,
as allowed by EPA regulations, and was not
operating on July 4, 2007 or January 4, 2008.
7 See footnote 6 above.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
whether the SJVAB has continued to
attain the PM–10 standard in 2007 and
through February 2008. The
concurrence letters explain how the
State has met its burden to demonstrate
that these exceedances qualify as
exceptional events. Thus, EPA believes
that according to the ambient air
monitoring data for the SJVAB, the PM–
10 NAAQS has been attained.
The second component that may be
included in the showing that a PM–10
area has met the requirement that the
NAAQS has been attained involves an
analysis using air quality modeling.
This component is addressed under the
maintenance plan requirements
discussion below.
B. The Applicable Implementation Plan
Has Been Fully Approved by EPA Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
The Calcagni memo states that the SIP
for the area must be fully approved
under section 110(k) of the CAA and
must satisfy all requirements that apply
to the area. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As
stated above, on August 19, 2003 and
December 30, 2003, the State submitted
the 2003 Plan. This plan addressed all
applicable requirements for the SJV
serious PM–10 nonattainment area. On
May 24, 2004, EPA approved all
components of the 2003 Plan except for
the plan’s contingency measures. EPA
may rely on prior SIP approvals in
approving a redesignation request. See
Calcagni memo, p. 3; Southwestern
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.
Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th
Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 526
(6th Cir. 2001). The contingency
measure requirement under CAA
section 172(c)(9) was subsequently
suspended on October 30, 2006
pursuant to EPA’s determination of
attainment under its Clean Data Policy.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
See 71 FR 63642, 63663. Thus, since
contingency measures are no longer a
required element for the SJVAB, all
applicable requirements have been
approved under 110(k) of the CAA. See
also section IV.D. below.
C. EPA Has Determined That the
Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
in Emissions
The Calcagni memo states that the
state must be able to reasonably
attribute the improvement in air quality
to emission reductions which are
permanent and enforceable, (CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) and the
improvement should not be a result of
temporary reductions (e.g., economic
downturns or shutdowns) or unusually
favorable meteorology. In making this
showing, the state should estimate the
emission reductions from adopted and
implemented Federal, State and local
control measures, and consider the
emission rates, production capacities,
and other related information to show
that the air quality improvements are
the result of implemented controls.
The 2007 Plan provides a discussion
and comparison of the air quality,
meteorology and emissions trends since
1990. See 2007 Plan, pp. 23–28. First,
the 2007 Plan discusses the significant
improvements in PM–10 air quality
since 1990, noting that from 1990 to
1992 there were 33 estimated
exceedance days, from 1998 to 2000
there were 5.9 exceedance days and
from 2002 to 2004 there were 2.9
exceedance days. Id. Next the 2007 Plan
states that this improvement has
occurred while air quality plans and
regulations have been adopted and
notes that in the late 1980’s, before the
adoption of plans and regulations,
‘‘* * * it was not uncommon to have 50
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
22312
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
or more estimated annual exceedances
of the 24-hour PM10 standard [with]
peak measurements well above 250
micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3),
and annual averages of 80 µg/m3.’’ Id.
The 2007 Plan also states that since
1990 the Valley has experienced rapid
economic growth, citing to increases in
population and vehicle miles traveled
(2007 Plan, p. 26, Figure 3), while at the
same time the PM–10 and PM–10
precursor emissions were decreasing
(2007 Plan, p. 26, Figure 4). The 2007
Plan also did not find any major sectorwide shutdowns, identifying at most
‘‘* * * about 2 tons per day of PM–10
reductions from shutdowns during the
attainment period of interest.’’ 2007
Plan, p. 25. Thus, it does not appear that
the air quality improvements were due
to any economic downturns or
shutdowns.
The 2007 Plan also provides an
analysis of the meteorological
conditions, including wind speeds,
precipitation, temperature and
atmospheric stability, to determine if
there were any favorable meteorological
conditions that may have led to the
improvement in air quality during
2003–2006. 2007 Plan, p. 27 and
Appendix C. The 2007 Plan found that
compared to long-term averages, the
period from 2003 to 2006 had: No
variation in average annual wind
speeds; a higher than average level of
precipitation with two dry years (2003
and 2004) and two wet years (2005 and
2006); warmer than average
temperatures; and a lower than average
stability level. The higher than average
precipitation would favor lower PM–10
levels, but it is important to note that
2003 and 2004 were in fact dry years,
ranking 98th and 122nd in wetness over
a period of 128 years (1878 to 2006).
The higher than average temperature
could have increased the potential for
high PM–10 levels, but the higher
stability level could have decreased the
potential by providing more dispersion.
The 2007 Plan concludes that these
analyses indicate that there is no
consistent pattern to show that there
was favorable meteorology leading to
the improvement in PM–10 levels
during 2003 to 2006. Id.
The 2007 Plan further states that the
SJVAPCD has adopted over 500 new
rules and amendments since 1992,
many of which are for the purpose of
reducing PM–10 or PM–10 precursor
emissions. The 2007 Plan shows that all
of the rules and commitments in the
2003 Plan have been adopted by the
SJVAPCD and many of them have been
approved by EPA and are thus federally
enforceable. The SJVAPCD has adopted
rules which control NOX and PM–10
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
emissions from cotton gins, boilers,
steam generators, and process heaters,
agricultural sources, dryers, dehydrators
and ovens, glass melting furnaces,
fugitive dust sources, open burning and
other source categories. 2007 Plan, p. 27
and Appendix B. In addition, the State
has adopted measures to meet its
commitments in the 2003 Plan to
achieve 10 tons per day (tpd) of NOX
reductions and 0.5 tpd of PM–10
reductions. 2007 Plan, p. 17. The air
quality improvements described above
can be attributed to the reductions in
NOX and PM–10 emissions achieved by
these measures.
The 2007 Plan shows decreases in the
emissions inventories for the SJVAB
from approximately 1000 tpd in 2000 to
approximately 900 tpd in 2005 and to
approximately 800 tpd in 2010. ARB
Staff Report, Appendix B. As discussed
further in Section E.1. below, the
emissions inventories are a summary of
all source categories in the SJVAB and
are developed based on information
about emission rates, production
capacities, and other source-related
information. The emissions inventories
in the 2007 Plan also include reductions
from adopted and implemented Federal,
State and local control measures. ARB
Staff Report, Appendix B.
EPA believes that the 2007 Plan has
demonstrated that the improvement in
PM–10 air quality for the SJVAB is a
result of permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions and the
improvement is not a result of
temporary reductions or unusually
favorable meteorology. The fact that, as
discussed above, there were no
economic downturns, shutdowns or
meteorology impacting air quality and
that the number of exceedance days and
the estimated emissions have decreased
over time while the population and
vehicle miles traveled in the SJVAB
have increased shows that the
improvement in air quality can
reasonably be attributed to the adoption
of air quality plans and regulations
during this time.
D. The State Has Met All Applicable
Requirements for the Area Under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
The Calcagni memo states that a state
must meet those requirements of section
110 and part D of the CAA that were
applicable prior to the submittal of the
redesignation request. CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(v).
1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA
Section 110
The general SIP elements and
requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the following: Submittal of a SIP that
has been adopted by the state after
reasonable public notice and hearing;
provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
implementation of a source permit
program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirement
for Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD); provisions for the
implementation of part D requirements
for New Source Review (NSR) permit
programs; provisions for air pollution
modeling; and provisions for public and
local agency participation in planning
and emission control rule development.
On numerous occasions over the past
35 years, CARB and the SJVAPCD have
submitted and we have approved
provisions addressing the basic CAA
section 110 provisions. There are no
outstanding or disapproved applicable
section 110 SIP submittals with respect
to the State and the SJVAPCD.8 We
propose to conclude that CARB and
SJVAPCD have met all SIP requirements
for the SJVAB area applicable for
purposes of redesignation under section
110 of the CAA (General SIP
Requirements).
Moreover, we note that SIPs must be
fully approved only with respect to
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation in accordance with CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). Thus, for
example, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)
requires that SIPs contain certain
measures to prevent sources in a state
from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state.
However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked
with a particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classification in that
state. EPA believes that the
requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and
classifications are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable,
continue to apply to a state regardless of
the designation of any one particular
area in the state.
Thus, we do not believe that these
requirements should be construed to be
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. In addition, EPA believes
that the other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked with an
area’s attainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of
8 The applicable California SIP for the SJV
nonattainment area can be found at: https://
yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/Casips?readform&
count=100&state=California.
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
redesignation. The State will still be
subject to these requirements after the
SJVAB area is redesignated. The section
110 and part D requirements, which are
linked to a particular area’s designation
and classification, are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This policy is
consistent with EPA’s existing policy on
applicability of the conformity SIP
requirement for redesignations. See
Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and
final rulemakings at 61 FR 53174–53176
(October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24816 (May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio
final rulemaking at 61 FR 20458 (May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida final
rulemaking at 60 FR 62748 (December 7,
1995). See also the discussion of this
issue in the Cincinnati redesignation at
65 FR 37890 (June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh redesignation at 66 FR 50399
(October 19, 2001). EPA believes that
section 110 elements not linked to the
area’s nonattainment status are not
applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
2. SIP Requirements Under Part D
Subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title 1 of
the CAA contain air quality planning
requirements for PM–10 nonattainment
areas. Subpart 1 of part D contains
general requirements for areas
designated as nonattainment. Subpart 4
of part D contains specific planning and
scheduling requirements for particulate
matter nonattainment areas. Subpart 4
of part D, section 189(a), (b) and (c)
requirements apply to moderate and
serious PM–10 nonattainment areas and
189(d) applies to areas which failed to
attain by their serious area deadline.
These requirements include: (1) An
approved permit program for
construction of new and modified major
stationary sources; (2) provisions to
ensure that reasonably available control
technology (RACT) and reasonably
available control measures (RACM) are
implemented; (3) provisions to ensure
that best available control measures
(BACM) are implemented; (4)
quantitative milestones to be achieved
every 3 years and which demonstrate
reasonable further progress (RFP)
toward attainment by the applicable
attainment date; (5) provisions to ensure
that the control requirements applicable
to major stationary sources of PM–10
also apply to major stationary sources of
PM–10 precursors except where the
Administrator determined that such
sources do not contribute significantly
to PM–10 levels which exceed the
NAAQS in the area; and(6) a
demonstration of attainment and an
annual PM–10 or PM–10 precursor
reduction of not less than five percent
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
from the most recent emission inventory
until attainment.
In addition to these specific
requirements for serious PM–10
nonattainment areas, nonattainment
areas must also meet the general
planning requirements in subpart 1,
section 172(c). These requirements
include, among other things, provisions
for the implementation of RACT, RFP,
emissions inventories, and contingency
measures.
For the SJVAB, EPA determined that
these requirements were met in its
approval of the 2003 Plan with the
exception of the contingency measure
requirement that was subsequently
suspended by the determination of
attainment in accordance with EPA’s
Clean Data Policy and the NSR permit
program for construction of new and
modified major stationary sources. 69
FR 30006 and 71 FR 63642.
EPA fully approved SJVAPCD NSR
rules 2020 and 2201 on May 17, 2004
(69 FR 27837). Recently we proposed to:
(1) Correct aspects of that approval, and
(2) approve revisions to the NSR rules
that explicitly exempt certain small or
minor agricultural sources from
permitting requirements. 73 FR 9260
(February 20, 2008). In this proposed
rulemaking, we stated that ‘‘we believe
that the adoption of the proposed
revisions in place of the SIP as proposed
to be corrected would not result in any
change in emissions, any change in air
quality, or any change in the area’s
ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS.
Accordingly, we conclude that this SIP
revision, if approved, will not interfere
with any applicable requirements for
attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA and is
approvable under section 110(l).’’ 73 FR
9265.
Although the SJVAPCD NSR program
has been approved, and we have
proposed approval of revisions to the
rule, we also note that final approval of
the NSR revisions is not a necessary
prerequisite to finalizing our proposed
approval of the State’s redesignation
request. EPA has determined in past
redesignations that a NSR program does
not have to be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area
demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without part D NSR in effect.
The rationale for this position is
described in a memorandum from Mary
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled ‘‘Part D NSR Requirements or
Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.’’ See the more detailed
explanations in the following
redesignation rulemakings: Detroit, MI
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22313
(60 FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1996);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR
20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, 53669,
October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, MI (61
FR 31831, 31836–31837, June 21, 1996).
The requirements of the PSD program
will apply once the area has been
redesignated. Thus, new major sources
with significant PM–10 emissions and
major modifications of PM–10 at major
sources as defined under 40 CFR 52.21
will be required to obtain a PSD permit.
Currently, EPA is the PSD permitting
authority in the SJVAB under a Federal
implementation plan. See 40 CFR
52.270. However, the SJVAPCD can
implement the Federal PSD program
through a delegation agreement with
EPA or, assuming that the SJVAPCD
makes necessary modifications to its
PSD rules, under an EPA-approved rule.
With respect to the conformity
requirement, section 176(c) of the CAA
requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally
supported or funded projects ‘‘conform’’
to the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs and
projects developed, funded or approved
under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal
Transit Act (‘‘transportation
conformity’’) as well as to other
Federally supported or funded projects
(‘‘general conformity’’). State conformity
revisions must be consistent with
Federal conformity regulations relating
to consultation, enforcement and
enforceability that the CAA required the
EPA to promulgate.
EPA believes it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for
purposes of a redesignation request
under section 107(d) because state
conformity rules are still required after
redesignation and Federal conformity
rules apply where state rules have not
been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265f
3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this
interpretation. See, also, 60 FR 62748
(December 7, 1995).
Thus, EPA concludes that the State
has met all requirements applicable
under section 110 and part D for the
SJVAB for purposes of redesignation.
CAA Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).
E. EPA Has Fully Approved a
Maintenance Plan, Including a
Contingency Plan, for the Area Under
Section 175A of the CAA
Section 175A of the CAA provides the
requirements for maintenance plans.
These requirements are further clarified
in the Calcagni memo. The provisions to
be included in maintenance plans are:
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
22314
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(1) An attainment emissions inventory
to identify the level of emissions in the
area sufficient to attain the NAAQS;
(2) A demonstration of maintenance
of the NAAQS for 10 years after
redesignation;
(3) Verification of continued
attainment through operation of an
appropriate air quality monitoring
network; and
(4) Contingency provisions that EPA
deems necessary to assure that the State
will promptly correct any violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation of the area. We discuss
how these requirements are met for the
SJVAB below.
1. An Attainment Emissions Inventory
To Identify the Level of Emissions in the
Area Sufficient To Attain the NAAQS
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires
all plan submittals to include a
comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventory of actual emissions from all
sources in the nonattainment area. In
demonstrating maintenance in
accordance with CAA section 175A and
the Calcagni memo, the state should
provide an attainment emissions
inventory to identify the level of
emissions in the area sufficient to attain
the NAAQS. Where the state has made
an adequate demonstration that air
quality has improved as a result of the
SIP, the attainment inventory will
generally be an inventory of actual
emissions at the time the area attained
the standard. EPA’s primary guidance in
evaluating these inventories is the
document entitled, ‘‘PM–10 Emissions
Inventory Requirements,’’ EPA, OAQPS,
EPA–454/R–94–033 (September 1994)
which can be found at: https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/
pm10eir.pdf.
The 2007 Plan includes detailed
emissions inventories for NOX, directly
emitted PM–10, volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and oxides of sulfur
(SOX).9 The emissions inventories are
projected from a 2002 baseyear
inventory because it was the most
comprehensive inventory available. The
baseyear inventory meets the CAA
requirement for a comprehensive,
accurate and current inventory and is
used as the basis for forecasting future
year inventories.
The 2007 Plan includes projected
inventories for 2005, 2010 and 2020 for
NOX, PM–10, VOC and SOX. The
baseyear and projected year inventories
all include a detailed breakdown of the
stationary and mobile source emissions
categories. The emissions for each of the
categories are estimated based on the
best available information on number of
sources, size of sources, growth, control
measures, emissions factors, and other
criteria.
The 2007 Plan selects the 2005 PM–
10 and NOX inventories as the
attainment emission inventories because
the SJV nonattainment area first attained
the PM–10 standard during 2003–2005
(and continues to attain the standard
through February 2008). 2007 Plan, pp.
5–6. The 2007 Plan also includes
inventories for VOC and SOx; however,
EPA has determined that NOX is the
only significant PM–10 precursor for the
SJV nonattainment area and thus the
proposed SJVAB. 69 FR 30006. Table 3
summarizes the 2007 Plan’s NOX and
PM–10 emissions.
TABLE 3.—ANNUAL PM–10 AND NOX EMISSIONS (TONS PER DAY) 2007 PLAN (ARB STAFF REPORT, APPENDIX B)
2005
PM–10 ..........................................................................................................................................
NOX ..............................................................................................................................................
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
The NOX emission inventory
continues to be reduced substantially in
the future. While the PM–10 emission
inventory is projected to increase
slightly in 2020, we believe the increase
is insignificant when compared to the
substantial NOX decreases. See 2007
Plan, pp. 5–6 and Appendix B of the
ARB Staff Report.
EPA believes that the selection of
2005 for the attainment year inventory
and 2020 for the maintenance year
inventory is appropriate since the
SJVAB was determined to have attained
the PM–10 NAAQS in 2005. We have
reviewed the 2007 Plan’s attainment
year and maintenance year emissions
inventories and determined that they
are accurate and comprehensive and
meet the requirements of EPA guidance
and the CAA.
2. A Demonstration of Maintenance of
the NAAQS for 10 Years After
Redesignation
9 The 2007 Plan’s emissions inventories are found
in Appendix B of the ARB Staff Report. As
mentioned above and in the ARB Staff Report, the
State ‘‘* * * updated the attainment inventory
* * * to reflect emission reductions achieved by
ARB adopted measures that had not been accounted
for’’ before submitting the 2007 Plan to EPA on
November 16, 2007.
10 The 2007 Plan also includes a maintenance
demonstration for the annual PM–10 standard;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
Section 175A of the CAA requires a
demonstration of maintenance of the
NAAQS for 10 years after designation. A
state may generally demonstrate
maintenance of the NAAQS by either
showing that future emissions of a
pollutant or its precursors will not
exceed the level of the attainment
inventory, or by modeling to show that
the future anticipated mix of sources
and emission rates will not cause a
violation of the NAAQS. Under the Act,
the showing should be based on the
same level of modeling used for the
attainment demonstration required as
part of the approved attainment plan.
Consistent with EPA’s modeling
guidance (The Guideline on Air Quality
Models (GAQM), 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix W and the PM–10 SIP
Development Guideline (PMSDG), EPA
450/2–86–001, June 1987), the 2003
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2010
284
606
2020
282
521
290
328
Plan’s attainment demonstration was
based on the use of two receptor
models: Chemical Mass Balance (CMB)
and rollback. 69 FR 5412, 5424–5425
and 69 FR 30006. The 2007 Plan also
uses CMB and rollback to demonstrate
maintenance of the 24-hour PM–10
standard until 2020.10 See 2007 Plan,
pp. 6–11. The results of the modeling
show that all monitoring sites in the
SJVAB nonattainment area will be
below the NAAQS in 2020, with the
highest projected value of 134 µg/m3 at
Bakersfield-Golden and Corcoran. See
2007 Plan, Table 2.
In addition to the modeling for the
maintenance plan, the 2007 Plan shows
that total annual emissions of NOX will
decrease from 606 tpd in 2005 to 521
tpd in 2010 and 328 tpd in 2020 and
total annual emissions of PM–10 will
decrease from 284 tpd in 2005 to 282
tpd in 2010 and slightly increase to 290
tpd in 2020. As discussed above, the
emissions inventories meet EPA
however, the annual PM–10 standard was revoked
effective December 18, 2006. 71 FR 61144 (October
17, 2006). Therefore we do not address this
demonstration here.
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
requirements and the general decline in
inventories provides assurance that the
SJVAB will maintain its attainment
levels through 2020.
Based on our review of the
information presented in the 2007 Plan,
we believe that the State has met EPA
requirements for demonstrating
maintenance of the PM–10 standard for
the SJVAB.
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
3. Verification of Continued Attainment
Through Operation of an Appropriate
Air Quality Monitoring Network
In demonstrating maintenance,
continued attainment of the NAAQS can
be verified through operation of an
appropriate air quality monitoring
network. The Calcagni memo states that
the maintenance plan should contain
provisions for continued operation of air
quality monitors that will provide such
verification. The memo also states that
states should ensure that they have the
legal authority to implement and
enforce all measures necessary to attain
and to maintain the NAAQS. Finally,
the memo states that the state submittal
should indicate how it will track the
progress of the maintenance plan (e.g.,
with periodic emissions inventory
updates or modeling input updates) and
monitor the triggers for contingency
measures.
In the 2007 Plan the SJVAPCD
commits to continued operation of its
air quality monitoring network for
verification of attainment. See 2007
Plan, pp. 12–13. The SJVAPCD’s
authority to continue operating after
redesignation to attainment is provided
for in the California Health and Safety
Code sections 40150 and 40161. Id. at
15. The SJVAPCD also plans to verify
continued attainment of the PM–10
standard through an annual report to its
Board which will include, among other
things, tracking of adoption and
implementation of control measures,
tracking of air quality data and
comparison of predicted versus current
emissions reductions estimates. Id. As
discussed further below, since the
SJVAPCD has selected a contingency
measure trigger that is based on ambient
air quality levels, the continued
operation of the monitoring network
and tracking of its data will provide
adequate notice of when contingency
measures are needed.
4. Contingency Provisions to Promptly
Correct Any Violation of the NAAQS
That Occurs After Redesignation of the
Area
Contingency provisions are required
under section 175A of the CAA. These
contingency measures are distinguished
from those generally required for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
nonattainment areas under section
172(c)(9) in that they are not required to
be fully adopted measures that will take
effect without further action by the State
in order for the maintenance plan to be
approved. The Calcagni memo states
that the contingency provisions of the
maintenance plan should clearly
identify the measures to be adopted, a
schedule and procedure for adoption
and implementation, and a specific time
limit for action by the state. The memo
also states that the contingency
provisions should identify indicators or
triggers which will be used to determine
when the contingency measures need to
be implemented. While the memo
suggests inventory or monitoring
indicators, it states that contingency
provisions will be evaluated on a caseby-case basis. Finally, the Calcagni
memo states that the contingency
provisions must require the state to
implement all measures contained in
the part D nonattainment plan for the
area prior to redesignation.
The 2007 Plan selects an action level
or trigger based on an exceedance of the
PM–10 NAAQS of 155 µg/m3.11 See
2007 Plan, p. 16. In addition, the
District may also consider other factors
such as a succession of values just
below but near the level of the PM–10
standard. Id. EPA believes that an
exceedance of 155 µg/m3 is an
appropriate trigger level. The SJVAB has
several continuous PM–10 monitors,
and a single measurement of 155 µg/m3
at one of these monitors would not
constitute a violation of the PM–10
NAAQS. Even if a measurement of 155
µg/m3 is recorded at a one-in-six day
FEM, a violation is not necessarily being
recorded as the State might need to
evaluate the possibility that the
measurement is due to an exceptional
event.
The 2007 Plan states that if the SJVAB
monitors an exceedance of 155 µg/m3,
the District commits to take appropriate
action within 18 months of the
exceedance date. This action will first
involve a determination of whether the
exceedance was due to an exceptional
event in accordance with EPA’s
Exceptional Events Rule and an analysis
of what caused the exceedance and the
necessary controls to address it. Id. If
the exceedance is not due to an
exceptional event, the District commits
11 An exceedance is defined as a daily value that
is above the level of the 24-hour standard (150 µg/
m3) after rounding to the nearest 10 µg/m3 (i.e.
values ending in 5 or greater are to be rounded up).
Thus, a recorded value of 154 µg/m3 would not be
an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150 µg/
m3 whereas a recorded value of 155 µg/m3 would
be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 160
µg/m3. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 1.0.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22315
to determine the possible causes of the
exceedance and to determine if
emissions reductions from adopted
measures that are not needed to
maintain the PM–10 NAAQS are
available to serve as contingency
measures. These measures can be found
in the SJVAPCD’s 2007 Ozone Plan
(April 30, 2007) and the SJVAPCD’s
Proposed 2008 PM2.5 Plan (March 13,
2008) and include more stringent
controls on open burning, gas turbines,
boilers, glass melting, residential water
heaters, wood burning fireplaces and
heaters and commercial charbroiling.
See Table 6–1 of SJVAPCD’s 2007
Ozone Plan and Table 6–3 of SJVAPCD’s
Proposed 2008 PM2.5 Plan.
If there are no reductions available
from adopted measures, the District
commits in the 2007 Plan to proceed
with identifying control measures from
feasibility studies such as those found
in its 2007 Ozone Plan and Proposed
2008 PM2.5 Plan (see Table 6–2 of 2007
Ozone Plan and Table 6–5 of Proposed
PM2.5 Plan) and prioritize measures
most relevant for reducing PM–10
emissions. 2007 Plan, pp. 16–17. The
SJVAPCD has also provided clarification
that if additional control measures are
necessary, the SJVAPCD will adopt and
implement the control measures within
the 18-month timeframe for appropriate
action. Letter from Seyed Sadredin,
SJVAPCD, to Deborah Jordan, EPA,
April 17, 2008.
Finally, the 2007 Plan states that the
State, District and local governments
have adopted and implemented all
measures in the 2003 Plan. 2007 Plan,
p. 17 and Appendix B.
Based on the discussion above and
EPA’s review of the 2007 Plan, we
believe the plan adequately addresses
the contingency measure requirement
under section 175A of the CAA.
Conclusion
Based on our review of the 2007 Plan,
and for the reasons discussed above, we
conclude that the CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) requirements for
redesignation to attainment and an
approvable maintenance plan for the
SJVAB have been met. We are therefore
proposing to approve the 2007 Plan as
meeting the requirements of section
175A of the CAA and proposing to
redesignate the SJVAB nonattainment
area to attainment for the PM–10
NAAQS.
F. Transportation Conformity and Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Under section 176(c) of the CAA,
transportation plans, programs and
projects in the nonattainment or
maintenance areas that are funded or
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
22316
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
approved under title 23 U.S.C. and the
Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. Chapter
53) must conform to the applicable SIP.
In short, a transportation plan and
program are deemed to conform to the
applicable SIP if the emissions resulting
from the implementation of that
transportation plan and program are less
than or equal to the motor vehicle
emissions budget (MVEB) established in
the SIP for the attainment year,
maintenance year and other analysis
years. See, generally, 40 CFR part 93.
The 2007 Plan provides for attainment
year MVEBs for 2005 and maintenance
year MVEBs for 2020.12 The 2005
attainment year MVEBs will replace the
current MVEBs for 2008 and 2010 from
the 2003 Plan. See 40 CFR 93.118(a).
Before an emissions budget in a
submitted SIP revision may be used in
a conformity determination, we must
first determine that it is adequate. The
criteria by which we determine whether
a SIP’s motor vehicle emissions budgets
are adequate for transportation
conformity purposes are outlined in 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4). We have described
our process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in
the preamble to revisions to EPA’s
conformity regulations. 69 FR 40004
(July 1, 2004). Applicability of emission
trading between conformity budgets for
conformity purposes is described in 40
CFR 93.124(b).
1. CARB Methodology for Estimating
PM–10 in the Emissions Budgets
CARB’s mobile source emission
model, EMFAC2007, was used to
estimate direct PM–10 and NOX
emissions from motor vehicles in the
2007 Plan. EMFAC2007 was approved
by EPA on January 18, 2007 (72 FR
733464), for use in SIPs and
transportation conformity analyses.
EMFAC2007 produces emissions for a
wide range of motor vehicles (passenger
cars, trucks, motorcycles, buses and
motor homes) for calendar years out to
2040. Particulate emissions include tire
and brake wear as well as vehicle
exhaust and evaporative emissions.
The methodology used in the 2007
Plan to estimate fugitive dust (e.g.,
paved and unpaved road emissions) is
consistent with the methods previously
approved in EPA’s action on the 2003
Plan. 69 FR 30006 and 69 FR 5412,
5414. No further action is required to
approve these methodologies for use in
future transportation conformity
determinations in the SJVAB.
2. Adequacy of the 2007 Plan’s Budgets
The 2007 Plan includes county by
county subarea motor vehicle emissions
budgets for 2005 and 2020 for direct
PM–10 and NOX. The 2007 Plan budgets
are first summarized in Table 6,
‘‘Revised Motor Vehicle Emission
Budgets for the Attainment Year, (tons
per average annual day),’’ and in Table
7, ‘‘Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for
Maintenance of PM10 NAAQS, (tons per
average annual day),’’ of the 2007 Plan;
however, these estimates were updated
by CARB, based on updated vehicle
activity data, and the updated budgets
were included in the ARB Staff Report
(p. 12) as part of the 2007 Plan submittal
to EPA. Thus, the budgets found on
page 12 of ARB Staff Report supercede
the budgets in Tables 6 and 7 of the
locally adopted 2007 Plan. See
November 16, 2007 submittal letter from
James N. Goldstene, CARB, to Wayne
Nastri, EPA, enclosure ‘‘V. Updated
transportation conformity budgets and
supporting documentation.’’ Table 4
below reflects the updated and
submitted transportation conformity
budgets for the 2007 Plan. The direct
PM–10 budgets include emissions of reentrained dust from motor vehicle travel
on paved and unpaved roads, vehicular
exhaust, vehicle brake and tire wear,
and emissions from highway and transit
project construction. The emissions
budgets for NOX include only exhaust
from on-road vehicles. Since the 2007
Plan does not consider VOC to be a
significant contributor to the PM–10
nonattainment problem, in accordance
with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iii), no VOC
budgets are included. Additional details
regarding the budgets are presented in
the 2007 Plan, Appendix D, ‘‘Detailed
Conformity Calculations.’’
Based on our evaluation of the criteria
outlined in section 93.118(e)(4) of the
conformity rule, EPA proposes to find
the PM–10 and NOX motor vehicle
emissions budgets contained in the 2007
Plan (and in Table 4 below) adequate
and proposes to approve them. EPA
proposes to approve the budgets
because they come from a SIP which
EPA concludes demonstrates timely
attainment and maintenance and the
budgets are consistent with all of the
control measures assumed in the
attainment demonstration and
maintenance plan. We also find
adequate and propose to approve the
individual county level subarea budgets
for NOX and PM–10, as shown in Table
4 below, consistent with section
93.124(d), which allows for a
nonattainment area with more than one
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) to establish subarea emission
budgets for each MPO or make a
collective conformity determination for
the entire nonattainment area. Note that,
if an individual MPO cannot show
conformity to its individual county
budget, then the remaining MPOs in the
SJVAB cannot make any new
conformity determinations.13 If
approved, the 2005 and 2020 motor
vehicle emissions budgets must be used
for transportation conformity purposes.
As mentioned earlier, the county
subarea motor vehicle emissions
budgets that EPA is proposing to
approve are listed in Table 4 below.
TABLE 4.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS SUBAREA BUDGETS (TONS PER DAY) 2007 PM–10 PLAN *
2005
2020
County
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
PM–10
Fresno ..............................................................................................................
Kern ** ..............................................................................................................
Kings ................................................................................................................
Madera .............................................................................................................
Merced .............................................................................................................
San Joaquin .....................................................................................................
Stanislaus ........................................................................................................
12 See
footnotes 2 and 9 above.
section 176(c) states that conformity
applies to SIPs in nonattainment and maintenance
areas, rather than individual metropolitan planning
areas within a single state. When subarea budgets
area created for each MPO, the sum of the subarea
13 CAA
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
13.5
12.1
3.1
3.6
6.2
9.1
5.6
budgets equals the total amount of emissions the
area can have from the transportation sector and
still attain and maintain the NAAQS. When one
subarea lapses, then the other MPOs cannot show
that their planned transportation activities would
conform to the SIP for the whole area until the lapse
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NOx
PM–10
59.2
88.3
16.7
13.9
39.2
42.6
29.7
16.1
14.7
3.6
4.7
6.5
10.6
6.7
NOx
23.2
39.5
6.8
6.5
13.9
16.7
10.7
is resolved. See ‘‘Companion Guidance for the July
1, 2004, Final Transportation Conformity Rule:
Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing
and New Air Quality Standards’’ (EPA 420–B–04–
012).
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
22317
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS SUBAREA BUDGETS (TONS PER DAY) 2007 PM–10 PLAN *—Continued
2005
2020
County
PM–10
PM–10
NOx
NOx
Tulare ...............................................................................................................
7.3
25.1
9.3
10.1
Total ..........................................................................................................
60.5
314.7
72.2
127.4
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
* The budgets are based on attainment and maintenance of the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS.
** MVEBs in Table 2 are only for the SJVAB portion of Kern County.
3. Trading Mechanism
Transportation conformity is
demonstrated for each county in the
SJVAB when emissions for both PM–10
and NOX are estimated to be below the
motor vehicle emission budgets for each
pollutant for all analysis years.
However, for analysis years beyond
2010, in our prior approval of the 2003
Plan, we approved a trading mechanism
that allows emissions to be traded from
NOX to PM–10 budgets. 69 FR 30006
and 69 FR 5412, 5414.
The trading mechanism specified that
if, after including reductions from
additional measures, the direct PM–10
budget still cannot be met, an MPO
could adjust (i.e., increase) its PM–10
subarea budget by trading from its NOX
budget. This trade from the NOX subarea
budget to the PM–10 subarea budget can
only occur if the estimated emissions of
NOX from the planned transportation
network are less than the NOX subarea
budget for a given analysis year. The 1.5
tpd NOX to 1 tpd PM–10 ratio would be
used, as follows, to determine the NOX
reductions needed to offset the excess
direct PM–10 emissions:
(PM–10 estimate—PM–10 budget) * 1.5
= tpd of NOX reductions needed to
offset excess PM–10
A subarea has demonstrated
conformity if, after trading, the
estimates of NOX and PM–10 emissions
from the planned transportation
network are at or below the adjusted
NOX and direct PM–10 budgets. For
every analysis year, and in each
subsequent conformity determination,
the transportation agency must repeat
these steps to determine whether the
budgets can be met, or whether they
need to be adjusted using this trading
mechanism.
The 2007 Plan requests that this
trading mechanism remain unchanged,
but available for use after 2005, the
revised attainment year. Since the first
analysis year, for conformity purposes,
will be 2010, EPA is proposing to
continue to approve use of the trading
mechanism for conformity analysis
years after 2005. As stated in the 2003
Plan approval (69 FR 5412, 5414–5417;
69 FR 30006), EPA continues to believe
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
that trading mechanisms cannot be
reviewed through the adequacy process,
and instead need full EPA approval
before they can be used.
V. Proposed Commitments for East
Kern
In order to address CAA requirements
for the East Kern nonattainment area,
the State submitted on February 29,
2008 enforceable commitments to install
a FRM/FEM in East Kern and if a
violation is recorded to submit the
appropriate SIP. Specifically, the State
submitted a resolution approved by the
Governing Board of the KCAPCD on
February 27, 2008 committing to, with
assistance from the State, install a FRM/
FEM. Kern County Air Pollution Control
Board Resolution 2008–001–02. Further,
the resolution states that the KCAPCD
will develop for submittal through the
State to EPA, a serious nonattainment
area SIP that meets the requirements of
CAA section 189 in the event of a
violation of the PM–10 standard. Id. On
March 3, 2008, CARB’s Executive
Officer issued Executive Order S–08–
004 approving as a SIP revision the
KCAPCD commitments and committing
to submit a SIP addressing section 189
in the event that the area violates the
PM–10 standard. Given the low
concentrations recorded at the
IMPROVE monitor and the relatively
minimal expected growth, we believe
this is a reasonable approach for the
area.
VI. Proposed Actions
Based on our review of the State’s
request, EPA believes the State has
addressed all the necessary
requirements for a revised designation
and is proposing to approve the State’s
request under section 107(d)(3)(D) to
revise the designation for the SJV PM–
10 nonattainment area by splitting the
area into two separate serious PM–10
nonattainment areas, the SJVAB PM–10
nonattainment area and the East Kern
PM–10 nonattainment area. Also, based
on EPA’s review of the 2007 Plan
submitted by the State, EPA believes
that the CAA requirements under
section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignations
and section 175A for maintenance plans
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
have been met for the SJVAB and EPA
is therefore proposing to redesignate the
newly created serious SJVAB
nonattainment area to attainment for the
PM–10 NAAQS and to approve the
SJVAPCD’s PM–10 maintenance plan,
budgets and conformity trading
mechanism for the area. EPA is also
proposing to exclude from use in
determining that the SJVAB has attained
the PM–10 NAAQS two exceedances
that it has concluded were caused by
exceptional events on July 4, 2007 and
January 4, 2008. Finally, EPA is
proposing to approve commitments
from KCAPCD and CARB to install a
FRM/FED in the newly created East
Kern serious PM–10 nonattainment area
and to address section 189(d) CAA
requirements for it in the event the
FRM/FED records a violation of the PM–
10 standard.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely proposes
to approve a revised boundary
designation, a redesignation to
attainment for the SJVAB, a
maintenance plan for the SJVAB, motor
vehicle emissions budgets and
conformity trading mechanism for the
area and commitments for East Kern, all
of which are either requested or
submitted by the State, and does not
impose any additional requirements.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
proposed rule does not impose any
additional enforceable duty, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
22318
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4).
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000) requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ Seven Indian tribes have
reservations located within the
boundaries of the proposed SJVAB. EPA
plans to consult with representatives of
the seven Tribes and will continue to
work with the Tribes, as provided for in
Executive Order 13175. Accordingly,
EPA has addressed Executive Order
13175 to the extent that it applies to this
action. This proposed action also does
not have Federalism implications
because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This proposed action
merely proposes to approve requests or
submittals from the State and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution
of power and responsibilities
established in the CAA. Executive Order
12898 establishes a Federal policy for
incorporating environmental justice into
Federal agency actions by directing
agencies to identify and address, as
appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority and
low-income populations. Today’s action
involves proposed approvals of a
revised boundary designation, a
redesignation to attainment for the
SJVAB, a maintenance plan for the
SJVAB, motor vehicle emissions budgets
and conformity trading mechanism for
the area and commitments for East Kern.
It will not have disproportionately high
and adverse effects on any communities
in the area, including minority and lowincome communities.
This proposed rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant. The
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This proposed
rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Apr 24, 2008
Jkt 214001
List of Subjects
40 CFR Parts 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 21, 2008.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E8–9139 Filed 4–24–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Comments may
also be submitted electronically or
through hand delivery/courier by
following the detailed instructions in
the ADDRESSES section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this
Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jaimee Dong, Compliance and
Innovative Strategies Division, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Office
of Air and Radiation, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 6406J,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 343–9672; fax number:
(202) 343–2800; e-mail address:
Dong.Jaimee@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 79
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0071; FRL–8557–7]
RIN 2060–AN94
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel
Additives: Revised Definition of
Substantially Similar Rule for Alaska
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed interpretive rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revise an
interpretive rule defining the term
‘‘substantially similar’’ for unleaded
gasoline as that phrase is used in section
211(f) of the Clean Air Act (the Act). To
meet the current definition, fuel or fuel
additives must possess, at the time of
manufacture, all of the physical and
chemical characteristics of an unleaded
gasoline as specified in ASTM Standard
D 4814–88 for at least one of the
Seasonal and Geographical Volatility
Classes specified in the standard. EPA
proposes to amend the definition to
allow some additional flexibility for the
vapor/liquid ratio specification for fuel
introduced into commerce in the state of
Alaska. In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’
section of this Federal Register, we are
amending the ‘‘substantially similar’’
definition as a direct final rule without
a prior proposed rule. If we receive no
adverse comment, we will not take
further action on this proposed rule.
DATES: Comments must be received by
May 27, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2007–0071, by mail to Air and
Radiation Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
I. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed
Rule?
This document proposes to revise the
‘‘substantially similar’’ interpretive rule.
EPA is not statutorily obligated to
conduct notice and comment
rulemaking when amending this
interpretive rule. See APA section
553(b)(A); CAA section 307(d).
However, as it has done when
previously amending this rule, EPA
desires to provide an opportunity for the
public to comment on this amendment.
We have published a direct final rule
amending the ‘‘substantially similar’’
interpretive rule in the ‘‘Rules and
Regulations’’ section of this Federal
Register because we view this as a
noncontroversial action and anticipate
no adverse comment. We have
explained our reasons for this action in
the preamble to the direct final rule.
If we receive no adverse comment, we
will not take further action on this
proposed rule. If we receive adverse
comment, we will withdraw the direct
final rule and it will not take effect. We
would address all public comments in
any subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule.
We do not intend to institute a second
comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting must
do so at this time. For further
information, please see the information
provided in the ADDRESSES section of
this document.
II. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Entities potentially affected by this
action include those involved with the
production or importation of unleaded
gasoline for use in Alaska. Categories
and entities affected by this action
include:
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 81 (Friday, April 25, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22307-22318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9139]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0306; FRL-8558-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of
Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of California; PM-10;
Revision of Designation; Redesignation of the San Joaquin Valley Air
Basin PM-10 Nonattainment Area to Attainment; Approval of PM-10
Maintenance Plan for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin; Approval of
Commitments for the East Kern PM-10 Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State of California's request
to revise the designation for the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) serious
nonattainment area for particulate matter of ten microns or less (PM-
10) (SJV nonattainment area) by splitting the area into two separate
nonattainment areas: The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin serious PM-10
nonattainment area and the East Kern serious PM-10 nonattainment area.
EPA is also proposing to redesignate the SJVAB nonattainment area to
attainment for the PM-10 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
and proposing to approve the PM-10 maintenance plan, motor vehicle
emissions budgets and conformity trading mechanism for the area. EPA is
also proposing to exclude from use in determining that the area has
attained the standard two exceedances that EPA has concluded were
caused by exceptional events that occurred on July 4, 2007 and January
4, 2008. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve enforceable commitments
by the Kern County Air Pollution Control District and the California
Air Resources Board to install a PM-10 monitor in the East Kern
nonattainment area and to address Clean Air Act requirements under
section 189(d) as necessary for the area.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by May 27, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2008-0306, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
2. E-mail: lo.doris@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Doris Lo (Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. https://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3959, lo.doris@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of EPA's Proposed Actions
III. Proposed Revised Boundary Redesignation
[[Page 22308]]
A. State's Submittal
B. EPA's Evaluation of Request to Revise Boundary Designation
IV. Proposed Redesignation of the SJV Air Basin to Attainment for
the PM-10 Standard and Approval of PM-10 Maintenance Plan
A. EPA has determined that the area has attained the NAAQS
B. The applicable implementation plan has been fully approved by
EPA under section 110(k) of the CAA
C. EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
D. The State has met all applicable requirements for the area
under section 110 and Part D of the CAA
1. Basic SIP Requirements under CAA Section 110
2. SIP Requirements under Part D
E. EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including a
contingency plan, for the area under section 175A of the CAA
1. An attainment emissions inventory to identify the level of
emissions in the area sufficient to attain the NAAQS
2. A demonstration of maintenance of the NAAQS for 10 years
after redesignation
3. Verification of continued attainment through operation of an
appropriate air quality monitoring network
4. Contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area
F. Transportation conformity and motor vehicle emissions budgets
1. CARB Methodology for Estimating PM-10 in the Emissions
Budgets
2. Adequacy of the 2007 Plan's Budgets
3. Trading Mechanism
V. Proposed Commitments for East Kern
VI. Proposed Actions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On May 26, 2004, EPA approved the serious area PM-10 plan for the
SJV nonattainment area, ``2003 PM10 Plan, San Joaquin Valley Plan to
Attain Federal Standards for Particulate Matter 10 Microns and
Smaller'' submitted by the State on August 19, 2003 and amendments to
that plan submitted on December 30, 2003 (collectively, 2003 Plan). See
69 FR 30006; 40 CFR 81.305. This plan provided for, among other things,
the implementation of best available control measures (BACM). In
addition, since the SJV nonattainment area had failed to meet its
original serious area attainment deadline of December 31, 2001, the
State was required under section 189(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act) to submit a plan that provided for an annual reduction in PM-
10 or PM-10 precursors of not less than five percent until attainment.
A detailed discussion of the history of PM-10 planning in the SJV
nonattainment area and of EPA's approval of the 2003 Plan can be found
in its proposed and final actions and the associated dockets. 69 FR
5412 (February 4, 2004); 69 FR 30006.
On October 30, 2006, EPA determined that the SJV nonattainment area
had attained the 24-hour PM-10 standard \1\ based on air quality data
from 2003 through 2005. In this action we noted that there were several
exceedances of the PM-10 standard that were likely due to exceptional
events which EPA would address in subsequent actions. 71 FR 63642.
Subsequently EPA issued a final action affirming that the PM-10
standard has been attained in the SJV nonattainment area based on air
quality data from 2004 through 2006. 73 FR 14687 (March 19, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The level of the national primary 24-hour ambient air
quality standard for particulate matter is 150 micrograms per cubic
meter ([mu]g/m\3\). The standard is attained when the expected
number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average
concentration above 150 [mu]g/m\3\, as determined in accordance with
appendix K to 40 CFR part 50, is equal to or less than one. See 40
CFR 50.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 16, 2007, the State submitted to EPA the ``2007 PM10
Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation,'' September 20, 2007,
for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or
the District) (2007 Plan).\2\ On January 31, 2008, the State submitted
a request to split the existing SJV serious PM-10 nonattainment area
into two separate nonattainment areas: (1) The San Joaquin Valley Air
Basin and (2) the western portion of the Kern County Air Pollution
Control District (KCAPCD). Letter from James N. Goldstene, California
Air Resources Board (CARB), to Deborah Jordan, EPA, with attachments,
January 31, 2008 (Goldstene letter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The SJVAPCD District adopted the 2007 Plan on September 20,
2007 and submitted it to the State on September 21, 2007. The State
``* * * updated the attainment inventory * * * to reflect emission
reductions achieved by ARB adopted measures that had not been
accounted for'' before submitting the 2007 Plan to EPA on November
16, 2007. (Staff Report, Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007
PM10 Maintenance Plan, Air Resources Board, Release Date: October
12, 2007 (ARB Staff Report), pp. 7-8 and Appendix B). Thus the
applicable emissions inventories in the 2007 Plan are found in the
ARB Staff Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 29, 2008, the State submitted enforceable commitments
by CARB and the KCAPCD to monitor for PM-10 in the western portion of
the KCAPCD and to address CAA State Implementation Plan (SIP)
requirements for this area as necessary. Letter from James N.
Goldstene, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, with enclosures, February 29,
2008.
Finally, on January 23, 2008, the State submitted to EPA the
``Exceptional Event Documentation, PM10, Fireworks, Bakersfield, CA,
July 4, 2007'' and on April 15, 2008, the State submitted to EPA the
``Natural Event Documentation, Bakersfield, California, January 4,
2008.''
II. Summary of EPA's Proposed Actions
First, EPA is proposing to grant the State's request to split the
existing SJV nonattainment area into two separate nonattainment areas.
EPA is then proposing to grant the State's request to redesignate the
portion of the SJV nonattainment area located in the San Joaquin Valley
Air Basin to attainment for the PM-10 standard and to approve the PM-10
maintenance plan, motor vehicle emissions budgets and conformity
trading mechanism for the area. EPA is also proposing to exclude from
use in determining that the area has attained the PM-10 standard data
showing exceedances caused by exceptional events that occurred on July
4, 2007 and January 4, 2008. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve
commitments by CARB and the KCAPCD to monitor for PM-10 in the western
portion of the KCAPCD and to address CAA SIP requirements for the area
as necessary.
III. Proposed Revised Boundary Designation
A. State's Submittal
As stated above, on January 31, 2008, the State submitted a request
to EPA to split the existing SJV PM-10 nonattainment area into two
separate nonattainment areas: (1) The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and
(2) the western portion of the KCAPCD. The State's submittal states
that ``[t]his change will address the inconsistency between
California's adopted air basin boundary for the San Joaquin Valley and
the boundary U.S. EPA is using for PM10 planning.'' The State's
submittal includes information about jurisdiction, geography,
population and degree of urbanization, employment and traffic/commuting
patterns, and emissions and air quality which supports the revised
boundary designation. See Goldstene letter.
B. EPA's Evaluation of Request To Revise Boundary Designation
The existing SJV nonattainment area includes the entire counties of
San Joaquin, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus and Tulare and
part of Kern County. The part of Kern County in the existing SJV
nonattainment area is a region that straddles the Sierra Nevada and
Tehachapi mountains and is located in two separate air basins: the SJV
Air Basin and the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). The dividing line
between
[[Page 22309]]
these two air basins coincides with the jurisdictional boundary between
the KCAPCD and the SJVAPCD. This dividing line also coincides with the
boundary that we are today proposing to draw between the two
nonattainment areas which we are proposing to designate as the SJV Air
Basin (SJVAB) PM-10 nonattainment area and the East Kern PM-10
nonattainment area.\3\ Thus, if we finalize the revision to the
boundary designation, the SJVAB nonattainment area will include only
those areas that are in the SJV Air Basin (i.e., all of the seven
counties mentioned above and the part of Kern County that is under the
jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD) and the East Kern PM-10 nonattainment area
will include the part of Kern County that is currently in the existing
SJV nonattainment area, is in the MDAB and is under the jurisdiction of
the KCAPCD.\4\ Together, these two new PM-10 nonattainment areas will
cover the same geographic area as the original SJV PM-10 nonattainment
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ We are proposing to call the new area ``East Kern'' because
it is the eastern part of Kern County that is currently within the
existing SJV nonattainment area.
\4\ The KCAPCD's jurisdiction also includes the remaining part
of Kern County which extends eastward beyond the proposed East Kern
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 107(d)(3)(D) of the CAA, the Governor of any state
may, on the Governor's own motion, submit to EPA a revised designation
of any area or portion thereof within the state.\5\ EPA is required to
approve or deny a submittal of a revised designation within 18 months
of receipt. The type of revised designation that the State of
California submitted on January 31, 2008 involves a boundary change
only and does not involve a change in status (e.g., from
``nonattainment,'' to ``attainment'' or ``unclassifiable'') of any
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Boundary changes are an inherent part of a designation or
redesignation of an area under the CAA. See CAA section
107(d)(1)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether to approve or deny a state's submittal of a
request for a revised boundary designation under section 107(d)(3)(D),
EPA uses the same factors Congress directed EPA to consider when the
Agency initiates a revision to a designation of an area on its own
motion under section 107(d)(3)(A). These factors include ``air quality
data, planning and control considerations, or any other air quality-
related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate.'' In
addition, because the State's revised designation involves
nonattainment areas, we also take into account CAA section
107(d)(1)(A), which provides that nonattainment areas are to include
the geographic area that does not meet, or that contributes to ambient
air quality in a nearby area that does not meet, the NAAQS for a given
pollutant.
California has provided a compelling technical justification as to
why the proposed SJVAB and East Kern nonattainment areas should be
designated as separate PM-10 planning areas. A summary of the State's
reasoning follows:
Jurisdiction. The proposed SJVAB area is under the jurisdiction of
the SJVAPCD and the proposed East Kern area is under the jurisdiction
of the KCAPCD. The proposed revised designation will align the boundary
along these jurisdictional lines. This realignment will make the air
quality planning and implementation process more efficient and
straightforward since the local air pollution control agencies, SJVAPCD
and KCAPCD, can only adopt and implement plans and rules in the area
for which they have jurisdiction.
Geography. The East Kern area is in the MDAB, a different air basin
than the SJVAB area; it is separated from the SJVAB area by the Sierra
Nevada and Tehachapi Mountain Ranges at elevations up to 7,500 feet.
The Kern River Valley and the Cummings Valley in the East Kern area are
located at approximately 2600 feet and 3800 feet, respectively. These
elevations are comparable to other areas in the MDAB and much higher
than the average elevation in the western portion of Kern County in the
SJVAB which is between 450 and 500 feet. Eastern Kern County, which
includes the proposed East Kern nonattainment area, is a vast arid
desert while the SJVAB portion of Kern County is part of the urbanized,
agricultural, and industrial SJV. The mountains surrounding the SJVAB
form a bowl trapping air pollutants in the SJVAB, but the East Kern
area is located above the inversion layer which traps air pollutants in
the SJVAB and thus, experiences different weather from the SJVAB.
Population and Degree of Urbanization. There are no major or fast
growing population centers in eastern Kern County. Eastern Kern County
covers approximately 3800 square miles, with a total population of
approximately 131,000 (in 2005) and a low population density of
approximately 35 persons per square mile. In the last decade (1995-
2005), population increased by 15,000 persons. The Kern River Valley
and Cummings Valley, which are in the East Kern area, are sparsely
populated; the greater Lake Isabella region in the Kern River Valley
has approximately 15,000 inhabitants; and the west Tehachapi area in
the Cummings Valley has approximately 13,000 inhabitants. In contrast,
the western portion of Kern County in the SJVAB extends over 4400
square miles, includes the urban Bakersfield area, housed 640,000
persons (in 2005), and has a population density of approximately 145
persons per square mile, which is four times the population density of
eastern Kern County. In the last decade, the total population in
western Kern County grew by 136,000 persons, nine times the population
growth in eastern Kern County.
Employment and Traffic/Commuting Patterns. Eastern Kern County,
which includes the proposed East Kern nonattainment area, is not
strongly integrated economically with western Kern County. People tend
to live and work in eastern Kern County, and because of its geographic
isolation there is no convenient commute to cities outside the region.
The economy of western Kern is largely based on the oil and
agricultural industries. The primary employer in eastern Kern County is
the Tehachapi State Prison. Due to the geographic isolation, there is
no convenient commute to cities outside the area. In 2005, vehicles
traveled approximately 5.1 million miles per day throughout eastern
Kern County. In contrast, in western Kern County vehicles traveled
approximately 19.8 million miles per day, close to 4 times the average
travel in eastern Kern County. Also, eastern Kern residents are not
dependent on western Kern for economic activities such as employment,
shopping, or other services. There are no significant commute patterns
from eastern Kern County into the SJVAB, the MDAB, or the South Coast
Air Basin or vice versa.
Emissions. There are only a handful of major emission sources in
eastern Kern County, which includes the proposed East Kern area, and
projected source and industrial growth is minimal. Total primary PM-10
emissions as well as nitrogen oxide emissions (NOX), the
main precursor of secondary PM-10 in the area, are declining. Major
sources of primary PM-10 include the Tehachapi State Prison (11.5 tons
per year (tpy) in 2005), followed by two aggregate operations (9.7 tpy
and 8.5 tpy); the two largest NOX sources are the Tehachapi
State Prison (12.8 tpy) and two natural gas pumps that lift water to
Tehachapi (14.8 tpy and 12.2 tpy). In contrast, western Kern County
houses 35 major sources of primary PM-10 with emissions over 10 tpy and
47 major sources of NOX with emissions over 10 tpy. Compared
to the entire SJV PM-10 nonattainment area, sources in all of eastern
Kern County contributed only eight percent of the direct PM-10
[[Page 22310]]
emissions and eight percent of the NOX emissions in 2005.
Air Quality. The chemical composition of PM-10 in eastern Kern
County, which includes the proposed East Kern area, differs
significantly from the PM-10 chemical composition in the SJVAB area.
While dust is the main component of PM-10 in eastern Kern County,
NOX has been determined to be the only significant precursor
for the SJVAB area. 69 FR 30006. Currently there is no Federal
Reference Method (FRM) or Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitoring of
PM-10 in the East Kern area. However, there is an Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitor located
in the Kern River Valley. This IMPROVE monitor has, since February
2000, consistently measured PM-10 concentrations far below the PM-10
standard. A summary of the maximum PM-10 daily values at the IMPROVE
monitor is provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1.--Summary of Maximum PM-10 Daily Values for the Domelands IMPROVE Monitor ([mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1st max 2nd max 3rd max 4th max
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001............................................ 33 33 32 32
2002............................................ 109 53 49 49
2003............................................ 66 42 37 37
2004............................................ 52 50 47 45
2005............................................ 21 14 6 5
2006............................................ 39 36 35 34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: IMPROVE Web site, https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Default.htm
Based on the factors set forth above, EPA has considered the
State's request in accordance with the criteria listed in CAA section
107(d)(3)(A). We find that the State has sufficiently demonstrated that
the SJVAB and East Kern should be separate nonattainment areas because
they lie in separate air basins, are under different local
jurisdictions, have different population densities and growth levels,
do not share commute patterns, have different emissions sources and
have different types of air pollutants. Pursuant to CAA section
107(d)(3)(D), EPA is therefore proposing to approve the State's request
to revise the boundary designation of the existing SJV PM-10
nonattainment area by splitting the area into two separate PM-10
nonattainment areas, the SJVAB and East Kern.
As explained below, we are further proposing to redesignate the
SJVAB to attainment for PM-10. Pending further air quality monitoring
and until such time as the East Kern nonattainment area meets the CAA
requirements for redesignation, the East Kern area would be classified
as a serious PM-10 nonattainment area. Thus the East Kern nonattainment
area would retain the classification and nonattainment designation that
applied to it when it was part of the SJV nonattainment area and would
likewise retain the attainment determination applicable to that area.
In order to address the serious area PM-10 statutory requirements,
KCAPCD and CARB have made the enforceable commitments discussed in
section V. below.
IV. Proposed Redesignation of the SJVAB to Attainment for the PM-10
Standard
On November 16, 2007, the State submitted to EPA the 2007 Plan
which addresses PM-10 maintenance plan requirements and includes a
discussion of how the SJVAB (i.e., the portion of the current
nonattainment area under the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD) meets the CAA
redesignation requirements.
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA states that an area can be
redesignated to attainment if the following conditions are met:
(1) EPA has determined that the area has attained the NAAQS.
(2) The applicable implementation plan has been fully approved by
EPA under section 110(k) of the CAA.
(3) EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.
(4) The State has met all applicable requirements for the area
under section 110 and Part D of the CAA.
(5) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including a
contingency plan, for the area under section 175A of the CAA.
These requirements are discussed in more detail in a September 4,
1992 EPA Memorandum, ``Procedures for Processing Request to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment, John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division'' (Calcagni memo). We discuss how these requirements are met
for the SJVAB in detail below.
A. EPA Has Determined That the Area Has Attained the NAAQS
The Calcagni memo states that there are two components involved in
meeting this requirement. The first component relies on an analysis of
quality-assured ambient air quality data and an ambient air monitoring
network that is representative of the area of highest concentrations.
For PM-10 in the SJVAB, EPA has reviewed the ambient air quality data
and determined and affirmed that the PM-10 NAAQS has been attained for
the years 2003 through 2006. See 71 FR 40952, 71 FR 63642, 72 FR 49046
and 73 FR 14687. These determinations also discuss the adequacy of the
monitoring network for the SJVAB.
EPA has also evaluated the air quality data in EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS) database for 2007 and through February 2008. This data has
been included in the docket for this proposed rule. A summary of the
2005-2007 data is provided in Table 2 below.
Table 2.--Summary of 2005--2007 PM-10 Attainment Statistics
[Based on Federal Reference Method PM-10 monitors]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observed three Estimated 24-
year 24-hour hour
Monitoring site maximum ([mu]g/ exceedance Attainment status
m\3\) days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno-Drummond................................ 132 0 Attainment.
Fresno-1st Street.............................. 117 0 Attainment.
[[Page 22311]]
Clovis......................................... 116 0 Attainment.
Bakersfield-Golden State Highway............... 154 0 Attainment.
Bakersfield-California Ave..................... 153 0 Attainment.
Oildale........................................ 145 0 Attainment.
Corcoran....................................... 140 0 Attainment.
Hanford........................................ 142 0 Attainment.
Merced......................................... 94 0 Attainment.
Stockton-Hazelton.............................. 82 0 Attainment.
Stockton-Wagner................................ 69 0 Attainment.
Modesto........................................ 96 0 Attainment.
Turlock........................................ 97 0 Attainment.
Visalia........................................ 141 0 Attainment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA Air Quality System (AQS) Database.
One exceedance of the PM-10 standard was recorded at the
Bakersfield-Golden FEM \6\ on July 4, 2007. The State has flagged this
exceedance as being caused by an exceptional event, fourth of July
fireworks celebrations. EPA has reviewed the documentation for this
event and has concurred with the State's request. Letter from Wayne
Nastri, EPA, to Mary D. Nichols, California Environmental Protection
Agency, April 21, 2008. For 2008, one exceedance of the PM-10 standard
was recorded also at the Bakersfield-Golden federal equivalent monitor
\7\ on January 4. The State has flagged this exceedance as being caused
by an exceptional event, high winds. EPA has reviewed the documentation
for this event and has concurred with the State's request. Letter from
Wayne Nastri, EPA, to Mary D. Nichols, California Environmental
Protection Agency, April 21, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Bakersfield-Golden monitoring site includes a special
purpose FEM known as a Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance
(TEOM) continuous automated analyzer. The exceedances on July 4,
2007 and January 4, 2008 were recorded on the TEOM. Data are
collected at the site using both a TEOM, which provides continuous
PM-10 data for public reporting purposes, and a high-volume FRM. The
FRM operates at a less than everyday schedule, as allowed by EPA
regulations, and was not operating on July 4, 2007 or January 4,
2008.
\7\ See footnote 6 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPA's Exceptional Events Rule, the Agency may exclude data
from regulatory determinations related to exceedances or violations of
the NAAQS if the state adequately demonstrates that an exceptional
event caused the exceedance or violation. 40 CFR Sections 50.1, 50.14.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the concurrence letters, EPA is
proposing to exclude data showing exceedances on July 4, 2007 and
January 4, 2008 in determining whether the SJVAB has continued to
attain the PM-10 standard in 2007 and through February 2008. The
concurrence letters explain how the State has met its burden to
demonstrate that these exceedances qualify as exceptional events. Thus,
EPA believes that according to the ambient air monitoring data for the
SJVAB, the PM-10 NAAQS has been attained.
The second component that may be included in the showing that a PM-
10 area has met the requirement that the NAAQS has been attained
involves an analysis using air quality modeling. This component is
addressed under the maintenance plan requirements discussion below.
B. The Applicable Implementation Plan Has Been Fully Approved by EPA
Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
The Calcagni memo states that the SIP for the area must be fully
approved under section 110(k) of the CAA and must satisfy all
requirements that apply to the area. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As
stated above, on August 19, 2003 and December 30, 2003, the State
submitted the 2003 Plan. This plan addressed all applicable
requirements for the SJV serious PM-10 nonattainment area. On May 24,
2004, EPA approved all components of the 2003 Plan except for the
plan's contingency measures. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in
approving a redesignation request. See Calcagni memo, p. 3;
Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984,
989-990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2001). The
contingency measure requirement under CAA section 172(c)(9) was
subsequently suspended on October 30, 2006 pursuant to EPA's
determination of attainment under its Clean Data Policy. See 71 FR
63642, 63663. Thus, since contingency measures are no longer a required
element for the SJVAB, all applicable requirements have been approved
under 110(k) of the CAA. See also section IV.D. below.
C. EPA Has Determined That the Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
The Calcagni memo states that the state must be able to reasonably
attribute the improvement in air quality to emission reductions which
are permanent and enforceable, (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) and the
improvement should not be a result of temporary reductions (e.g.,
economic downturns or shutdowns) or unusually favorable meteorology. In
making this showing, the state should estimate the emission reductions
from adopted and implemented Federal, State and local control measures,
and consider the emission rates, production capacities, and other
related information to show that the air quality improvements are the
result of implemented controls.
The 2007 Plan provides a discussion and comparison of the air
quality, meteorology and emissions trends since 1990. See 2007 Plan,
pp. 23-28. First, the 2007 Plan discusses the significant improvements
in PM-10 air quality since 1990, noting that from 1990 to 1992 there
were 33 estimated exceedance days, from 1998 to 2000 there were 5.9
exceedance days and from 2002 to 2004 there were 2.9 exceedance days.
Id. Next the 2007 Plan states that this improvement has occurred while
air quality plans and regulations have been adopted and notes that in
the late 1980's, before the adoption of plans and regulations, ``* * *
it was not uncommon to have 50
[[Page 22312]]
or more estimated annual exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard
[with] peak measurements well above 250 micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\), and annual averages of 80 [mu]g/m\3\.'' Id.
The 2007 Plan also states that since 1990 the Valley has
experienced rapid economic growth, citing to increases in population
and vehicle miles traveled (2007 Plan, p. 26, Figure 3), while at the
same time the PM-10 and PM-10 precursor emissions were decreasing (2007
Plan, p. 26, Figure 4). The 2007 Plan also did not find any major
sector-wide shutdowns, identifying at most ``* * * about 2 tons per day
of PM-10 reductions from shutdowns during the attainment period of
interest.'' 2007 Plan, p. 25. Thus, it does not appear that the air
quality improvements were due to any economic downturns or shutdowns.
The 2007 Plan also provides an analysis of the meteorological
conditions, including wind speeds, precipitation, temperature and
atmospheric stability, to determine if there were any favorable
meteorological conditions that may have led to the improvement in air
quality during 2003-2006. 2007 Plan, p. 27 and Appendix C. The 2007
Plan found that compared to long-term averages, the period from 2003 to
2006 had: No variation in average annual wind speeds; a higher than
average level of precipitation with two dry years (2003 and 2004) and
two wet years (2005 and 2006); warmer than average temperatures; and a
lower than average stability level. The higher than average
precipitation would favor lower PM-10 levels, but it is important to
note that 2003 and 2004 were in fact dry years, ranking 98th and 122nd
in wetness over a period of 128 years (1878 to 2006). The higher than
average temperature could have increased the potential for high PM-10
levels, but the higher stability level could have decreased the
potential by providing more dispersion. The 2007 Plan concludes that
these analyses indicate that there is no consistent pattern to show
that there was favorable meteorology leading to the improvement in PM-
10 levels during 2003 to 2006. Id.
The 2007 Plan further states that the SJVAPCD has adopted over 500
new rules and amendments since 1992, many of which are for the purpose
of reducing PM-10 or PM-10 precursor emissions. The 2007 Plan shows
that all of the rules and commitments in the 2003 Plan have been
adopted by the SJVAPCD and many of them have been approved by EPA and
are thus federally enforceable. The SJVAPCD has adopted rules which
control NOX and PM-10 emissions from cotton gins, boilers,
steam generators, and process heaters, agricultural sources, dryers,
dehydrators and ovens, glass melting furnaces, fugitive dust sources,
open burning and other source categories. 2007 Plan, p. 27 and Appendix
B. In addition, the State has adopted measures to meet its commitments
in the 2003 Plan to achieve 10 tons per day (tpd) of NOX
reductions and 0.5 tpd of PM-10 reductions. 2007 Plan, p. 17. The air
quality improvements described above can be attributed to the
reductions in NOX and PM-10 emissions achieved by these
measures.
The 2007 Plan shows decreases in the emissions inventories for the
SJVAB from approximately 1000 tpd in 2000 to approximately 900 tpd in
2005 and to approximately 800 tpd in 2010. ARB Staff Report, Appendix
B. As discussed further in Section E.1. below, the emissions
inventories are a summary of all source categories in the SJVAB and are
developed based on information about emission rates, production
capacities, and other source-related information. The emissions
inventories in the 2007 Plan also include reductions from adopted and
implemented Federal, State and local control measures. ARB Staff
Report, Appendix B.
EPA believes that the 2007 Plan has demonstrated that the
improvement in PM-10 air quality for the SJVAB is a result of permanent
and enforceable reductions in emissions and the improvement is not a
result of temporary reductions or unusually favorable meteorology. The
fact that, as discussed above, there were no economic downturns,
shutdowns or meteorology impacting air quality and that the number of
exceedance days and the estimated emissions have decreased over time
while the population and vehicle miles traveled in the SJVAB have
increased shows that the improvement in air quality can reasonably be
attributed to the adoption of air quality plans and regulations during
this time.
D. The State Has Met All Applicable Requirements for the Area Under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
The Calcagni memo states that a state must meet those requirements
of section 110 and part D of the CAA that were applicable prior to the
submittal of the redesignation request. CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).
1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA Section 110
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, the following: Submittal of
a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice
and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a
source permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C
requirement for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD);
provisions for the implementation of part D requirements for New Source
Review (NSR) permit programs; provisions for air pollution modeling;
and provisions for public and local agency participation in planning
and emission control rule development.
On numerous occasions over the past 35 years, CARB and the SJVAPCD
have submitted and we have approved provisions addressing the basic CAA
section 110 provisions. There are no outstanding or disapproved
applicable section 110 SIP submittals with respect to the State and the
SJVAPCD.\8\ We propose to conclude that CARB and SJVAPCD have met all
SIP requirements for the SJVAB area applicable for purposes of
redesignation under section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The applicable California SIP for the SJV nonattainment area
can be found at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/
Casips?readform&count=100&state=California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, we note that SIPs must be fully approved only with
respect to applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in
accordance with CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). Thus, for example, CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment
area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that
the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's
designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate
in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless
of the designation of any one particular area in the state.
Thus, we do not believe that these requirements should be construed
to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. In
addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an
area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes
of
[[Page 22313]]
redesignation. The State will still be subject to these requirements
after the SJVAB area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D
requirements, which are linked to a particular area's designation and
classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing
policy on applicability of the conformity SIP requirement for
redesignations. See Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and final
rulemakings at 61 FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24816 (May
7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking at 61 FR 20458
(May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking at 60 FR 62748
(December 7, 1995). See also the discussion of this issue in the
Cincinnati redesignation at 65 FR 37890 (June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh redesignation at 66 FR 50399 (October 19, 2001). EPA
believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
2. SIP Requirements Under Part D
Subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title 1 of the CAA contain air quality
planning requirements for PM-10 nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 of part
D contains general requirements for areas designated as nonattainment.
Subpart 4 of part D contains specific planning and scheduling
requirements for particulate matter nonattainment areas. Subpart 4 of
part D, section 189(a), (b) and (c) requirements apply to moderate and
serious PM-10 nonattainment areas and 189(d) applies to areas which
failed to attain by their serious area deadline. These requirements
include: (1) An approved permit program for construction of new and
modified major stationary sources; (2) provisions to ensure that
reasonably available control technology (RACT) and reasonably available
control measures (RACM) are implemented; (3) provisions to ensure that
best available control measures (BACM) are implemented; (4)
quantitative milestones to be achieved every 3 years and which
demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment by the
applicable attainment date; (5) provisions to ensure that the control
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply
to major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors except where the
Administrator determined that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM-10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area;
and(6) a demonstration of attainment and an annual PM-10 or PM-10
precursor reduction of not less than five percent from the most recent
emission inventory until attainment.
In addition to these specific requirements for serious PM-10
nonattainment areas, nonattainment areas must also meet the general
planning requirements in subpart 1, section 172(c). These requirements
include, among other things, provisions for the implementation of RACT,
RFP, emissions inventories, and contingency measures.
For the SJVAB, EPA determined that these requirements were met in
its approval of the 2003 Plan with the exception of the contingency
measure requirement that was subsequently suspended by the
determination of attainment in accordance with EPA's Clean Data Policy
and the NSR permit program for construction of new and modified major
stationary sources. 69 FR 30006 and 71 FR 63642.
EPA fully approved SJVAPCD NSR rules 2020 and 2201 on May 17, 2004
(69 FR 27837). Recently we proposed to: (1) Correct aspects of that
approval, and (2) approve revisions to the NSR rules that explicitly
exempt certain small or minor agricultural sources from permitting
requirements. 73 FR 9260 (February 20, 2008). In this proposed
rulemaking, we stated that ``we believe that the adoption of the
proposed revisions in place of the SIP as proposed to be corrected
would not result in any change in emissions, any change in air quality,
or any change in the area's ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS.
Accordingly, we conclude that this SIP revision, if approved, will not
interfere with any applicable requirements for attainment and
reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the
CAA and is approvable under section 110(l).'' 73 FR 9265.
Although the SJVAPCD NSR program has been approved, and we have
proposed approval of revisions to the rule, we also note that final
approval of the NSR revisions is not a necessary prerequisite to
finalizing our proposed approval of the State's redesignation request.
EPA has determined in past redesignations that a NSR program does not
have to be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area
demonstrates maintenance of the standard without part D NSR in effect.
The rationale for this position is described in a memorandum from Mary
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October
14, 1994, entitled ``Part D NSR Requirements or Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.'' See the more detailed explanations in
the following redesignation rulemakings: Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-
12468, March 7, 1996); Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-
20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, 53669, October 23,
2001); Grand Rapids, MI (61 FR 31831, 31836-31837, June 21, 1996).
The requirements of the PSD program will apply once the area has
been redesignated. Thus, new major sources with significant PM-10
emissions and major modifications of PM-10 at major sources as defined
under 40 CFR 52.21 will be required to obtain a PSD permit. Currently,
EPA is the PSD permitting authority in the SJVAB under a Federal
implementation plan. See 40 CFR 52.270. However, the SJVAPCD can
implement the Federal PSD program through a delegation agreement with
EPA or, assuming that the SJVAPCD makes necessary modifications to its
PSD rules, under an EPA-approved rule.
With respect to the conformity requirement, section 176(c) of the
CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
Federally supported or funded projects ``conform'' to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects
developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal
Transit Act (``transportation conformity'') as well as to other
Federally supported or funded projects (``general conformity''). State
conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate.
EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of a redesignation request
under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required
after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where state
rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265f 3d 426 (6th Cir.
2001), upholding this interpretation. See, also, 60 FR 62748 (December
7, 1995).
Thus, EPA concludes that the State has met all requirements
applicable under section 110 and part D for the SJVAB for purposes of
redesignation. CAA Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).
E. EPA Has Fully Approved a Maintenance Plan, Including a Contingency
Plan, for the Area Under Section 175A of the CAA
Section 175A of the CAA provides the requirements for maintenance
plans. These requirements are further clarified in the Calcagni memo.
The provisions to be included in maintenance plans are:
[[Page 22314]]
(1) An attainment emissions inventory to identify the level of
emissions in the area sufficient to attain the NAAQS;
(2) A demonstration of maintenance of the NAAQS for 10 years after
redesignation;
(3) Verification of continued attainment through operation of an
appropriate air quality monitoring network; and
(4) Contingency provisions that EPA deems necessary to assure that
the State will promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs
after redesignation of the area. We discuss how these requirements are
met for the SJVAB below.
1. An Attainment Emissions Inventory To Identify the Level of Emissions
in the Area Sufficient To Attain the NAAQS
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires all plan submittals to
include a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources in the nonattainment area. In demonstrating
maintenance in accordance with CAA section 175A and the Calcagni memo,
the state should provide an attainment emissions inventory to identify
the level of emissions in the area sufficient to attain the NAAQS.
Where the state has made an adequate demonstration that air quality has
improved as a result of the SIP, the attainment inventory will
generally be an inventory of actual emissions at the time the area
attained the standard. EPA's primary guidance in evaluating these
inventories is the document entitled, ``PM-10 Emissions Inventory
Requirements,'' EPA, OAQPS, EPA-454/R-94-033 (September 1994) which can
be found at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/pm10eir.pdf.
The 2007 Plan includes detailed emissions inventories for
NOX, directly emitted PM-10, volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and oxides of sulfur (SOX).\9\ The emissions
inventories are projected from a 2002 baseyear inventory because it was
the most comprehensive inventory available. The baseyear inventory
meets the CAA requirement for a comprehensive, accurate and current
inventory and is used as the basis for forecasting future year
inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The 2007 Plan's emissions inventories are found in Appendix
B of the ARB Staff Report. As mentioned above and in the ARB Staff
Report, the State ``* * * updated the attainment inventory * * * to
reflect emission reductions achieved by ARB adopted measures that
had not been accounted for'' before submitting the 2007 Plan to EPA
on November 16, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2007 Plan includes projected inventories for 2005, 2010 and
2020 for NOX, PM-10, VOC and SOX. The baseyear
and projected year inventories all include a detailed breakdown of the
stationary and mobile source emissions categories. The emissions for
each of the categories are estimated based on the best available
information on number of sources, size of sources, growth, control
measures, emissions factors, and other criteria.
The 2007 Plan selects the 2005 PM-10 and NOX inventories
as the attainment emission inventories because the SJV nonattainment
area first attained the PM-10 standard during 2003-2005 (and continues
to attain the standard through February 2008). 2007 Plan, pp. 5-6. The
2007 Plan also includes inventories for VOC and SOx; however, EPA has
determined that NOX is the only significant PM-10 precursor
for the SJV nonattainment area and thus the proposed SJVAB. 69 FR
30006. Table 3 summarizes the 2007 Plan's NOX and PM-10
emissions.
Table 3.--Annual PM-10 and NOX Emissions (Tons Per Day) 2007 Plan (ARB Staff Report, Appendix B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2010 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM-10........................................................... 284 282 290
NOX............................................................. 606 521 328
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NOX emission inventory continues to be reduced
substantially in the future. While the PM-10 emission inventory is
projected to increase slightly in 2020, we believe the increase is
insignificant when compared to the substantial NOX
decreases. See 2007 Plan, pp. 5-6 and Appendix B of the ARB Staff
Report.
EPA believes that the selection of 2005 for the attainment year
inventory and 2020 for the maintenance year inventory is appropriate
since the SJVAB was determined to have attained the PM-10 NAAQS in
2005. We have reviewed the 2007 Plan's attainment year and maintenance
year emissions inventories and determined that they are accurate and
comprehensive and meet the requirements of EPA guidance and the CAA.
2. A Demonstration of Maintenance of the NAAQS for 10 Years After
Redesignation
Section 175A of the CAA requires a demonstration of maintenance of
the NAAQS for 10 years after designation. A state may generally
demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future
emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level of
the attainment inventory, or by modeling to show that the future
anticipated mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a
violation of the NAAQS. Under the Act, the showing should be based on
the same level of modeling used for the attainment demonstration
required as part of the approved attainment plan.
Consistent with EPA's modeling guidance (The Guideline on Air
Quality Models (GAQM), 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W and the PM-10 SIP
Development Guideline (PMSDG), EPA 450/2-86-001, June 1987), the 2003
Plan's attainment demonstration was based on the use of two receptor
models: Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) and rollback. 69 FR 5412, 5424-5425
and 69 FR 30006. The 2007 Plan also uses CMB and rollback to
demonstrate maintenance of the 24-hour PM-10 standard until 2020.\10\
See 2007 Plan, pp. 6-11. The results of the modeling show that all
monitoring sites in the SJVAB nonattainment area will be below the
NAAQS in 2020, with the highest projected value of 134 [mu]g/m\3\ at
Bakersfield-Golden and Corcoran. See 2007 Plan, Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The 2007 Plan also includes a maintenance demonstration for
the annual PM-10 standard; however, the annual PM-10 standard was
revoked effective December 18, 2006. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006).
Therefore we do not address this demonstration here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the modeling for the maintenance plan, the 2007 Plan
shows that total annual emissions of NOX will decrease from
606 tpd in 2005 to 521 tpd in 2010 and 328 tpd in 2020 and total annual
emissions of PM-10 will decrease from 284 tpd in 2005 to 282 tpd in
2010 and slightly increase to 290 tpd in 2020. As discussed above, the
emissions inventories meet EPA
[[Page 22315]]
requirements and the general decline in inventories provides assurance
that the SJVAB will maintain its attainment levels through 2020.
Based on our review of the information presented in the 2007 Plan,
we believe that the State has met EPA requirements for demonstrating
maintenance of the PM-10 standard for the SJVAB.
3. Verification of Continued Attainment Through Operation of an
Appropriate Air Quality Monitoring Network
In demonstrating maintenance, continued attainment of the NAAQS can
be verified through operation of an appropriate air quality monitoring
network. The Calcagni memo states that the maintenance plan should
contain provisions for continued operation of air quality monitors that
will provide such verification. The memo also states that states should
ensure that they have the legal authority to implement and enforce all
measures necessary to attain and to maintain the NAAQS. Finally, the
memo states that the state submittal should indicate how it will track
the progress of the maintenance plan (e.g., with periodic emissions
inventory updates or modeling input updates) and monitor the triggers
for contingency measures.
In the 2007 Plan the SJVAPCD commits to continued operation of its
air quality monitoring network for verification of attainment. See 2007
Plan, pp. 12-13. The SJVAPCD's authority to continue operating after
redesignation to attainment is provided for in the California Health
and Safety Code sections 40150 and 40161. Id. at 15. The SJVAPCD also
plans to verify continued attainment of the PM-10 standard through an
annual report to its Board which will include, among other things,
tracking of adoption and implementation of control measures, tracking
of air quality data and comparison of predicted versus current
emissions reductions estimates. Id. As discussed further below, since
the SJVAPCD has selected a contingency measure trigger that is based on
ambient air quality levels, the continued operation of the monitoring
network and tracking of its data will provide adequate notice of when
contingency measures are needed.
4. Contingency Provisions to Promptly Correct Any Violation of the
NAAQS That Occurs After Redesignation of the Area
Contingency provisions are required under section 175A of the CAA.
These contingency measures are distinguished from those generally
required for nonattainment areas under section 172(c)(9) in that they
are not required to be fully adopted measures that will take effect
without further action by the State in order for the maintenance plan
to be approved. The Calcagni memo states that the contingency
provisions of the maintenance plan should clearly identify the measures
to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a specific time limit for action by the state. The
memo also states that the contingency provisions should identify
indicators or triggers which will be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be implemented. While the memo suggests
inventory or monitoring indicators, it states that contingency
provisions will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Finally, the
Calcagni memo states that the contingency provisions must require the
state to implement all measures contained in the part D nonattainment
plan for the area prior to redesignation.
The 2007 Plan selects an action level or trigger based on an
exceedance of the PM-10 NAAQS of 155 [mu]g/m\3\.\11\ See 2007 Plan, p.
16. In addition, the District may also consider other factors such as a
succession of values just below but near the level of the PM-10
standard. Id. EPA believes that an exceedance of 155 [mu]g/m\3\ is an
appropriate trigger level. The SJVAB has several continuous PM-10
monitors, and a single measurement of 155 [mu]g/m\3\ at one of these
monitors would not constitute a violation of the PM-10 NAAQS. Even if a
measurement of 155 [mu]g/m\3\ is recorded at a one-in-six day FEM, a
violation is not necessarily being recorded as the State might need to
evaluate the possibility that the measurement is due to an exceptional
event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ An exceedance is defined as a daily value that is above the
level of the 24-hour standard (150 [mu]g/m\3\) after rounding to the
nearest 10 [mu]g/m\3\ (i.e. values ending in 5 or greater are to be
rounded up). Thus, a recorded value of 154 [mu]g/m\3\ would not be
an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150 [mu]g/m\3\ whereas a
recorded value of 155 [mu]g/m\3\ would be an exceedance since it
would be rounded to 160 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K,
section 1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2007 Plan states that if the SJVAB monitors an exceedance of
155 [mu]g/m\3\, the District commits to take appropriate action within
18 months of the exceedance date. This action will first involve a
determination of whether the exceedance was due to an exceptional event
in accordance with EPA's Exceptional Events Rule and an analysis of
what caused the exceedance and the necessary controls to address it.
Id. If the exceedance is not due to an exceptional event, the District
commits to determine the possible causes of the exceedance and to
determine if emissions reductions from adopted measures that are not
needed to maintain the PM-10 NAAQS are available to serve as
contingency measures. These measures can be found in the SJVAPCD's 2007
Ozone Plan (April 30, 2007) and the SJVAPCD's Proposed 2008 PM2.5 Plan
(March 13, 2008) and include more stringent controls on open burning,
gas turbines, boilers, glass melting, residential water heaters, wood
burning fireplaces and heaters and commercial charbroiling. See Table
6-1 of SJVAPCD's 2007 Ozone Plan and Table 6-3 of SJVAPCD's Proposed
2008 PM2.5 Plan.
If there are no reductions available from adopted measures, the
District commits in the 2007 Plan to proceed with identifying control
measures from feasibility studies such as those found in its 2007 Ozone
Plan and Proposed 2008 PM2.5 Plan (see Table 6-2 of 2007 Ozone Plan and
Table 6-5 of Proposed PM2.5 Plan) and prioritize measures most relevant
for reducing PM-10 emissions. 2007 Plan, pp. 16-17. The SJVAPCD has
also provided clarification that if additional control measures are
necessary, the SJVAPCD will adopt and implement the control measures
within the 18-month timeframe for appropriate action. Letter from Seyed
Sadredin, SJVAPCD, to Deborah Jordan, EPA, April 17, 2008.
Finally, the 2007 Plan states that the State, District and local
governments have adopted and implemented all measures in the 2003 Plan.
2007 Plan, p. 17 and Appendix B.
Based on the discussion above and EPA's review of the 2007 Plan, we
believe the plan adequately addresses the contingency measure
requirement under section 175A of the CAA.
Conclusion
Based on our review of the 2007 Plan, and for the reasons discussed
above, we conclude that the CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements for
redesignation to attainment and an approvable maintenance plan for the
SJVAB have been met. We are therefore proposing to approve the 2007
Plan as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and
proposing to redesignate the SJVAB nonattainment area to attainment for
the PM-10 NAAQS.
F. Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans, programs and
projects in the nonattainment or maintenance areas that are funded or
[[Page 22316]]
approved under title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C.
Chapter 53) must conform to the applicable SIP. In short, a
transportation plan and program are deemed to conform to the applicable
SIP if the emissions resulting from the imple
