Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 69393 

1Letter and email from Adenike Adeyeye, 

Earthjustice, dated and received October 30, 2015. 

2Submitted Rule 4901, Paragraph 5.7.1 sets 

eligibility requirements for District registration of 

wood burning heaters that may be used during a 

Level One Episodic Wood Burning Curtailment. 

The heaters must be either exempt from EPA 

certification requirements or EPA-certified as 

specified under the New Source Performance 

Standard (NSPS) for New Residential Wood Heaters 

(40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA) in effect at the time 

of purchase or installation. 

3See Technical Support Document for the EPA’s 

Proposed Rulemaking for the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District Rule 4901, Wood 

Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters, 

August 2015, (‘‘Rule 4901 TSD’’) page 8. 4As noted in the Rule 4901 TSD, the SIPapproved version of Rule 4901 contains a 

contingency provision which would have come into 

effect if the EPA had found that the SJV had failed 

to attain the 1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) by the 

applicable deadline. That provision would have 

Continued 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0570; FRL–9951–67– 

Region 9] 

Approval of California Air Plan 

Revisions, San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve a revision to the San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). This revision concerns emissions 

of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and 

particulate matter (PM) from wood 

burning devices. We are approving a 

local rule that regulates these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act). 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

November 7, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2015– 

0570 for this action. Generally, 

documents in the docket for this action 

are available electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

While all documents in the docket are 

listed at http://www.regulations.gov, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, 

multi-volume reports), and some may 

not be available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(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: 

Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4118, kay.rynda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On September 30, 2015 in 80 FR 

58637, the EPA proposed to approve the 

following rule into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ............................. 4901 Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters .......... 09/18/14 11/06/14 

We proposed to approve this rule 

because we determined that it complied 

with the relevant CAA requirements. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the rule and our 

evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. During 

this period, which ended on October 30, 

2015, we received comments from 

Adenike Adeyeye, Earthjustice.1

Summaries of the comments are 

provided below, along with our 

responses to those comments. 

Comment #1: Earthjustice commented 

that, ‘‘[t]he previous iteration of Rule 

4901, amended in 2008, banned the use 

of [all] wood burning devices when the 

forecasted PM2.5 concentration exceeded 

30 [micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ 

m3)]’’, while the submitted rule allows 

use of registered devices 2 until 

forecasted PM2.5 concentrations reach 

65 mg/m3. Earthjustice argued that this 

revision, which allows registered 

devices to burn and emit PM equal to 

or less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

(PM2.5) while the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Basin is violating the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard, constitutes a relaxation 

of restrictions on burning for registered 

wood burning devices that violates CAA 

section 110(l). Earthjustice noted that 

SJVUAPCD justified this relaxation by 

predicting drastic emission reductions 

from replacement of existing wood 

burning devices, but asserted that 

SJVUAPCD’s claim that the relaxation is 

irrelevant because the associated 

emissions are low is incorrect. 

Response #1: We disagree with the 

commenter’s claim that the rule 

revisions are a relaxation that violates 

CAA section 110(l). As an initial matter, 

section 110(l) does not prohibit all 

relaxations of individual SIP-approved 

rule provisions. Rather, section 110(l) 

prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP 

revision that ‘‘would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress (as defined in [CAA section 

171]), or any other applicable 

requirement of [the CAA].’’ The EPA’s 

conclusion that Rule 4901 will not 

interfere with attainment is not based on 

low emissions associated with the 

revision of the SIP to allow registered 

devices to be used when forecasted 

concentrations are between 30 and 65 

mg/m3, as the commenter asserts. The 

commenter focuses only on this 

provision of Rule 4901 and ignores the 

associated requirement that unregistered 

devices can no longer be used when 

forecasted concentrations are above 20 

mg/m3. Contrary to the commenter’s 

suggestion, the EPA is not required 

under section 110(l) to evaluate each 

individual revision to Rule 4901 

separately from all other revisions to 

Rule 4901. Accordingly, the EPA’s 

analysis of Rule 4901 considers both 

provisions in conjunction. 

As discussed in the EPA’s Technical 

Support Document supporting our 

proposed approval of Rule 4901 (‘‘Rule 

4901 TSD’’),3 SJVUAPCD estimates that 

reducing the PM2.5 forecast level at 

which unregistered devices are banned 

from 30 to 20 mg/m3 decreases average 

wood burning season emissions by 3.33 

tons per day (tpd) PM2.5, while allowing 

registered devices to burn when 

forecasted concentrations are between 

30–65 mg/m3 increases emissions by 

0.065 tpd PM2.5. Combining these 

changes yields an overall estimated 

emission reduction of 3.27 tpd PM2.5

when compared to the SIP-approved 

rule.4 Therefore, projected increases in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
69394 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

reduced the mandatory curtailment PM2.5 forecast 

threshold from 30 to 20 mg/m3 for all wood burning 

devices. However, we have not made a finding that 

the SJV failed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by 

the applicable deadline, so the contingency 

provision has not been triggered. Moreover, we 

have withdrawn our approval of and disapproved 

the State’s 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal, 

which relied, among other things on the 

contingency provision in Rule 4901. 81 FR 29498 

(May 12, 2016). Accordingly, we believe the 

appropriate point of comparison for purposes of 

110(l) is the SIP-approved rule without the 

contingency measure (i.e., a mandatory curtailment 

PM2.5 forecast threshold of 30 mg/m3 for all wood 

burning devices). 

5For example, on page 45 of Final Staff Report 

for Amendments to the District’s Residential Wood 

Burning Program, SJVUAPCD, dated September 18, 

2014, SJVUAPCD explains that 29% of survey 

respondents indicated that they would replace their 

current wood burning fireplace or wood burning 

heater with a cleaner device if allowed to burn more 

often. 

6See Rule 4901 TSD, page 11. 

7SCAQMD, Rule 445: Wood Burning Devices, 

Section f(2) (amended 5/3/13). 

8See Rule 4901 Staff Report, p. 30. 

9BAAQMD, Regulation 6: Particulate Matter and 

Visible Emissions, Rule 3: Wood Burning Devices, 

Section 6-3-306 (amended 10/21/15). 

emissions from registered devices are 

more than offset by the emission 

reductions achieved by the enhanced 

curtailment criteria for unregistered 

stoves. Contrary to the commenter’s 

assertion, this evaluation does not rely 

on expected additional change-outs to 

cleaner burning devices, which would 

lead to additional emission reductions 

beyond 3.27 tpd PM2.5. Thus, the 

revisions to Rule 4901 are expected to 

result in significant emission reductions 

overall compared to the current SIPapproved version of the rule, which will 

help to expedite attainment of the PM2.5

NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV). 

Accordingly, we find that the revisions 

to Rule 4901 are consistent with the 

development of an overall plan for 

attaining the NAAQS in the SJV. 

With regard to other applicable 

requirements of the CAA, for the 

reasons explained in our proposal, TSD 

and in response to comments below, we 

also find that Rule 4901 implements 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) and best available control 

measures (BACM) for PM2.5 emissions 

from wood burning devices in the SJV. 

Therefore, we conclude that the 

revisions to Rule 4901 will not interfere 

with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

Comment #2: Earthjustice commented 

that the Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District (BAAQMD), South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD), and Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District (SMAQMD) include more 

stringent curtailment requirements as 

they apply to registered devices. In 

particular, Earthjustice noted that 

SCAQMD and BAAQMD ban the use of 

all wood burning devices when the 

forecasted PM2.5 concentration exceeds 

30 mg/m3 and 35 mg/m3, respectively. 

SMAQMD limits burning using a tiered 

system, banning the use of registered 

devices when the forecasted PM2.5

concentration exceeds 35 mg/m3. As a 

result, Earthjustice argued that ‘‘[t]he 

changes to rule 4901 do not meet the 

requirements for reasonably available 

control measures (RACM) or BACM for 

registered wood burning devices.’’ 

Response #2: The commenter appears 

to assume that we must evaluate RACM 

and BACM for registered (clean burning) 

devices separately from RACM and 

BACM for unregistered devices. We do 

not agree with this premise. Nothing in 

the CAA or EPA’s implementing 

regulations requires us to consider the 

stringency of requirements for registered 

devices separately from the stringency 

of requirements for unregistered 

devices. Furthermore, the purpose of the 

two-tiered curtailment system is to 

encourage replacement of unregistered 

devices with registered devices, so it is 

reasonable to consider the requirements 

applicable to registered and 

unregistered devices together.5 As 

explained above, SJVUAPCD estimates 

that the emissions from registered clean 

burning devices when concentrations 

are above 30 mg/m3 will be 

overwhelmingly compensated for by 

decreased emissions from unregistered 

devices when concentrations are 

between 20–30 mg/m3, making the Rule 

4901 curtailment program at least as 

stringent as or more stringent than these 

and other analogous curtailment 

programs.6 The commenter has not 

provided information that contradicts 

the District’s assessment in this regard. 

Comment #3: Earthjustice asserted 

that the controls on the installation of 

wood burning devices in new 

developments are less stringent than 

those used by SCAQMD and BAAQMD. 

In particular, the commenter noted that 

SCAQMD Rule 445 prohibits the 

installation of any wood burning device 

in new development, except where 

there is no existing infrastructure for 

natural gas within 150 feet of the 

property line or those 3,000 feet above 

sea level.7 In addition, the commenter 

stated that ‘‘BAAQMD recently became 

the first air district in the nation to ban 

the installation of wood burning devices 

in any new development.’’ 

Response #3: Rule 4901, Paragraph 

5.3 limits the number of wood burning 

devices that can be installed in new 

residential developments. In residential 

developments with a density greater 

than two dwellings per acre, no wood 

burning fireplaces are allowed and a 

maximum of two certified wood burning 

heaters per acre are allowed. In 

developments with a density less than 

or equal to two dwellings per acre, one 

wood burning fireplace or certified 

wood burning heater is allowed per 

dwelling. As discussed in Rule 4901 

TSD at page 12, ‘‘SJVUAPCD states that 

Rule 4901 is more stringent than 

SCAQMD Rule 445 as it does not 

exempt any homes at any elevation.8

Given the lack of any exemptions in 

Rule 4901, it is reasonable to conclude 

that Rule 4901 is at least as stringent as 

SCAQMD Rule 445.’’ The commenters 

have not provided new information to 

contradict this conclusion. 

The ban on wood burning devices in 

new construction in BAAQMD 

Regulation 6–3 was enacted on October 

21, 2015, more than a year after 

SJVUAPCD had amended Rule 4901 on 

September 18, 2014, and does not 

become effective until November 1, 

2016.9 Given that no other State or 

district had enacted a complete ban at 

the time that SJVUAPCD was revising 

Rule 4901 and conducting its BACM 

analysis and no such ban has yet 

become effective in any State or district, 

we do not believe it is reasonable to 

disapprove Rule 4901 for failing to 

include such a ban. However, we 

recommend that SJVUAPCD evaluate 

the feasibility of such a ban in the SJV 

and revise Rule 4901 to include such a 

ban, if it is found to be feasible. 

Comment #4: Earthjustice commented 

that Rule 4901’s incentive of fewer noburn days for registered devices is 

inappropriate and unnecessarily adds 

air pollution. Earthjustice argued that 

SJVUAPCD’s well-funded financial 

incentives program is sufficient to 

motivate a switch to registered wood 

burning devices and allowing these 

devices to burn additional days is an 

unnecessary additional incentive. 

Further, Earthjustice suggested, if the 

District offers an additional ‘‘incentive 

of fewer no burn days, the limit for 

registered devices should be 30 mg/m3, 

not 65 mg/m3.’’ 

Response #4: The survey conducted 

for SJVUAPCD found that 24 percent 

(%) of residents with non-EPA certified 

wood burning heaters and wood 

burning fireplaces would transition to 

cleaner burning devices if provided a 

discount of up to 50% toward the cost 

of a new wood burning device and 29% 

of residents stated they would transition 

to cleaner devices if allowed to burn 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 69395 

10See Staff Report, Appendix B, p. B–13. 

11See Rule 4901 TSD, Attachment 1. Major 

Components of Various Residential Wood Burning 

Rules.xlsx. 

more often.10 It seems reasonable to 

conclude that using both strategies in 

combination should encourage at least 

some additional change-outs over just 

providing incentive funding. In 

reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet minimum 

criteria set by the CAA and any 

applicable EPA regulations and are 

reasonable. We conclude that allowing 

clean burning devices to burn when the 

PM2.5 concentration is forecasted to be 

between 20–65 mg/m3 is reasonable and, 

as described in Response #1 and #2 

above, complies with relevant CAA 

requirements. 

Comment #5: Earthjustice argued that 

the District should be required to 

incorporate the EPA’s recommendations 

into Rule 4901. In particular, 

Earthjustice asserted that the District 

should: (1) Not subsidize the transition 

to wood burning heaters, which are 

generally used more frequently than gas 

fireplaces; (2) require retrofit of existing 

wood burning fireplaces during major 

renovations; and (3) require homes 

where wood burning devices are the 

sole source of heat to meet current EPA 

certification requirements. Earthjustice 

noted that requirements similar to (2) 

and (3) were recently added to the 

BAAQMD rule. 

Response #5: While we agree that 

SJVUAPCD should consider eliminating 

subsidies for transition from fireplaces 

to wood burning heaters, details 

regarding the implementation of 

SJVUAPCD’s monetary incentive 

program have not been submitted into 

the SIP and are outside of the scope of 

this rulemaking. Regarding retrofits of 

wood burning fireplaces during major 

renovations, at the time of Rule 4901 

adoption and proposal, Laguna Beach, 

California was the only area we were 

aware of that required fireplace retrofits 

upon major home renovation. While we 

recommended SJVUAPCD examine the 

feasibility of including this provision, 

its existence in one small southern 

California city is not a sufficient basis 

for determining that it is feasible in the 

much larger and more diverse SJV. As 

noted by the commenter, on October 21, 

2015, BAAQMD adopted a requirement 

that a gas-fueled, electric, or EPAcertified device be installed upon 

remodel of a fireplace or chimney where 

total costs exceed $15,000 and a local 

building permit is required. Given that 

no other State or district had adopted a 

similar provision at the time that Rule 

4901 was revised, we do not believe it 

is reasonable to disapprove Rule 4901 

for failing to include such a provision. 

However, we continue to recommend 

that SJVUAPCD consider the feasibility 

of implementing such a provision in the 

SJV, particularly in light of the newlyenacted BAAQMD provision. Similarly, 

we do not believe it is reasonable to 

disapprove Rule 4901 for failing to 

require sole-source households to meet 

EPA certification requirements, as no 

other State or district had adopted a 

similar provision at the time that Rule 

4901 was amended. 

In the Rule 4901 TSD, Attachment 

1,11 we compared Rule 4901 to 

analogous district rules, and found 

SJVUAPCD implements a collection of 

measures as stringent as or more 

stringent than these rules. We agree that 

SJVUAPCD should consider our 

recommendations for future rule 

revisions, but they do not affect our 

conclusion that Rule 4901, as amended, 

strengthens the SIP, decreases PM2.5

emissions, and currently implements 

BACM/Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) for wood burning 

devices. Additionally, the rule fulfills 

the relevant CAA section 110 and Title 

I Part D requirements. Therefore, we 

conclude that our recommendations for 

rule revisions do not provide a basis for 

rule disapproval. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the rule as 

described in our proposed action. 

Therefore, as authorized in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully 

approving this rule into the California 

SIP. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the 

SJVUAPCD rule described in the 

amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth 

below. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX (AIR–4), 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, 

94105–3901. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• 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); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
69396 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1 81 FR 6936 (February 9, 2016). 

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. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

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 December 5, 

2016. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action 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 in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 15, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(364)(i)(A)(4) and 

(c)(457)(i)(H) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan—in part. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(364) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(4) Previously approved on October 

11, 2009 in paragraph (c)(364)(i)(A)(2) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in paragraph 

(c)(457)(i)(H)(1), Rule 4901, ‘‘Wood 

Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning 

Heaters,’’ amended on October 16, 2008. 

* * * * * 

(457) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(H) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) Rule 4901, ‘‘Wood Burning 

Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters,’’ 

amended on September 18, 2014. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–24081 Filed 10–5–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0432; FRL–9953–66– 

Region 9] 

Denial of Request for Extension of 

Attainment Date for 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS; California; San Joaquin Valley 

Serious Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is denying a request 

submitted by California for extension of 

the attainment date for the 1997 24-hour 

and annual fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) national ambient air quality 

standards in the San Joaquin Valley 

Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 7, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2015– 

0432 for this action. Generally, 

documents in the docket for this action 

are available electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

While all documents in the docket are 

listed at http://www.regulations.gov, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, 

multi-volume reports), and some may 

not be available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(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: Rory 

Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA 

Region 9, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Final Action on Section 188(e) Extension 

Request 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On February 9, 2016, the EPA 

proposed to approve, conditionally 

approve, and disapprove state 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by California (the ‘‘State’’ or 

California Air Resources Board (CARB)) 

to address Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) 

requirements for the 1997 24-hour and 

annual PM2.5 national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) in the San 

Joaquin Valley (SJV) Serious PM2.5

nonattainment area.1 The SIP revisions 

on which we proposed action are the 

‘‘2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5

Standard,’’ which the State submitted 

on June 25, 2015, and the ‘‘2018 

Transportation Conformity Budgets for 

the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 SIP, Plan 

Supplement,’’ submitted on August 13, 

2015. We refer to these SIP submissions 

collectively as the ‘‘2015 PM2.5 Plan’’ or 

‘‘the Plan.’’ The 2015 PM2.5 Plan is a 

PM2.5 Serious area attainment plan for 

the SJV and includes a request to extend 

the applicable attainment date for the 

24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards by 

three and five years, respectively, on the 

basis that attainment by December 31, 

2015 is impracticable, in accordance 

with CAA section 188(e). 

The EPA proposed to approve the 

following elements of the Plan as 

satisfying applicable CAA requirements: 

(1) The 2012 base year emissions 

inventories; (2) the best available 

control measures (BACM)/best available 

control technology demonstration; (3) 

the attainment demonstration; (4) the 

reasonable further progress 

demonstration; (5) the State’s 

application for an extension of the 

Serious area attainment date to 

December 31, 2018 for the 1997 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS and to December 31, 2020 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; (6) 

the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (the ‘‘District’’ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES