[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 12, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66759-66775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-26500]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0306; FRL-8724-7]


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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State of California's request under the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) 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

[[Page 66760]]

Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) serious PM-10 nonattainment area and the East 
Kern serious PM-10 nonattainment area. EPA is also redesignating the 
SJVAB nonattainment area to attainment for the PM-10 national ambient 
air quality standard (NAAQS) and approving the PM-10 maintenance plan, 
motor vehicle emissions budgets and conformity trading mechanism for 
the area. EPA is also excluding from use in determining that the area 
has attained the standard exceedances on July 4, 2007, and January 4, 
2008, that EPA has concluded were caused by exceptional events. 
Finally, EPA is approving 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 CAA requirements under section 189(d) as necessary for the 
area.

DATE: This rule is effective on December 12, 2008. The motor vehicle 
emission budgets are applicable as of November 12, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0306 for 
this action. The docket is available electronically at 
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, [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
    A. Area Has Attained
    B. Fully Approved SIP
    C. Improvements in Air Quality are Due to Permanent and 
Enforceable Emission Reductions
    D. Area Has Met All Applicable CAA Section 110 and Part D 
Requirements
    E. Maintenance Plan
    F. Revision of Boundary Designation
    G. Miscellaneous Comments
III. Final Actions
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On April 25, 2008 (73 FR 22307), EPA proposed the following 
actions:
     Approval of the State of California's request to revise 
the designation for the SJV serious PM-10 nonattainment area by 
splitting the area into two separate nonattainment areas, the SJVAB 
serious PM-10 nonattainment area and the East Kern serious PM-10 
nonattainment area.
     Redesignation of the SJVAB nonattainment area to 
attainment for the PM-10 NAAQS and approval of the maintenance plan, 
motor vehicle emissions budgets and conformity trading mechanism for 
the SJVAB area.
     Exclusion from use in determining that the SJVAB 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.
     Approval of enforceable commitments by the Kern County Air 
Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) and the California Air Resources 
Board (CARB) to install a PM-10 monitor in the East Kern nonattainment 
area and to address CAA requirements under section 189(d) as necessary 
for the East Kern area.
    Subsequently, On May 23, 2008, EPA extended the public comment 
period for two weeks, until June 10, 2008. 73 FR 30029. EPA issued the 
extension in order to notify the public of a minor change in the motor 
vehicle emissions budgets and to provide the public with the 
opportunity to consider these technical corrections.
    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.\1\ EPA is required to 
approve or deny the revised designation within 18 months of receipt. On 
January 31, 2008, the State submitted to EPA a revised designation that 
involves a boundary change only and not a change in status (e.g., from 
``nonattainment,'' to ``attainment'' or ``unclassifiable'') of any 
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 memorandum).
    The proposed rule provides a more detailed discussion of the 
background pertinent to this final action.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA received one letter in support of EPA's proposed actions from 
the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or the 
District) and two letters with adverse comments. As EPA sets forth in 
detail in its responses to comments below, in taking final action EPA 
has fully considered all data pertinent for regulatory use in 
determining attainment in the SJVAB area and EPA continues to believe 
that the area has attained the PM-10 standard. EPA has also determined 
that the State's request for redesignation and the maintenance plan for 
the SJVAB area meet the applicable requirements of the CAA. In 
addition, EPA is granting the State's request for a boundary revision 
for the area based on a multiplicity of factors. The available 
monitoring data for the East Kern area, while limited, also indicate 
that concentrations are well below the NAAQS. Thus, for the reasons set 
forth in the responses to comments below, as well as in the proposed 
rule, EPA is finalizing its proposed determinations as fully meeting 
the requirements of the CAA.

A. Area Has Attained

    Comment 1: Earthjustice (EJ) states that the first condition that a 
nonattainment area must meet in order to be redesignated to attainment 
under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) is that EPA has determined that the area 
has actually attained the NAAQS. EJ alleges that the SJV nonattainment 
area has recorded multiple exceedances of the standard during the 
period that EPA is relying on to demonstrate attainment and that EPA is 
thus ignoring a serious air quality problem and the health impacts 
associated with it. EJ incorporates by reference and attaches its 
previous comments on EPA's attainment determination that claim the 
problem EPA is ignoring has existed for

[[Page 66761]]

many years, is part of what led EPA to designate the SJV area 
nonattainment in the first place and is caused by ongoing human 
activity that is not reasonably controlled.
    Response 1: The previous comments to which EJ refers in its June 
10, 2008 comment letter on the proposed rule are contained in its 
August 18, 2006 comment letter with attachments A-H, October 26, 2007 
comment letter, December 29, 2006 Petition for Reconsideration and 
March 21, 2007 Petition for Withdrawal, with attached declarations from 
Sarah Jackson and Jan Null. EJ raised the same issues as it raises here 
during EPA's rulemakings regarding the 2006 determination of attainment 
for the SJV nonattainment area and 2008 affirmation of that 
determination. EPA fully responded to EJ's comments at that time. See 
the final rules at 71 FR 63642 (October 30, 2006) and 73 FR 14687 
(March 19, 2008). See also the proposed rules for these actions at 71 
FR 40952 (July 19, 2006) and 72 FR 49046 (August 27, 2007). As we 
explained in our responses to EJ's comments in the final rules, EPA 
believes that the SJV area has attained the PM-10 NAAQS and that the 
exceedances noted by EJ were properly excluded from consideration under 
the Agency's Exceptional Events Rule (EER)(72 FR 13560; March 22, 
2007).
    EJ subsequently filed petitions for review of the October 2006 and 
March 2008 final rules in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit. Latino Issues Forum, et al. v. EPA, Nos. 06-75831 and 08-
71238.\2\ In its opening brief in these cases, filed on June 16, 2008, 
EJ again raises these issues. In its brief in opposition, filed on 
September 3, 2008, EPA again responds to EJ's arguments. EJ was 
required to raise any issues regarding the 2006 attainment 
determination and 2008 affirmation of that determination during those 
rulemakings and in the Ninth Circuit in Latino Issues Forum and cannot 
relitigate the same issues here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Ninth Circuit has consolidated the two petitions for 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, in the proposed rule for today's final action we proposed 
to exclude under the EER data showing exceedances in the SJV 
nonattainment area on July 4, 2007 and January 8, 2008, and concluded 
that the area continued to attain the PM-10 standard through February 
2008. We did not receive any adverse comments on this aspect of our 
proposed rule. In this final action, for the reasons set forth in the 
proposed rule and in EPA's concurrence letters to which it refers, we 
are concurring with the State's flagging of those data as caused by 
fireworks and high wind exceptional events, and excluding those data 
from consideration in determining that the SJVAB area continues to 
attain the standard.
    Finally, EPA is aware of PM-10 exceedances recorded on May 21, 2008 
at the Corcoran and Bakersfield Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) 
monitors and the Corcoran Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitor, and 
on May 22, 2008 at the Corcoran FEM. On June 24, 2008, the District 
posted on its website documentation that these exceedances were caused 
by a natural event, i.e., high winds. The comment period ended on July 
24, 2008 and no public comments were received. The documentation was 
submitted to EPA on August 12, 2008 and EPA has concurred that these 
exceedances should be flagged as exceptional events. Letter from Wayne 
Nastri, EPA to Mary D. Nichols, CARB, September 24, 2008.
    EPA is not taking comment on whether the May 2008 exceedances 
should be excluded from the determination in this final rule that the 
SJVAB area continues to attain the PM-10 standard. The determination of 
whether an area has attained the PM-10 standard is based on the most 
recent three consecutive calendar years of data. As mentioned above and 
in other EPA actions, the SJVAB area has attained the PM-10 standard 
based on data for the three-year period from 2003 through 2005 and the 
three-year period from 2005 through 2007. See 71 FR 63642 and 73 FR 
14687. Because 2008 has not ended, EPA cannot determine whether the 
area has attained the standard based on the three-year period from 2006 
through 2008. We can, however, determine with less than three years of 
data whether the SJVAB area has failed to attain in the period from 
2006 to date. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 2.3(c) and 71 FR 
63642, footnote 26.
    Because the May 21 and 22, 2008 exceedances are the only 
exceedances at the Corcoran monitors since 2006 not excluded through 
notice and comment rulemaking from regulatory consideration, the 
expected number of exceedances recorded at the FRM monitor, based on 
the May 21 exceedance, is three and the expected number of exceedances 
recorded at the FEM monitor on May 21 and May 22 is two.\3\ Similarly, 
because the May 21, 2008 exceedance is the only exceedance recorded at 
the Bakersfield monitor since 2006 not excluded from regulatory 
consideration through notice and comment rulemaking, the expected 
number of exceedances at the Bakersfield monitor is one. Thus, even if 
EPA does not exclude the May 21 and 22, 2008 exceedances from 
regulatory consideration, the SJVAB area continues to attain the PM-10 
NAAQS to date because both Corcoran and Bakersfield have an expected 
number of exceedances of less than or equal to one per year, averaged 
over the three year period 2005-2007 and through 2008 to date. All 
other monitors in the SJV area had an expected number of exceedances of 
less than or equal to one per year during these periods. EPA thus 
determines that the SJVAB area has attained the PM-10 NAAQS as required 
by section 107(d)(3)(E)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Note that the Corcoran FRM operates on a one-in-three day 
schedule and that EPA does not combine PM-10 data collected with 
different monitoring methods, i.e., FRMs and FEMs. See Memorandum 
from Gerald A. Emison, EPA, to EPA Regional Division Directors, 
``Revision to Policy on the Use of PM-10 Measurement Data,'' 
November 21, 1988 at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Fully Approved SIP

    Comment 2: EJ states that the second condition for redesignation 
under section CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) is that an area seeking 
redesignation must have a fully approved state implementation plan 
(SIP) and must satisfy all requirements that apply to the area and that 
the SJV nonattainment area does not have such a SIP. EJ argues that 
while EPA concedes that it has never approved contingency measures for 
the area and has instead suspended this requirement under the Agency's 
Clean Data Policy, neither the policy nor the cases EPA cites addresses 
PM-10 nonattainment areas and therefore do not square EPA's action with 
the mandate under CAA section 189(c) that such areas continue to 
achieve the milestones for emission reductions in order to demonstrate 
reasonable further progress (RFP) ``until the area is redesignated to 
attainment.'' EJ believes that because contingency measures are also 
necessary to ensure this progress is achieved, EPA cannot suspend the 
requirement for these measures. Citing Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 88 
F.3d 1075, 1089 (D.C. Cir. 1996), EJ asserts that EPA does not have the 
authority to waive statutory requirements and circumvent redesignation 
provisions because it believes compliance with those requirements is 
unnecessary.
    Response 2: In 2006 EPA approved the entire nonattainment plan for 
the SJV area,\4\ including the CAA section 189(c)(1) reasonable further 
progress milestones, except for the CAA section 172(c)(9) contingency 
measures, on

[[Page 66762]]

which EPA deferred action. 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004). EPA subsequently 
determined that the contingency measures requirement for the SJV area 
was suspended as a result of its October 2006 determination that the 
area has attained the PM-10 standard. 71 FR 63642, 63663. During that 
rulemaking, EJ raised the same issues with regard to EPA's Clean Data 
Policy \5\ and statutory construction as it raises here. EPA responded 
to EJ's arguments in the final rule. See id. at 63643-63647. EJ again 
raises these issues in its opening brief in Latino Issues Forum. EPA 
again responds to EJ's arguments in its brief in opposition. EJ was 
required to raise any issues regarding the suspension of the 
contingency measures requirement during EPA's 2006 attainment 
determination rulemaking and in Latino Issues Forum. EJ did so and 
cannot relitigate the same issues here. Because EPA has approved SIP 
provisions submitted by California for the SJVAB area that address all 
applicable CAA requirements, EPA has concluded that the CAA section 
107(d)(3)(E) requirement for a fully approved SIP has been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``2003 PM10 Plan, San Joaquin Valley Plan to Attain Federal 
Standards for Particulate Matter 10 Microns and Smaller'' (2003 PM-
10 Plan).
    \5\ EPA has long interpreted the CAA to provide that certain 
nonattainment area requirements, the purpose of which are to ensure 
attainment of the relevant NAAQS by the applicable deadline, will no 
longer apply once an area has attained that NAAQS, and for as long 
it continues to do so until it is redesignated to attainment status. 
While referred to as the Clean Data Policy, it is more accurately 
described as EPA's interpretations of the relevant provisions of 
Title I, Part D of the CAA. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 
541-42 (7th Cir. 2004); Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551, 1156-57 
(10th Cir. 1996). EPA first set forth this interpretation in its 
``General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' (General Preamble) thereafter 
reiterated it in several policy memoranda and since codified the 
policy with respect to ozone and PM-2.5 nonattainment areas. 57 FR 
13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992), 40 CFR 51.918 (ozone) and 51.1004(c) 
(PM2.5). EPA has applied the policy to numerous PM-10 
nonattainment areas, including the SJV area. For an expanded 
description of the policy and our application of it, see Respondent 
EPA's Merits Brief in Latino Issues Forum at 7-8, 71 FR 40952, 40954 
and 71 FR 63642, 63644.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in the context of evaluating the area's eligibility 
for redesignation, there is a separate and additional justification for 
finding that the section 172(c)(9) contingency measures are not an 
applicable SIP requirement for purposes of redesignation. Prior to and 
independently of that policy, and specifically in the context of 
redesignations, EPA interpreted the contingency measure requirement as 
not applicable for purposes of redesignation. In the General Preamble 
EPA stated that:

    [t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring 
RFP and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no 
longer apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible 
for redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans * 
* * provides specific requirements for contingency measures that 
effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for 
these areas.

See also Calcagni memorandum at 6 (``The requirements for reasonable 
further progress and other measures needed for attainment will not 
apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not 
attaining the standard.''). Thus, even if the contingency measure 
requirement had not previously been suspended, it would not apply for 
purposes of evaluating whether an area that has attained the standard 
qualifies for redesignation. EPA has enunciated and held this position 
since the General Preamble was published more than sixteen years ago 
and represents the Agency's interpretation of what constitutes 
applicable requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E). The Courts have 
recognized the scope of EPA's authority to interpret ``applicable 
requirements'' in the redesignation context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 
375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).

C. Improvements in Air Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and Enforceable 
Emission Reductions

    Comment 3: EJ states that a 1992 guidance memorandum from John 
Calcagni lays out the steps that an area must take to show that the 
improvement in air quality is attributable to permanent and enforceable 
reductions in emissions, the third condition for redesignation to 
attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). EJ claims that this analysis 
should include estimating the percentage reductions achieved from the 
federal and state controls implemented in the area, taking into account 
permitted emission rates, production capacities and other related 
information. EJ states that EPA, banking on its waiver of all the 
violations during the period of interest, neglected to perform the 
proper analyses in the Calcagni memorandum and merely repeats the 
District's belief, based on four observations (comments 4 through 7 
below), that the area is attaining the standard.
    Response 3: As discussed in our proposed rule, the Calcagni 
memorandum states that the state must be able to reasonably attribute 
the improvement in air quality to emission reductions which are 
permanent and enforceable, and the improvement should not be a result 
of temporary reductions (e.g., economic downturns or shutdowns) or 
unusually favorable meteorology. The Calcagni memorandum also states 
that 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. Our proposed rule 
discusses how each of these factors is addressed by the State in the 
``2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation,'' September 
20, 2007, SJVAPCD (2007 Plan). 73 FR 22307; 2008, footnote 8; 22311-
22312.
    In general, the 2007 Plan shows that there has been a significant 
improvement in PM-10 air quality since 1990, noting that there were 33 
estimated exceedance days during 1990-1992 and 2.9 exceedance days 
during 2002-2004. This decrease in exceedance days (and emissions) 
occurred during a period of rapid economic growth in the SJVAB area as 
indicated by the increases in population and vehicle miles traveled 
(VMT). The 2007 Plan did not find any evidence of significant shutdowns 
that would cause the decline in exceedance days. The 2007 Plan analyzed 
the meteorology in the SJVAB area during 2003-2006 by comparing the 
average annual wind speeds, precipitation levels and stability levels 
to long-term averages and found that there was no consistent pattern to 
show that there was favorable meteorology leading to the improvement in 
PM-10 levels during 2003-2006.
    The 2007 Plan states that over 500 new rules and rule amendments 
have been adopted, reducing NOX and PM-10 emissions from a 
wide range of source categories, and it shows decreases in the overall 
emissions of NOX and PM-10 (which include all emissions from 
area sources as well as from permitted major sources) since 2000. A 
more detailed discussion of these analyses can be found in our proposed 
rule and in the 2007 Plan. EPA's analysis is based on the State's 
assessment and EPA continues to believe that the State has demonstrated 
that the improvement in PM-10 air quality in the SJVAB area is a result 
of permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions and has adequately 
addressed the provisions of the Calcagni memorandum.
    Finally, as discussed in the response to comment 1 above, EPA has 
determined that the SJV area has attained the PM-10 standard. 71 FR 
63642; 73 FR 14687. These determinations included EPA's concurrence 
with the State's and Santa Rosa Rancheria Tribe's conclusion that a 
number of exceedances were caused

[[Page 66763]]

by exceptional events and thus should be excluded from regulatory 
consideration. Id. EJ seems to suggest that EPA's analyses should 
include these exceedances even though they have been properly excluded 
from regulatory consideration. EPA disagrees.
    Comment 4: EJ claims that the District provides a chart (2007 Plan 
at 24, Figure 2) showing a downward trend in air pollution levels that 
is completely misleading because it does not include EPA-acknowledged 
exceedances in 2004 and 2005, let alone the many exceedances EPA has 
ignored in its attainment determination.
    Response 4: The District's chart (2007 Plan at 24, Figure 2) shows 
a long-term downward PM-10 trend from 1990 to 2006 for the SJVAB area 
by plotting the estimated exceedance days over the NAAQS. The estimated 
exceedance days in this chart are based on exceedances recorded with 
FRMs and not FEMs such as continuous beta attenuation monitors (BAMs). 
EPA believes that the District's chart is not misleading and provides a 
general picture of the long-term trend for PM-10 and that 1990 is a 
reasonable year to begin the analysis because that was the year the CAA 
was amended.
    EJ's comment letter (page 4) includes a chart, ``PM-10 Trend,'' 
that appears to revise the 2007 Plan's chart by adding the exceedances 
from BAMs that occurred in 2004 and 2005 and by removing the data for 
1990 in order to show a less precipitous decline in PM-10 levels. 
However, even with the exclusion of the 1990 data and the addition of 
the exceedances from the BAMs, EJ's ``PM-10 Trend'' chart still shows a 
decline in PM-10 levels.
    Moreover, the 2007 Plan provides a summary in Table 10 of the 
declining annual average emissions inventories from 1990 through 2005 
which is consistent with the District's trends chart. Table 10 shows 
PM-10 emissions decreasing by 46 tons per day (tpd) and NOX 
emissions decreasing by 228 tpd during this time period.
    Finally, as discussed above, EPA has not ignored any recorded 
exceedances but rather has followed its regulations to exclude from 
regulatory consideration any exceedances that are caused by exceptional 
events. 73 FR 14687; response to comment 3 above. EPA also set forth in 
its 2006 attainment determination its conclusions as to prior monitored 
data. 71 FR 63642.
    Comment 5: EJ claims that while the District asserts that growth in 
the SJV nonattainment area has been rapid since 1990 but that emissions 
have decreased, the sources of these claimed reductions do not support 
redesignation.
    Response 5: See responses to comments 1, 3 and 4 above, and 7 and 8 
below.
    Comment 6: EJ alleges that the District and EPA conclude without 
justification that the District's meteorological analysis shows that 
favorable meteorology did not lead to the improvements in air quality. 
Instead, EJ argues, the analysis shows that from 2004 to 2006, the SJV 
nonattainment area experienced some of the wettest years on record and 
that 2003 through 2006 experienced lower than average stability levels, 
which EPA and the District concede would lead to better dispersion 
conditions and lower PM-10 levels. As a result, EJ claims the data 
provided undercut any claim that the alleged air quality improvement is 
likely to be maintained.
    Response 6: Our proposed rule summarizes the meteorological 
analysis provided in the 2007 Plan which includes an examination of the 
precipitation, temperature wind speeds and atmospheric stability during 
the period 2003 through 2006. The summary was based on data presented 
in Appendix C to the 2007 Plan. As EJ comments, there were some 
conditions that favored lower PM-10 levels; however, there were also 
conditions that favored higher PM-10 levels. Conditions that favored 
higher PM-10 levels included no variation in annual average wind speeds 
(which are generally quite low for the SJV area), warmer than average 
temperatures and two dry years ranking 98th and 112th in wetness (with 
the 1st year being the wettest year) during a 128 year period. Since 
there were conditions that both favored and did not favor higher PM-10 
levels, the conclusion of the 2007 Plan and EPA's analysis is that 
there was no consistent pattern to show that attainment was a result of 
unusually favorable meteorology. 73 FR 22307, 22312.
    Finally we note that the Calcagni memorandum makes clear that 
``[a]ttainment resulting from * * * unusually favorable meteorology 
would not qualify as an air quality improvement due to permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions.'' Calcagni memorandum at 4. Therefore 
EPA disagrees with EJ's comment that the meteorological data indicate 
that the air quality improvement will not likely be maintained.
    In addition, EPA obtained available information on precipitation, 
average monthly temperatures and wind speeds for 2007 and compared the 
2007 data to the averages presented in Appendix C to the 2007 Plan at 
Tables C-1, C-2 and C-3. (Atmospheric stability data for 2007 was not 
available.) The total precipitation for 2007 was 7.03 inches (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/hnx/fat/normals/fatrnyr.htm) which is lower than the 
average precipitation of 10.13 inches for 1878 through 2006 (2007 Plan 
at Table C-1) and would favor higher PM-10 levels. The average monthly 
temperatures in degrees Celcius for 2007 were 4.6 for January, 9.5 for 
February, 14.3 for March, 15.9 for April, 20.7 for May, 24 for June, 
26.3 for July, 26.3 for August, 21.7 for September, 16.1 for October, 
11.9 for November and 5.5 for December. (http://www.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=hnx) When compared to the average monthly 
temperatures from 1900 through 2005 (2007 Plan at Table C-2), the 
average temperatures for the months of March, May, June and August were 
higher in 2007 than average and would favor higher PM-10 levels. 
Finally, the average wind speed for 2007 was 3.7 miles per hour (mph) 
(http://www.cimis.water.ca.gov) which is consistent with the average 
wind speed of 3.72 mph for 1984 through 2006 (2007 Plan at Table C-3) 
and would favor high PM-10 levels. Since the available 2007 
meteorological data favor higher PM-10 levels, EPA continues to believe 
that there is no consistent pattern that would establish that 
attainment has resulted from unusually favorable meteorology.
    Comment 7: EJ disputes EPA's conclusion that improvements in air 
quality are the result of permanent and enforceable reductions in 
emissions from rules adopted by the District since 1992. EJ claims that 
most of these rules were adopted only in the last few years and 
therefore any trend in emission reductions that can be inferred from 
the chart provided by the District (2007 Plan at 24, Figure 2) cannot 
be attributed to these rules. EJ suggests that the drop in exceedance 
days between 1990 and 1992 might be due to a difference in the 
methodologies for measuring exceedances for the TSP and PM-10 
standards. EJ provides its own chart, ``PM-10 Trend,'' adjusted to 
include the exceedance days that it says EPA has acknowledged, that 
purports to show only minimal changes in the recurring pattern of PM-10 
violations over the last 15 years.
    Response 7: On July 1, 1987, EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate 
matter by replacing the standards for total suspended particulate 
matter (TSP) with new standards applying only to PM-10. 52 FR 24672. 
While PM-10 monitoring data have been collected since 1987 (see 71 FR 
63642, 63653), the District and CARB have not reported TSP data to 
EPA's Air Quality System

[[Page 66764]]

(AQS) database since 1989. Therefore any difference in measurement 
methodologies for the two pollutants could not be the cause of the drop 
in exceedance days between 1990 and 1992.
    Since enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, the State has adopted 
and submitted several PM-10 plans. These include a moderate area plan 
under CAA section 189(a), a serious area plan under section 189(b) and 
a serious area plan under section 189(d) (i.e., the 2003 PM-10 Plan 
approved by EPA in 2004 and discussed above). The 2003 PM-10 Plan 
provides a summary of the many State, District and EPA rules adopted 
from 1990 through 2003. See 2003 PM-10 Plan at Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3 and 
4-4. The 2003 PM-10 Plan also includes commitments for additional PM-10 
and NOX measures, all of which were adopted by the District 
and State after 2003 and most of which have been approved by EPA. See 
response to comment 8 below.
    The District's chart (2007 Plan, Figure 2) shows that PM-10 levels 
have declined from 1990 through 2006 while these PM-10 plans and rules 
have been adopted and implemented. We note that even EJ's own ``PM-10 
Trend'' chart shows a general decrease in PM-10 levels since 1992 and 
since early 2000.
    Furthermore, the 2007 Plan shows that significant reductions in PM-
10 and NOX emissions occurred from the year 2000 to the year 
2005, the time period during which the SJV area attained the PM-10 
standard. NOX emissions have declined from 673 tpd in 2000 
to 606 tpd in 2005 and PM-10 emissions have declined from 324 tpd in 
2000 to 284 tpd in 2005. 2007 Plan; Staff Report, Air Resources Board, 
``Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan,'' (ARB 
Staff Report for 2007 Plan) Appendix B.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See footnote 2 of the proposed rule. 73 FR 22307, 22308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen from the above discussion and our responses to 
previous comments, PM-10 exceedance days and PM-10 and NOX 
emission levels have declined while at the same time the SJV area has 
exhibited significant growth in population and vehicle miles traveled. 
2007 Plan at 24, Figure 2 and at 26, Figures 3 and 4. Thus EPA 
continues to believe that it is reasonable to attribute the improvement 
in PM-10 air quality to the emission reductions from adopted rules that 
are permanent and enforceable.
    Comment 8: EJ argues that the District's failure to estimate the 
tons or percent reduction from the baseline year achieved by its PM-10 
control measures makes it difficult to assert that any improvements in 
air quality are the result of such controls. Further, while EPA claims 
that the District has adopted all of its rule commitments in the 2003 
PM-10 Plan, only 2 of the 14 commitments have received EPA approval 
according to EJ. The maintenance plan identifies 8 additional rules, 
only 3 of which have been approved by EPA. EJ states that of the 22 
rules the District identified during its PM-10 planning process to help 
reduce PM-10 in the SJV nonattainment area, only 5 are enforceable 
elements of the SIP.
    Response 8: The 2007 Plan provides a summary of overall 
NOX and PM-10 emissions and shows that emissions have 
decreased from approximately 1177 tpd in 1990 to approximately 1000 tpd 
in 2000 to approximately 900 tpd in 2005 and estimates that they will 
continue to decrease to approximately 800 tpd in 2010. 2007 Plan at 
Table 10 and 73 FR 22307, 22312. These declining emissions levels have 
occurred as population and VMT have increased and are due to the 
emissions reductions from rules and control measures that have been 
adopted and implemented since 1990. 2007 Plan at 26 through 27 and 2003 
PM-10 Plan at Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3 and 4-9.
    The 2003 PM-10 Plan summarizes the numerous rules and control 
measures adopted by the SJVAPCD, the State and EPA prior to 2003. 2003 
PM-10 Plan at Tables 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3. The 2003 PM-10 Plan also 
includes District commitments to achieve additional reductions. 2003 
PM-10 Plan at Table 4-9. As discussed below, the commitments have all 
been converted to adopted rules. The emissions reductions from all of 
the 2003 PM-10 Plan's rules, control measures and adopted commitments 
are reflected in the 2007 Plan's emissions inventory. ARB Staff Report 
for 2007 Plan at Appendix B.
    It is not clear what year EJ considers to be the baseline year; 
however, the 2007 Plan provides emissions inventories for the years 
1990, 2000, 2005 and 2010 which include the estimated tpd of reductions 
achieved by the PM-10 rules, control measures and rules adopted 
pursuant to commitments. 2007 Plan at Table 10 and ARB Staff Report for 
2007 Plan at Appendix B. Thus, EPA believes that the State and District 
have estimated the tpd reductions from several baseline years (1990, 
2000 and 2005) achieved by its PM-10 control measures and have shown 
that the improvements in air quality are the result of such controls.
    Regarding EJ's comment that only five of the 22 rules the District 
identified during its PM-10 planning process are enforceable elements 
of the SIP, EPA notes that this information was updated in the 2007 
Plan. See ``Errata, 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for 
Redesignation,'' October 9, 2007, included in the 2007 Plan submittal 
to EPA. Table 1 below summarizes the EPA-approved rules from the 2003 
PM-10 Plan commitments and provides the EPA approval dates for these 
rules as applicable. EPA has approved all but three of the submitted 
rules (Rules 4694, 4401 and 9510).

     Table 1--Summary of EPA Actions on 2003 PM-10 Plan Commitments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  2003 PM-10 plan commitment 7
     (pollutants covered by          Adopted rule         EPA action
           commitment)             number and title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Agriculture (Conservation      4550--Conservation  Approved 2/14/06,
 Management Practice Program)      Management          71 FR 7683.
 (PM-10, VOC).                     Practices.
B. Cotton Gins (PM-10)..........  4204--Cotton Gins.  Approved 11/9/06,
                                                       71 FR 65740.
C. Dryers (NOX).................  4309--Dryers,       Approved 5/30/07,
                                   Dehydrators, and    72 FR 29886.
                                   Ovens.
D. Fugitive PM-10 (Regulation     8011--General       Approved 2/17/06,
 VIII) (PM-10).                    Requirements.       71 FR 8461.
                                  8021--Construction
                                   , Demo,
                                   Excavation.
                                  8031--Bulk
                                   Materials..
                                  8041--Carryout and
                                   Trackout..
                                  8051--Open Areas..
                                  8061--Paved and
                                   Unpaved Roads.
                                  8071--Unpaved
                                   Vehicle/Equip
                                   Traffic Areas.

[[Page 66765]]

 
                                  8081--Agricultural
                                   Sources.
E. Glass-Melting Furnaces (SOX).  4354--Glass         Approved 8/1/07,
                                   Melting Furnaces.   72 FR 41894.
F. Gas-Fired Oilfield Steam       4406--Sulfur        Not adopted by
 Generators (SOX).                 Compounds From      District.
                                   Oilfield Steam
                                   Generators--Kern
                                   County.
G. Indirect Source Review, and    9510--Indirect      Under EPA Review.
 Indirect Source Mitigation Fee    Source Review.
 (NOX, PM-10).
H. Solid Fuel Boilers, Steam      4352--Solid Fuel    Approved 5/30/07,
 Generators, and Process Heaters   Fired Boilers,      72 FR 29886.
 (NOX, SOX).                       Steam Generators,
                                   and Process
                                   Heaters.
I. Small Boilers, Steam           4307--Boilers,      Approved 5/30/07,
 Generators, and Process Heaters   Steam Generators,   72 FR 29886.
 (NOX, SOX).                       and Process
                                   Heaters 2.0 to
                                   5.0 mmBtu.
J. Water Heaters (Industrial,     4308--Boilers,      Approved 5/30/07,
 Commercial, and Institutional)    Steam Generators,   72 FR 29886.
 (NOX).                            and Process
                                   Heaters 0.075 to
                                   2.0 mmBtu.
K. Wineries (VOC)...............  4694--Wineries....  Under EPA Review.
L. Steam Enhanced Crude Oil       4401--Steam         Under EPA Review.
 Production Well Vents (VOC).      Enhanced Crude
                                   Oil Production
                                   Well Vents.
M. Residential Space Heating      4905--Natural Gas   Approved 5/30/07,
 (NOX).                            Fired, Fan-type,    72 FR 29886.
                                   Residential
                                   Central Furnaces.
N. Agricultural Internal          4702--Internal      Approved 1/10/08,
 Combustion Engines (PM-10, NOX).  Combustion          73 FR 1819.
                                   Engines Phase 2.
Residential Wood Combustion \8\.  4901--Residential   Approved 9/30/03,
                                   Wood Burning.       68 FR 56181.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 On May 26, 2004, EPA approved the 2003 PM-10 Plan including
  commitments for new District rules. See 2003 PM-10 Plan, Table 4-9
  List of New District Commitments. The commitments for PM-10 and NOX
  reductions were approved as meeting BACM and the commitments for other
  pollutants (SOX, VOC) were approved as SIP strengthenings. See 69 FR
  30006, 30035 and 69 FR 5412, 5423. The District subsequently amended
  the 2003 PM-10 Plan and revised Chapter 4 Control Strategy in May
  2005; however, the amendments were not submitted to EPA. The EPA-
  approved commitments are those found in the version of the 2003 PM-10
  Plan adopted by the District on December 18, 2003.
8 In its comment letter, EJ lists Residential Wood Combustion as a
  commitment from the 2003 PM-10 Plan; however, it was an adopted
  measure and not a commitment. We have included it in our Table for
  completeness in addressing EJ's comments.

    In addition to the rules in Table 1, the 2007 Plan cites reductions 
from additional rules that were not included in the 2003 PM-10 Plan's 
commitments. All of these additional rules have been adopted and 
submitted to EPA by the State and most have been approved by EPA. Table 
2 below provides a summary of EPA actions on these additional rules 
based on the ``Errata, 2007 PM-10 Maintenance Plan and Request for 
Redesignation.''

  Table 2--Summary of EPA Action on Additional Rules Identified by 2007
                                  Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Rule                 Rule title           EPA action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4103..........................  Open Burning (VOC &     Approved 4/11/
                                 NOX).                   06, 71 FR
                                                         18216.
4305..........................  Boilers, Steam          Approved 5/18/
                                 Generators, and         04, 69 FR
                                 Process Heaters (NOX).  28061.
4409..........................  Components Serving      Approved 3/23/
                                 Light Crude Oil or      06, 71 FR
                                 Gases at Production     14652.
                                 Facilities (VOC).
4451 & 4452...................  Components at
                                 Petroleum Refineries
                                 (VOC).
4570..........................  Confined Animal         Under EPA
                                 Feeding Operations      Review.
                                 (VOC).
4604..........................  Can and Coil Coating    Approved 5/19/
                                 Operations (VOC).       06, 70 FR
                                                         28826.
9310..........................  School Bus Fleets       Under EPA
                                 (NOX).                  Review.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, contrary to EJ's comment, most of the rules identified in the 
2007 Plan have been approved by EPA as federally enforceable elements 
of the SIP. EPA is continuing to process the remainder of the State's 
submitted rules.
    Comment 9: EJ concludes that because the air quality improvements 
are premised on ignoring multiple violations of the PM-10 standard and 
fewer than one quarter of the rules the District relies on for 
reductions are an enforceable part of the SIP, EPA cannot reasonably 
attribute air quality improvements to permanent and enforceable 
emission reductions.
    Response 9: See above responses to comments 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8.

D. Area Has Met All Applicable CAA Section 110 and Part D Requirements

    Comment 10: EJ asserts that the District fails to comply with CAA 
section 107(d)(3)(E) because it has not met all applicable requirements 
under section 110 and part D. EJ says that in addition to the 
contingency measure requirement, the District has not met the section 
189(b)(1)(B) BACM requirement because BACM were required to be 
implemented by January 8, 1993 and EPA has still not approved most of 
the PM-10 rules relied on (as a result of the 2003 PM-10 Plan 
commitments) as being BACM-level controls.
    Response 10: As noted above, in its October 30, 2006 attainment 
determination EPA suspended the 172(c)(9) contingency measure 
requirement and as a result it is no longer an applicable part D 
requirement. 71 FR 63642, 63663; 73 FR 22307, 22313. In any event, as 
set forth above (see response to comment 2), independent of its 
suspension, the contingency measure requirement is not an applicable 
requirement for purposes of redesignation.
    With respect to the section 189(b)(1)(B) BACM requirement, as

[[Page 66766]]

discussed in our proposed rule, EPA determined that this requirement 
was met for the SJV nonattainment area in our approval of the 2003 PM-
10 Plan. See 69 FR 30006, 30035. (``EPA is approving the RACM/BACM 
demonstration for all significant PM-10 and NOX sources in 
the SJV as meeting the requirements of sections 189(a)(1)(C) and 
189(b)(1)(B)''). In the 2003 PM-10 Plan the District addressed the BACM 
requirement by providing enforceable commitments to implement BACM 
rules in the future rather than already adopted rules. During the 
rulemaking on the 2003 PM-10 Plan, EJ argued that until the relevant 
BACM requirements are adopted and no longer subject to change in the 
rule development process for each of these source categories, EPA could 
not conclusively determine that the plan provides for the 
implementation of BACM/BACT for all significant sources of PM-10 and 
PM-10 precursors. In rejecting that argument we stated that:

    [s]ection 189(b)(1)(B) requires that serious area PM-10 plans 
include `[p]rovisions to assure that the best available control 
measures for the control of PM-10 shall be implemented no later than 
4 years after the date the area is classified (or reclassified) as a 
Serious Area.' Nothing in this language either requires a state to 
have adopted controls in place before a SIP revision can be approved 
into its PM-10 plan or forbids the adoption of an enforceable 
commitment to meet the statute's BACM [footnote omitted] 
requirement.

Id. at 30013. We further stated, in fully approving commitments as 
meeting the Act's BACM requirement that:

    [c]onsistent with this statutory language, EPA has historically 
determined that an enforceable commitment to adopt and implement 
BACM in a SIP meets this statutory requirement since it constitutes 
a `provision to assure that BACM is implemented' by a fixed 
deadline. As a result, the commenters' complaint that `[b]y 
definition the plan fails to implement BACM/BACT for all source 
categories for which no developed control measures exist' has no 
merit since the statute itself does not impose such a requirement. 
Because the statute does not define what is a `provision to assure 
BACM is implemented,' EPA may adopt an interpretation reasonably 
accommodated to the purpose of the statutory provision. Chevron 
U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. at 842-
44.

Id. at 30013-30014. In conclusion we stated that:

    In accepting enforceable commitments to meet the requirements of 
section 189(b)(1)(B), however, EPA has required states to undertake 
an analysis to ensure that the regulation ultimately adopted 
pursuant to the commitment will represent a BACM level of control. 
As we describe in our proposed rule, a state must determine the 
technical and economic feasibility of potential control measures for 
each of the significant source categories. 69 FR 5412, 5418. Thus 
the measure that is the subject of a commitment must describe 
generally the type and level of control to be adopted.
    Moreover, once the ultimate control measure is adopted and 
submitted to EPA, the Agency undertakes an additional evaluation to 
ensure that that measure meets the statute's BACM requirements. See, 
e.g., the Arizona rulemakings in which EPA initially approved as 
RACM [footnote omitted] a requirement in a state statute to adopt 
and implement best management practices for agricultural operations 
and subsequently determined that the rules adopted pursuant to the 
statute represented RACM/BACM. 64 FR 34726 (June 29, 1999); 66 FR 
51869 (October 11, 2001); 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002).

Id. at 30014. EPA's interpretation and its full SIP approval of the 
BACM requirement was not challenged. EPA may rely on prior SIP 
approvals in approving a redesignation request. Calcagni memorandum at 
3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d. 984. 
989-990 (6th Cir. 1998); and Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2001). 
Finally we note that EPA has approved many of the rules submitted by 
the State as meeting a BACM level of control. See the Federal Register 
notices listed in Tables 1 and 2 above in which we approve SJVAPCD PM-
10 and NOX rules.

    Comment 11: EJ also claims that the District has failed to submit 
to EPA a demonstration that the quantitative milestones as required by 
CAA section 189(c)(1) and (c)(2) and the section 189(d) 5 percent 
requirement have been met. EJ also claims that the District has not met 
its commitment to update and improve the 2003 PM-10 Plan by March 2006.
    Response 11: CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires that a state 
seeking redesignation of an area to attainment must have met all 
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D. In 
interpreting this requirement EPA has stated that ``any requirements 
that came due prior to submittal of the redesignation request must be 
fully approved into the plan at or before the time EPA redesignates the 
area.'' Calcagni memorandum at 5. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th 
Cir. 2004). EPA has approved the 2003 PM-10 Plan's RFP demonstration as 
meeting the requirements of 172(c)(2) and 189(c)(1) and has approved 
the plan as meeting the quantitative milestones requirement in section 
189(c)(1). 69 FR 30006, 30034. Also, as we explained in our 2006 
attainment finding, we believe that once an area attains the NAAQS the 
requirements of section 189(c)(2) with respect to milestones no longer 
applies under the Agency's Clean Data Policy. 71 FR 63642, 63646-63647. 
We also explained in that rulemaking the application of the Clean Data 
Policy to PM-10. See 71 FR 40952, 40954-40955 and 71 FR 63642, 63643-
63645. Apart from the Clean Data Policy, for an area that has attained 
the standard and is eligible for redesignation, the requirements for 
milestone demonstrations under section 189(c) have no further meaning 
or function. Therefore the District was not required to submit 
milestone demonstrations pursuant to section 189(c).
    In addition, EPA approved a commitment in the 2003 PM-10 Plan by 
the State to submit a SIP revision by March 31, 2006 based on a mid-
course review to determine whether the level of emission reductions in 
the plan is sufficient to attain the PM-10 standards. 69 FR 30006, 
30035. EPA approved this commitment as part of the Plan's attainment 
demonstration. See 69 FR 5412, 5429. While the SJVAPCD adopted a mid-
course review SIP addressing the quantitative milestone reporting 
requirement and mid-course review SIP commitment and submitted the SIP 
to the State, the State has not submitted the mid-course review SIP to 
EPA. Nevertheless, EPA's full approval of the attainment demonstration 
in the 2003 PM-10 Plan fully satisfies the requirement of CAA section 
107(d)(3)(E)(v).
    Moreover, EPA has determined that the SJV area attained the PM-10 
standard in 2005, and continues to attain the standard. The mid-course 
review requirement is not a requirement under section 110 or Part D, 
and therefore is not an applicable CAA requirement for purposes of 
redesignation. Furthermore, even if it were, the requirement for a mid-
course review was approved as part of the attainment demonstration. 
Therefore, because EPA has determined that the SJV area is attaining 
the PM-10 standard, a submission under the mid-course review provision 
would not be required for purposes of redesignation. 57 FR 13498, 
13564; Clean Data Policy.
    Comment 12: EJ claims that EPA misinterprets an October 14, 1994 
memorandum from Mary Nichols, EPA, entitled ``Part D NSR Requirements 
for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment'' as allowing the 
District to replace its new source review (NSR) program with a 
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program. EJ quotes the 
memorandum as saying that ``the part D program may be replaced by the 
corollary PSD program, if it is shown

[[Page 66767]]

through the maintenance demonstration that the area will maintain 
without part D NSR.'' EJ asserts that here neither EPA nor the District 
has made any such demonstration and claims that this is especially 
worrisome in light of EPA's recent proposed approval of revisions to 
the District's NSR program exempting ``so-called minor agricultural 
sources such as industrial dairy operations.''
    Response 12: First, the commenter overlooks the fact, enunciated in 
our proposed rule, that EPA has previously fully approved the NSR 
program for the SJV area. We also noted that EPA has recently proposed 
approval of some revisions to the NSR rule. 73 FR 22307, 22313. EJ's 
citation to the October 14, 1994 memorandum from Mary Nichols, EPA, 
entitled ``Part D NSR Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation 
to Attainment'' (Nichols memorandum) is misdirected. The Nichols 
memorandum's discussion of the need to demonstrate maintenance without 
fully approved NSR addressed the situation, not the case here, where an 
area's NSR rule has not been approved. Moreover, as our proposed rule 
explained, even though EPA previously approved the NSR rule, such 
approval is not a prerequisite to finalizing our approval of the 
State's redesignation request. Id. If an area does not have a fully 
approved NSR program, it can still be redesignated if it shows 
maintenance without NSR in effect. The 2003 PM-10 Plan and 2007 Plan do 
not rely on reductions from the area's NSR program. Nothing in the 
plans' inventories or estimated emissions reductions indicates any 
reliance on NSR program reductions. Thus, the SJVAB area will maintain 
the NAAQS without NSR. This is consistent with the provisions of the 
Nichols memorandum. Finally, we note that while the PSD requirements 
will apply once the area has been redesignated to attainment, the 
District's SIP-approved NSR rule will continue to apply with respect to 
PM-10 until EPA approves a revised NSR rule.

E. Maintenance Plan

    Comment 13: EJ maintains that even if all of the other issues it 
has raised with respect to the redesignation were remedied, EPA cannot 
approve the redesignation request because the maintenance plan is 
flawed and cannot be approved. EJ concludes that EPA's decision to 
approve the maintenance plan without the requisite analysis and without 
meeting the basic requirements laid out in the Calcagni memorandum 
leaves little for EJ to comment upon and, as such, is the very 
definition of arbitrary and capricious. EJ believes that EPA's 
obligation is to provide not just its legal conclusions but the facts 
and rationale that support them.
    Response 13: EPA disagrees. Our proposed rule lays out all of the 
requirements for maintenance plans found under the CAA and the Calcagni 
memorandum and sets forth the Agency's analysis of how the 2007 Plan 
meets each of those requirements. 73 FR 22307, 22313-22315. In 
addition, the 2007 Plan itself addresses in detail the requirements in 
the Calcagni memorandum. Thus EJ's contention that EPA's discussion of 
the maintenance plan left them ``very little'' to comment on is without 
basis.
    Comment 14: EJ asserts that the 2005 emissions inventory is 
insufficient to identify the level of emissions in the area because the 
continuing PM-10 problem is the result of direct PM-10 emissions during 
the fall rather than secondary wintertime NOX emissions and 
the direct PM-10 inventory is expected to increase over the next 10 
years. EJ states that EPA's claim that increasing direct PM-10 
emissions are offset by a larger decrease in the NOX 
inventory demonstrates a lack of understanding of the PM-10 problem in 
the SJV nonattainment area because reducing secondarily formed PM-10 
does nothing to reduce the ongoing direct PM-10 problems. EJ concludes 
that since the maintenance demonstration is based on an inventory that 
is insufficient to attain the NAAQS, EPA cannot find that the plan will 
maintain healthful air for 10 years following redesignation.
    In a footnote to its comment above regarding the emissions 
inventory for the maintenance plan, EJ claims that prior to 2004 the 
District had never asked EPA to waive PM-10 data but in the past 4 
years it has been asked to waive 11 separate events, 10 of them after 
the Agency's original attainment finding. EJ states that if windy days 
are this common EPA and the District must accept that the SJV 
nonattainment area has a windblown dust problem and they must do more 
to control it. EJ states that an event is only exceptional if it is not 
expected to recur on a regular basis.
    Response 14: As discussed in our proposed rule, the Calcagni 
memorandum provides that a state should provide an attainment emissions 
inventory to identify the level of emissions in the area sufficient to 
attain the NAAQS and, where the state as here has made an adequate 
demonstration that air quality has improved as a result of the SIP (see 
above responses to comments 3 through 4 and 6 through 8), the 
attainment inventory will generally be an inventory of actual emissions 
at the time the area attained.
    The 2007 Plan does exactly what the Calcagni memorandum recommends 
and selects the 2005 PM-10 and NOX inventories as the 
attainment emission inventories because the SJV area attained the 
standard in 2005. 73 FR 22307, 22314 and 71 FR 63642. The SJV area 
relies on reductions of both NOX (a PM-10 precursor) and 
directly emitted PM-10 sources to achieve attainment. 2003 PM-10 Plan 
at ES-9 through ES-10, Chapters 2, 4 and 5; 69 FR 5412, 5414 and 69 FR 
30006, 30007. Analysis of ambient air quality data for the SJV area 
shows that it experiences the most frequent and severe exceedances from 
October through January during stagnant weather conditions (i.e., low 
wind speeds that are unable to disperse the PM-10).\9\ Both direct PM-
10 and secondary PM-10 (formed by reactions with NOX ) occur 
during this time. October and November exceedances are dominated by 
direct PM-10 emissions and December and January are dominated by 
secondary PM-10 such as ammonium nitrate (formed when NOX 
reacts with ammonia and other components); however, the reduction of 
both direct PM-10 and NOX is necessary for reducing ambient 
PM-10 levels throughout the year. 2003 PM-10 Plan at ES-9 through ES-10 
and 5-6 through 5-7. Thus, EPA's belief that the slight increase in PM-
10 emissions of 284 tpd in 2005 to 290 tpd in 2020 is insignificant 
when compared to the substantial NOX decreases of 606 tpd in 
2005 to 328 tpd in 2020 is based on an understanding that high PM-10 
levels in the SJV area are caused by both direct PM-10 and precursor 
NOX emissions. In addition, consistent with the Calcagni 
memorandum, the modeled maintenance demonstration is primarily based on 
modeling similar to the modeling used for the 2003 PM-10 Plan. 73 FR 
22307, 22314. Finally, contrary to EJ's comments, there is no ongoing 
direct PM-10 problem in the SJVAB as we have determined that the area 
has attained the PM-10 standard. 71 FR 63642 and 73 FR 14687. See also 
response to comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As discussed in our attainment affirmation and proposed 
rule, unusually high winds can also cause exceedances. 73 FR 14687 
and 73 FR 22307, 22311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EJ's comment in footnote 3 of its letter does not appear to be 
related to the inventory or any other provision of the maintenance plan 
in the 2007 Plan or the maintenance plan requirement of CAA section 
107(d)(3)(E)(iv). Rather it appears to be an expansion of EJ's argument 
that the SJV area has not in fact attained the PM-10 standard. In this

[[Page 66768]]

regard, see response to comment 1 above. Notwithstanding , EPA notes 
that not all of the exceptional event days in the past five years in 
the SJV area have been due to high winds. Of the eleven exceptional 
event days, seven were caused by high wind events and the remaining 
four by construction, improper monitor siting and fireworks.
    Comment 15: EJ states that it is not clear whether the modeling 
takes into account the September 2004 and November 2005 exceedances EPA 
has conceded but if it does not then the modeling for the maintenance 
plan is flawed because it fails to include these higher values in its 
projections.
    Response 15: As discussed in our proposed rule, 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. 73 FR 22307, 22314-22315. See also Calcagni 
memorandum at 9 and Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001). While 
only required to use one of these methods, the SJVAPCD showed both with 
emissions inventory and modeling that the area would maintain the 
standard for at least ten years after redesignation, in accordance with 
section 175A. For areas such as the SJV that used modeling for their 
attainment demonstrations, the same level of modeling should be used 
for the maintenance demonstrations. The 2007 Plan uses Chemical Mass 
Balance (CMB) and rollback to demonstrate maintenance of the 24-hour 
PM-10 standard until 2020 which is consistent with the modeling 
performed for the 2003 PM-10 Plan. 73 FR 22307, 22314; 2007 Plan at 6-
11. The modeling involves selecting a representative day for each 
location, determining the speciation data for the site based on 
analysis of the monitoring filters and sources in the area and 
determining the emissions reductions that are necessary or that will be 
achieved due to emissions reductions from implemented rules.
    The 2007 Plan's maintenance demonstration modeling was based on the 
highest episodes during the most recent attainment year at the time, 
2006. The District selected representative peak winter days for each of 
the monitors in the SJVAB for modeling, and used the observed values 
from those days as the basis of its modeling exercise. In addition, 
fall episode days were included for several monitors. Table 2 of the 
2007 Plan summarizes the episode values and the 2020 projections.
    One of the objectives in determining appropriate representative 
episodes is to choose those days that are approximately as severe as 
the design value for the modeled pollutant. The design value is based 
on three years of monitoring data, or in this case, 2004 through 2006, 
and depends on the frequency and completeness of recorded values. In 
addition, for PM-10, the design values are generally based on FRM data, 
but FEM data can also be used; however, as noted in footnote 3 above, 
data from different monitoring instruments are not combined.
    The representative days selected for modeling are consistent with 
the design values for the Corcoran and Bakersfield sites where the 
September 2004 and November 2005 values were measured. For the Corcoran 
FRM, the design value is 140 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a calculation that 
includes and explicitly accounts for the 217 [mu]g/m\3\ measured in 
September 2004.\10\ This value is very close to, and supports the 
selection of, the two representative high episode values in the 2007 
Plan for Corcoran: A 136 [mu]g/m\3\ for the winter episode and a 137 
[mu]g/m\3\ for the fall episode. The small differences between the 
design value of 140 [mu]g/m\3\ and the selected winter and fall episode 
values is not an issue because the projected maintenance levels are 
well below the 24-hour PM-10 standard of 150 [mu]g/m\3\. 2007 Plan at 
Table 2. The Bakersfield FEM does not have a complete set of data from 
2004 through 2006, and therefore a design value for this time period 
cannot be calculated based on the FEM data. However, the 2004-2006 PM-
10 design value for Bakersfield using the data collected with the FRM 
monitor would be 154 ug/m\3\.\11\ This concentration is consistent with 
the values of 153 ug/m\3\ and 154 [mu]g/m\3\ measured during the 
representative modeled episodes included in the 2007 Plan for 
Bakersfield. Therefore, the September 2004 and November 2005 
exceedances to which EJ refers in its comment were taken into account 
in the 2007 Plan's maintenance demonstration modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ If we assume that the September 2004 exceedance is not 
flagged, the highest recorded PM-10 values from 2004 through 2006 
are: (1) 217 [mu]g/m\3\ on September 3, 2004; (2) 140 [mu]g/m\3\ on 
October 26, 2006; and (3) 139 [mu]g/m\3\ on October 15, 2004. Since 
the Corcoran FRM operates on a one-in-three day schedule, the design 
value is based on the second highest recorded PM-10 value, or 140 
[mu]g/m\3\.
    \11\ The design value for Bakersfield is calculated using the 
FRM data set from 2004-2006. The design value in this case would be 
the highest non-flagged value for the three year period, 154 [mu]g/
m\3\ measured on December 7, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 16: While EJ is glad that the District plans to continue 
operation of its PM-10 monitoring network, EJ is troubled that the 
District suggests in its 2008 ``Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan'' 
that it may reduce the frequency of its monitoring. EJ hopes that the 
District will strengthen its network because EJ continues to believe 
that the current network does not adequately represent the west side 
communities and the near-highway areas of high concentration and that 
more monitoring is required.
    Response 16: In 2003, EPA evaluated the adequacy of the monitoring 
network for the SJV area and concluded that it meets all the applicable 
statutory and regulatory requirements. See 69 FR 30006, 30033 and 
``Evaluation of the Adequacy of the Monitoring Network for the San 
Joaquin Valley, California for the Annual and 24-Hour PM-10 
Standards,'' Bob Pallarino, EPA, September 22, 2003. We reaffirmed the 
adequacy of the network in our 2006 determination of attainment for the 
SJV area. 71 FR 63642, 63648-63658.
    With regard specifically to monitoring frequency, EPA regulations 
require minimum frequencies for manual PM-10 and PM-2.5 samplers at 
designated state or local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) sites. See 40 
CFR 58.12. On October 17, 2006 EPA revised its monitoring regulations 
to require air monitoring agencies to perform an assessment of their 
monitoring networks every five years according to guidance issued by 
EPA. See 71 FR 61299 and 40 CFR 58.10(d). The first monitoring network 
assessment required by this regulation must be submitted to EPA by July 
1, 2010. Agencies are directed to make changes to their monitoring 
networks based in part on the results of these network assessments. 
Such an assessment in the SJVAB area may result in a requirement that 
the District increase the sampling frequency of certain PM-10 monitors 
sited to record the maximum concentrations of PM-10 pollution. See 40 
CFR 58.12(e).
    Most manual PM-10 samplers in the SJV monitoring network currently 
operate at the minimum required frequency of once every six days, 
except for Corcoran which operates manual PM-10 samplers once every 
three days. The District has exceeded this required sampling frequency 
by operating continuous FEM monitors, which produce a 24-hour average 
PM-10 concentration every day, at three locations in the SJVAB area, 
Tracy, Corcoran and Bakersfield. According to the District's 2008 
``Ambient Air

[[Page 66769]]

Monitoring Network Plan,'' the Corcoran and Bakersfield-Golden State 
Highway sites are two of the four PM-10 monitoring sites located to 
record the highest PM-10 concentrations in the SJVAB area.\12\ 
Therefore, the District has already proactively increased the sampling 
frequency at two high concentration sites to the maximum frequency 
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The other two sites are the Fresno-First Street site and 
the Stockton-Hazelton site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 17: EJ believes that the contingency measure provision in 
the maintenance plan is much too weak and cannot be approved. EJ states 
that the provision relies first and foremost on trying to excuse any 
future violation under the EER and then, in the event of any post-
redesignation violations, on seeing if there are any estimated 
reductions achieved that were not counted towards the attainment 
demonstration that can be used to ``cover'' the violation. EJ does not 
believe this approach makes sense because if an area is violating the 
standard, there are no ``extra'' reductions because all of the 
reductions are by definition not working. EJ believes that while EPA 
may accept this gaming in the context of RFP demonstrations such an 
approach would be illegal and arbitrary when real ambient violations 
are being monitored. EJ believes that the District should adopt the 
approach suggested in the Calcagni memorandum which sets indicators 
that trigger contingency provisions before a violation occurs which 
would avoid NAAQS violations and not just come up with on-paper 
``covers'' for those violations.
    Response 17: Under CAA section 175A(d), maintenance plans must 
contain ``such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems 
necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation 
of the standard.'' The Calcagni memorandum states that ``EPA will 
review what constitutes a contingency plan on a case-by-case basis. At 
a minimum, it must require that the State will implement all measures 
contained in the Part D nonattainment plan for the area prior to 
redesignation. * * * '' Calcagni memorandum at 12-13. The memorandum 
also makes clear that a monitored violation of the standard is 
appropriate to serve as the indicator or trigger for contingency 
measures.

Id. at 12.

    EJ's statement that the contingency provisions of the 2007 Plan 
``relies first and foremost'' on trying to excuse any future violation 
under the EER is misleading. The 2007 Plan selects an action level or 
trigger based on an exceedance of the PM-10 NAAQS of 155 micrograms per 
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\).\13\ 2007 Plan at 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. In our proposed 
rule we explained why we believe that an exceedance of 155 [mu]g/m\3\ 
is an appropriate trigger:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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 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.

73 FR 22307, 22315. Thus the contingency plan makes clear that 
determining whether an exceedance of the PM-10 standard is due to an 
exceptional event is part of determining whether a violation of the 
standard actually occurred, which would require corrective actions. In 
other words, we concluded that the 2007 Plan's action level or trigger, 
including the exclusion of exceedances caused by exceptional events, 
meets the statutory mandate that the contingency provisions ``correct 
any violation of the standard.'' Because it is clearly part of the 
action level or trigger, and not the corrective actions to be 
undertaken in the event of a violation, it is not accurate to conclude, 
as EJ does, that the contingency plan relies ``first and foremost'' on 
the use of the EER. Moreover, since an exceedance, which is not 
necessarily a violation, triggers the contingency measure provision, 
the provision may also be used to prevent violations of the NAAQS, and 
at a minimum provides for a violation that is determined not to be due 
to an exceptional event to trigger a measure.
    Once the contingency plan is triggered, the District would 
determine the possible causes of the exceedance and determine if 
emissions reductions from adopted measures that are not needed to 
maintain the PM-10 NAAQS are available to serve as contingency 
measures. 2007 Plan at 16. EJ objects to the use of these excess 
reductions (i.e., those not relied on in the maintenance demonstration) 
when ambient concentrations are being monitored.
    Initially we note that EPA has long approved contingency provisions 
that rely on reductions from measures that are already in place but are 
over and above those relied on in the attainment and RFP demonstrations 
under CAA section 172(c)(9). See, e.g., 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997); 62 
FR 66279 (December 18, 1997); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001); 66 FR 586 and 
66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001). We discussed this interpretation of 
section 172(c)(9) in our final PM-2.5 implementation rule. See 72 FR 
20586, 20642-20643 (April 25, 2007). This interpretation has also been 
upheld in LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004), and the court in 
that case set forth in detail the reasoning for accepting excess 
reductions from already adopted measures as contingency measures.
    In addition to being triggered by a failure to meet RFP, 
contingency measures under section 172(c)(9) are triggered when EPA 
determines that an area has failed to attain a NAAQS. Determinations of 
whether an area has attained a NAAQS (see, e.g., section 188(b)(2); 71 
FR 40952) are based on monitored concentrations. Likewise, here, a 
determination of whether the action level has been reached is based on 
monitored concentrations. Therefore our interpretation that excess 
emission reductions can appropriately serve as section 172(c)(9) 
contingency measures is equally applicable to section 175A(d) 
contingency measures.
    Furthermore, section 172(c)(9) is considerably less flexible than 
section 175A(d) in that under the former provision contingency measures 
are required to be fully adopted measures that will take effect without 
further action by the state, whereas this is not a requirement in order 
for the maintenance plan to be approved. Moreover, section 175A(d) 
grants considerably more discretion to EPA in determining whether to 
accept contingency provisions in maintenance plans (maintenance plans 
must contain ``such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems 
necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation 
of the standard.'' (Emphasis added). In addition, the Calcagni 
memorandum at 12-13 states that a contingency plan under section 
175A(d) ``[a]t a minimum must require that the State will implement all 
measures contained in the Part D nonattainment plan for the area prior 
to redesignation. * * * '' The 2007 Plan so provides and goes well 
beyond this minimum threshold.
    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed the issue 
of the adequacy of reductions from already

[[Page 66770]]

adopted measures in the context of section 175A(d) contingency measures 
in a maintenance plan for Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 
F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2004).\14\ There EPA had approved section 172(c)(9) 
contingency measures into the SIP in 1996 as part of the State's 
moderate area PM-10 nonattainment plan. In approving these measures EPA 
found that they provided for emission reductions following any 
prospective determination that the SIP failed to provide for timely 
attainment of the NAAQS. In 2000, Ohio submitted a redesignation 
request with a maintenance plan that included as section 175A(d) 
contingency provisions the already approved section 172(c)(9) 
contingency measures. Among other things, the petitioners argued that 
the CAA does not authorize EPA to use other measures outside the 
maintenance plan to assure correction of a violation. In upholding 
EPA's approval of the redesignation, the court found that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As early as 1995, EPA approved a maintenance plan under 
section 175A that included contingency provisions that relied in 
part on measures to be implemented prior to any post-redesignation 
NAAQS violation. See 60 FR 27028, 27029 (May 22, 1995).

    [t]he Administrator has been granted broad discretion by 
Congress in determining what is `necessary to assure' prompt 
correction. The EPA has approved Ohio's maintenance plan, concluding 
that its contingency measures provide a means to deal with likely 
violations. We do not believe that this determination is `arbitrary, 
capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.' Chevron, 467 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. at 844.

The Sixth Circuit in Greenbaum further noted that Congress contemplated 
that contingency measures need not be sufficient to correct all 
violations and that EPA and the state could rely on a combination of 
factors to correct violations. See the extensive discussion of 
contingency measures in Greenbaum.
    Here, the 2007 Plan looks first to emission reductions from adopted 
measures that are not needed to maintain the PM-10 NAAQS to serve as 
section 175A(d) contingency measures. If these emission reductions 
prove to be insufficient to correct the violation, the District commits 
to proceed with identifying control measures from feasibility studies 
such as those found in its 2007 Ozone Plan and Proposed 2008 PM2.5 Plan 
\15\ (see 2007 Ozone Plan at Table 6-2 and 2008 PM2.5 Plan at Table 6-
4) and with prioritizing measures most relevant for reducing PM-10 
emissions. 2007 Plan at 16-17. The SJVAPCD has also provided 
clarification that if additional control measures are necessary, the 
SJVAPCD will adopt and implement such measures. Letter from Seyed 
Sadredin, SJVAPCD, to Deborah Jordan, EPA, April 17, 2008. EPA believes 
that the 2007 Plan's contingency provisions which rely in part on 
emissions reductions from adopted measures not needed to maintain the 
PM-10 NAAQS to correct any PM-10 violation are consistent with the 
Agency's policies and with the statute. As the court in Greenbaum 
observed, Congress has expressly delegated to EPA the authority to 
determine what contingency measures are necessary. Here, EPA has 
determined that the contingency measures, which include both the 
potential for emission reductions from already adopted measures and 
from measures to be adopted, clearly are sufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The 2008 PM2.5 Plan was adopted by the District on April 
30, 2008, approved by the State on May 22, 2008, and submitted to 
EPA on June 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with respect to EJ's preference, suggested in the Calcagni 
memorandum, that the contingency plan for the SJVAB area set indicators 
that trigger contingency provisions before a violation occurs, we note 
again that the memorandum provides that contingency provisions are to 
be judged on a case by case basis. See also Greenbaum. With the 
exception of the minimum requirement mentioned above, the Calcagni 
memorandum is not prescriptive and allows for considerable latitude as 
to what constitutes an adequate contingency plan. The Calcagni 
memorandum itself provides that a violation of the standard is an 
appropriate trigger for contingency measures. Calcagni memorandum at 
12. See also Greenbaum. It is a common practice in maintenance plans to 
provide that a violation will trigger the requirement for a contingency 
measure to be implemented. Moreover, as pointed out above, under the 
contingency measure provisions, a monitored exceedance of the standard 
that does not itself constitute a violation (e.g., at a continuous 
monitor or a one-in-three day FRM monitor) could trigger a contingency 
measure prior to a violation occurring.

F. Revision of Boundary Designation

    Comment 18: EJ maintains that the portion of the San Joaquin Valley 
that EPA now proposes to split off was designated as part of the SJV 
nonattainment area because, as provided in CAA section 107(d)(1)(A), it 
was part of the geographic area ``that does not meet (or that 
contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) 
the national primary or secondary air quality standard for that 
pollutant.'' EJ states that EPA makes no attempt to explain how 
circumstances have changed to justify the removal of this portion of 
the designated nonattainment area. EJ notes that the SJV area includes 
other high-elevation areas that are located above the inversion layer 
and that whether a community is above or below the inversion layer is 
irrelevant because these areas are part of the Valley and part of the 
same air basin polluted by emissions generated in the Valley.
    Response 18: As discussed in our proposed rule, on January 31, 2008 
California requested a boundary redesignation splitting the SJV 
nonattainment area into two separate nonattainment areas, the SJVAB and 
East Kern. Section 107(d)(3)(D) of the CAA authorizes the State to 
submit to EPA a revised designation of any area and EPA is required to 
approve or deny it within 18 months of receipt of a complete State 
submittal. The type of revised designation that the State of California 
requested involves a boundary change only and does not involve a change 
in status (e.g., from ``nonattainment'' to ``attainment'' or 
``unclassifiable'') of any area. Our criteria for evaluating the 
State's request are discussed in our proposed rule.
    In general, the State has provided a compelling technical 
justification for splitting the nonattainment area which includes an 
evaluation of the differences in jurisdiction, geography, population 
and degree of urbanization, employment and traffic/commuting patterns, 
emissions and air quality. 73 FR 22307, 22308-22310. EJ notes that 
there are other high elevation areas in the SJV nonattainment area; 
however, the State has not made a request to revise any other 
boundaries. In addition, as discussed in our proposed rule, the SJVAB 
and East Kern areas are in separate air basins and do not have the same 
mix of air pollution sources. Id. EPA continues to believe that it 
should grant the State's request for a revised designation splitting 
the SJV nonattainment area into two PM-10 nonattainment areas, the 
SJVAB area and the East Kern area for the reasons set forth in the 
proposed rule and in this response.
    Comment 19: A commenter states that while the proposal to separate 
the western portion of the KCAPCD is clear and compelling, the 
commenter is concerned about environmental justice issues for the East 
Kern area. The commenter states that if the purpose of the separation 
is to clean-up one area and ignore the other industrialized area with 
the State prison, then EPA is not following its ethics concerning

[[Page 66771]]

environmental justice. The commenter states that communities with 
prisons serve as a target of environmental neglect and should not be 
abandoned from environmental laws and attainment requirements and 
should not be forgotten by EPA.
    Response 19: EPA's final action to split the SJV nonattainment area 
into two nonattainment areas does not relax any requirements. EPA is 
also approving enforceable commitments for the East Kern area that will 
ensure progress in meeting CAA requirements for the area. These 
commitments include the installation of a FRM/FEM \16\ and submittal of 
a SIP addressing applicable CAA requirements if the monitor violates 
the PM-10 standard. 73 FR 22307, 22317. In the meantime, the existing 
data from the IMPROVE monitor, although not a FRM or FEM, do not 
indicate an air quality problem in East Kern--rather they show levels 
that are consistently significantly below the standard. See id. at 
22310 (``* * * IMPROVE monitor has, since February 2000, consistently 
measured PM-10 concentrations far below the PM-10 standard.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Currently there is no FRM or 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. Pursuant to its commitment, CARB has purchased the new 
monitor and has secured permission from the Bureau of Land 
Management to install it next to the existing IMPROVE monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the commenter's concerns for fair treatment of the 
inhabitants of East Kern, EPA is taking steps to assure that the East 
Kern area will not be forgotten by EPA, and no community in that area 
will be ``abandoned from environmental laws and attainment 
requirements.'' EPA is committed to meeting the goals of environmental 
justice and is equally concerned for the populations of both the SJVAB 
and East Kern areas. There is no basis for concluding that the 
population of East Kern is exposed to ongoing levels above the 
standard, and EPA and the State have worked to provide assurances that 
the area will be required to conduct more comprehensive monitoring and 
to adopt additional requirements if needed. Thus EPA recognizes the 
role of environmental justice and is observing its principles.
    Comment 20: A commenter disagrees with the proposed rule's 
statement that the boundary redesignation makes sense because of the 
difference in chemical composition of PM-10 between the two areas. The 
commenter believes this is not a valid statement because there are no 
FRMs or FEMs in the East Kern area. Furthermore, the commenter states 
that the one IMPROVE monitor in the East Kern area is inadequate and 
the chemical composition of the SJVAB and East Kern should not be 
compared until there is an adequate monitoring system in East Kern. In 
addition, the commenter concludes that a reanalysis of reported data 
must be performed before considering attainment for the SJVAB.
    Response 20: We based our conclusion that the SJVAB and East Kern 
should be separate nonattainment areas on multiple factors, only one of 
which relates to the difference in the types of air pollutants in the 
two areas. See 73 FR 22307, 22310. While the commenter is correct that 
there is no FRM or FEM in the East Kern area, as stated above, the 
State and the District have committed to install an FRM/FEM in the East 
Kern area. Pending data from this new monitor, the IMPROVE monitor does 
provide useful information regarding the composition of PM-10 in the 
area. See id. and Attachments B and C to letter from James N. 
Goldstene, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, EPA, January 31, 2008. See also 
response to comment 19. The newly created East Kern area will retain 
its nonattainment designation until the State can demonstrate, 
following assessment of data from the new monitor, that all the 
applicable CAA requirements for redesignation of the East Kern area are 
met.
    EPA does not agree that a reanalysis of the reported data must be 
performed before considering whether the SJVAB area has attained the 
PM-10 standard. As noted above, EPA has found that the SJVAB area has 
an adequate monitoring system on which to base such a determination. 
See 69 FR 30006, 30033, 71 FR 63642, 63648 and ``Evaluation of the 
Adequacy of the Monitoring Network for the San Joaquin Valley, 
California for the Annual and 24-Hour PM-10 Standards,'' Bob Pallarino, 
EPA, September 22, 2003. To demonstrate attainment, an area must show 
that it meets the standard over a three-year period. The SJVAB area has 
demonstrated attainment over three separate 3-year periods--2003-2005, 
2004-2006, and 2005-2007, and it continues to attain the standard.

G. Miscellaneous Comments

    Comment 21: A commenter states that there are several gaps in 
evaluating the PM-10 data for the SJVAB from 1990 to 2004 and that 
given the cyclical nature of PM-10 the downward trend should be 
considered inconclusive until all yearly averages are taken into 
account as well as seasonally weighted averages.
    The commenter also states that in the proposed rule's discussion of 
meteorological conditions a lower stability level would more likely 
lead to less dispersion and higher PM-10 values. The commenter believes 
the lower stability means the PM-10 levels were overestimated and 
provides information as to the unequal distribution in the surrounding 
community and who is bearing the brunt of the higher exposures.
    Response 21: In our proposed rule we reference the expected PM-10 
exceedances from 1990-1992, 1998-2000 and 2002-2004 to show that there 
has been a significant decline in NAAQS exceedances over the past 17 
years, i.e., from 1990 through 2006. There are no data gaps; the 2007 
Plan includes data for each year. 2007 Plan at 23-24, Figure 2. EPA 
believes that a 17 year period is sufficient to establish a trend that 
accounts for any cyclical changes in PM-10 data. In addition, an 
evaluation of the seasonal conditions causing PM-10 is provided in the 
2003 PM-10 Plan. 2003 PM-10 Plan at ES-4 to ES-10 and Chapter 2.
    EPA examined meteorological data, including information about 
atmospheric stability, wind speeds, precipitation and temperature in 
order to determine if there were any unusually favorable meteorological 
conditions that would cause PM-10 exceedances. EPA determined that 
overall there was no consistent pattern of favorable meteorology. 73 FR 
22307, 22312; responses to comments 3 and 6 above.
    For the SJVAB area, it has been determined that on an annual 
average basis, unstable conditions (or low stability) result in 
dispersion of pollutants and lower PM-10 levels and stable conditions 
(or high stability) result in a temperature inversion which keeps 
emissions at the surface and leads to higher PM-10 levels. 2007 Plan at 
Appendix C. During the attainment period of 2003 through 2006, the 
SJVAB area experienced somewhat low stability which allowed for 
dispersion of pollutants and lower PM-10 levels; however, as discussed 
in response to comment 6 above, based on the analysis of all the 
meteorological parameters, EPA determined that there was no overall 
pattern which favored improved PM-10 levels.
    It is not completely clear to EPA what point the commenter is 
trying to make regarding stability. EPA acknowledges, however, that 
unstable conditions combined with other factors (e.g., emissions) in 
the SJV area can lead to

[[Page 66772]]

high PM-10 levels on a daily basis, as has been seen with exceedances 
that occur during high wind events. Such exceedances however have been 
excluded from regulatory consideration under EPA's Exceptional Events 
Rule. 73 FR 22307, 22310-22311 and 73 FR 14687.
    Comment 22: The SJVAPCD provided comments supporting EPA's proposed 
actions and also notes a minor typographical error for the proposed 
transportation conformity budgets found in Table 4 for Merced County 
for 2005. The SJVAPCD states that the budget should read 39.4 tons per 
day and not 39.2 tons per day.
    Response 22: EPA appreciates the comments and has made the 
correction in today's final action.

III. Final Actions

    For the reasons set forth in the proposed rule and in the responses 
to comments above, EPA is taking the final actions summarized below:
    Having concluded that the State has addressed all the necessary 
requirements for a revised boundary designation, EPA is approving the 
State's request under section 107(d)(3)(D) to revise the boundary 
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.
    Having concluded that the CAA requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) 
for redesignations and section 175A for maintenance plans have been met 
for the SJVAB area, EPA is approving the State's request to redesignate 
the newly created serious SJVAB nonattainment area to attainment for 
the PM-10 NAAQS and approving the 2007 maintenance plan for the area.
    EPA is also approving the conformity trading mechanism for the 
SJVAB area and the motor vehicle emissions subarea budgets for the 
attainment year, 2005, and the maintenance year, 2020, found in Table 3 
below. The 2005 attainment year budget replaces the current attainment 
budgets from the approved 2003 PM-10 Plan. These budgets are approved 
as of November 12, 2008 pursuant to section 93.118(f)(2)(iii).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2) applies when EPA reviews the adequacy 
of an implementation plan simultaneously with EPA's approval or 
disapproval of the implementation plan, as is the case here. 
Subsection (f)(2)(iii) provides that ``[i]f EPA makes an adequacy 
finding through a final rulemaking that approves the implementation 
plan submission, such a finding will become effective upon the 
publication date of EPA's approval in the Federal Register.''

                          Table 3--Motor Vehicle Emissions Subarea Budgets 2007 Plan *
                                                 [Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        2005                      2020
                           County                            ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                 PM-10         NOX         PM-10         NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno......................................................         13.5         59.2         16.1         23.2
Kern **.....................................................         12.1         88.3         14.7         39.5
Kings.......................................................          3.1         16.7          3.6          6.8
Madera......................................................          3.6         13.9          4.7          6.5
Merced ***..................................................          6.2         39.4          6.4         12.9
San Joaquin.................................................          9.1         42.6         10.6         17.0
Stanislaus..................................................          5.6         29.7          6.7         10.8
Tulare......................................................          7.3         25.1          9.4         10.9
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................................         60.5        314.9         72.2        127.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The budgets are based on attainment and maintenance of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS. The annual standard was
  revoked on December 18, 2006. See 71 FR 61144.
** MVEBs in Table 3 are only for the SJVAB portion of Kern County.
*** EPA's April 25 and May 23, 2008 proposed rules (73 FR 22307 and 73 FR 30029) incorrectly include 39.2 tons
  per day for the Merced 2005 NOX subarea budget. This was a typographical error. The number provided in the
  State's submittal of the 2007 Plan is 39.4 tons per day, which is reflected in Table 3 above.

    EPA is excluding from use in determining that the SJVAB area 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, and 
is determining that the SJVAB area continues to attain the PM-10 
standard.
    Finally, EPA is approving commitments from KCAPCD and CARB to 
install a FRM or FEM in the newly created East Kern serious PM-10 
nonattainment area and to address section 189(d) CAA requirements for 
the area in a SIP revision in the event the FRM or FEM records a 
violation of the PM-10 standard.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
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 approves a revised boundary designation, a redesignation to 
attainment for the SJVAB, a maintenance plan for the SJVAB area, motor 
vehicle emissions budgets and conformity trading mechanism for the area 
and commitments for the East Kern area, all of which were either 
requested or submitted by the State. Accordingly, the Administrator 
certifies that this 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 rule does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty, it does not contain any unfunded mandate 
or significantly or uniquely affect small 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

[[Page 66773]]

reservations located within the boundaries of the SJVAB. EPA has 
consulted with representatives of the 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 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 action merely approves requests or submittals 
from the State and does not alter the relationship or the distribution 
of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.
    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 approvals of a revised 
boundary designation, a redesignation to attainment for the SJVAB area, 
a maintenance plan for the SJVAB area, motor vehicle emissions budgets 
and conformity trading mechanism for the area and commitments for the 
East Kern area. It will not have disproportionately high and adverse 
effects on any communities in the area, including minority and low-
income communities.
    This 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 because it 
would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when determining the 
attainment status of an area, to use voluntary consensus standards in 
place of promulgated air quality standards and monitoring procedures 
that otherwise satisfy the provisions of the Clean Air. This 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.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 12, 2009. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 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: September 24, 2008.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Parts 52 and 81 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(356) and (357) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (356) The following plan was submitted on November 16, 2007, by the 
Governor's Designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation, 
adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District on 
September 20, 2007, section 6. Contingency Plan on pages 16 to 17.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation, 
adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District on 
September 20, 2007, except for Appendices A through F.
    (2) State of California, Air Resources Board, Staff Report, 
Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan, Release 
Date: October 12, 2007, Appendix B Emission Inventory.
    (3) Letter dated May 13, 2008, from James N. Goldstene, California 
Air Resources Board, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, providing revised motor 
vehicle emission budgets for the 2007 San Joaquin Valley PM10 
Maintenance Plan.
    (357) The following commitments were submitted on February 29, 
2008, by the Governor's Designee:
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Commitments for the installation and operation of a FRM or FEM 
PM-10 monitor and SIP development and submittal.
    (1 ) Resolution No. 2008-001-02, adopted by the Air Pollution 
Control Board, Kern County Air Pollution Control District on February 
27, 2008.
    (2 ) Executive Order S-08-004, adopted by the California Air 
Resources Board on March 3, 2008.
* * * * *

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:

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


0
4. In Sec.  81.305 the ``California--PM-10'' table is amended under 
Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare 
Counties by revising the entry for the ``San Joaquin Valley planning 
area'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.305  California.

[[Page 66774]]



                                                California--PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Designation                           Classification
          Designated Area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Date                  Type              Date            Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera,
 Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
 Tulare Counties:
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
East Kern; that portion of Kern     11/15/1990...........  Nonattainment.......   11/15/1990  Serious.
 County which lies between the
 following two lines (with the
 exception of that portion in
 Hydrologic Unit Number 18090205--
 the Indian Wells Valley):
    (1) West and north of a line
     described as follows:
     Beginning at the southwest
     corner of section 31, T. 10
     N. 16 W. and running east to
     the northwest boundary of the
     Rancho La Liebre Land Grant;
     then running north and east
     along the northwest boundary
     of the Rancho La Liebre Land
     Grant to the point of
     intersection with the range
     line common to R. 15 W. and
     R. 16 W., San Bernardino Base
     and Meridian; then north
     along the range line to the
     northwest corner of section
     2, T. 32 S., R. 32 E., Mount
     Diablo Base and Meridian;
     then east along the township
     line common to T. 32 S. and
     T. 31 S.; then north along
     the range line common to R.
     35 E. and R. 34 E.; then east
     along the township line
     common to T. 29 S. and T. 28
     S.; then north along the
     range line common to R. 36 E.
     and R. 35 E.; then east along
     the township line common to
     T. 28 S. and T. 27 S.; then
     north along the range line
     common to R. 37 E. and R. 36
     E. to the Kern-Tulare County
     boundary.
    (2) East and south of a line
     of a line described as
     follows: Beginning at the
     southwest corner of section
     31, T. 10 N. 16 W. and
     running north along the range
     line common to R. 16 W. and
     R. 17 W., San Bernardino Base
     and Meridian; north along the
     range line to the point of
     intersection with the Rancho
     El Tejon Land Grant boundary;
     then southeast, northeast,
     and northwest along the
     boundary of the Rancho El
     Tejon Land Grant to the
     northwest corner of S. 3, T.
     11 N., R. 17 W.; then west
     1.2 miles; then north to the
     Rancho El Tejon Land Grant
     boundary; then northwest
     along the Rancho El Tejon
     line to the southeast corner
     of S. 34, T. 32 S., R. 30 E.,
     Mount Diablo Base and
     Meridian; then north to the
     northwest corner of S. 35, T.
     31 S., R. 30 E.; then
     northeast along the boundary
     of the Rancho El Tejon Land
     Grant to the southwest corner
     of S. 18, T. 31 S., R. 31 E.;
     then east to the southeast
     corner of S. 13, T. 31 S., R.
     31 E.; then north along the
     range line common to R. 31 E.
     and R. 32 E., Mount Diablo
     Base and Meridian, to the
     northwest corner of S. 6, T.
     29 S., R. 32 E.; then east to
     the southwest corner of S.
     31, T. 28 S., R. 32 E.; then
     north along the range line
     common to R. 31 E. and R. 32
     E. to the northwest corner of
     S. 6, T. 28 S., R. 32 E.,
     then west to the southeast
     corner of S. 36, T. 27 S., R.
     31 E., then north along the
     range line common to R. 31 E.
     and R. 32 E. to the Kern-
     Tulare County boundary.

[[Page 66775]]

 
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin;       December 12, 2008....  Attainment..........
 Fresno County, Kings County,
 Madera County, Merced County, San
 Joaquin County, Stanislaus
 County, Tulare County, and that
 portion of Kern County which lies
 west and north of a line
 described as follows: Beginning
 at the Kern-Los Angeles County
 boundary and running north and
 east along the northwest boundary
 of the Rancho La Libre Land Grant
 to the point of intersection with
 the range line common to R. 16 W.
 and R. 17 W., San Bernardino Base
 and Meridian; north along the
 range line to the point of
 intersection with the Rancho El
 Tejon Land Grant boundary; then
 southeast, northeast, and
 northwest along the boundary of
 the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant to
 the northwest corner of S. 3, T.
 11 N., R. 17 W.; then west 1.2
 miles; then north to the Rancho
 El Tejon Land Grant boundary;
 then northwest along the Rancho
 El Tejon line to the southeast
 corner of S. 34, T. 32 S., R. 30
 E., Mount Diablo Base and
 Meridian; then north to the
 northwest corner of S. 35, T. 31
 S., R. 30 E.; then northeast
 along the boundary of the Rancho
 El Tejon Land Grant to the
 southwest corner of S. 18, T. 31
 S., R. 31 E.; then east to the
 southeast corner of S. 13, T. 31
 S., R. 31 E.; then north along
 the range line common to R. 31 E.
 and R. 32 E., Mount Diablo Base
 and Meridian, to the northwest
 corner of S. 6, T. 29 S., R. 32
 E.; then east to the southwest
 corner of S. 31, T. 28 S., R. 32
 E.; then north along the range
 line common to R. 31 E. and R. 32
 E. to the northwest corner of S.
 6, T. 28 S., R. 32 E., then west
 to the southeast corner of S. 36,
 T. 27 S., R. 31 E., then north
 along the range line common to R.
 31 E. and R. 32 E. to the Kern-
 Tulare County boundary.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-26500 Filed 11-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P