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
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 69397 

2 Id. at 6940. 3 Id. at 6941. 

4As we explained in our proposed rule, the EPA 

does not agree at this time with the State’s and 

District’s conclusion in the Plan that ammonia 

emissions do not contribute significantly to PM2.5

levels exceeding the PM2.5 standards in the SJV. 81 

FR 6936, 6948 (February 9, 2016). Accordingly, 

consistent with the regulatory presumption under 

subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act, ammonia 

emission sources are subject to control evaluation 

for purposes of implementing the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV. 

5 81 FR 6936, 6978 (February 9, 2016); see also 

2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C–239. 

6 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–239 to C– 

240. 

7 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–239 to C– 

275 and SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Final Draft Staff Report, 

Proposed Re-Adoption of Rule 4570 (Confined 

Animal Facilities),’’ June 18, 2009, at Appendix F, 

‘‘Ammonia Reductions Analysis for Proposed Rule 

4570 (Confined Animal Facilities),’’ June 15, 2006 

(discussing various assumptions underlying the 

District’s calculation of ammonia emission factors 

without identifying relevant emissions inventories). 

We note that CARB has provided the EPA with 

significantly lower estimates of ammonia emission 

reductions achieved by SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 based 

on more recent calculations of reductions from a 

2012 baseline emissions inventory. Email dated 

September 3, 2015, from Gabe Ruiz (CARB) to Larry 

Biland and Andrew Steckel (EPA), regarding ‘‘SJV 

Livestock Ammonia Emissions with and without 

Rule 4570.’’ 

or SJVUAPCD) commitment to amend 

and implement revisions to SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4692 (‘‘Commercial Charbroiling’’) 

for under-fired charbroilers on a specific 

schedule; and (7) the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for 2014, 2017, 2018, 

and 2020. Additionally, the EPA 

proposed to approve the Plan’s interpollutant trading mechanism for use in 

transportation conformity analyses, with 

the condition that trades are limited to 

substituting excess reductions in 

emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) for 

direct PM2.5 emission reductions. 

The EPA proposed to conditionally 

approve the Plan’s quantitative 

milestones based on a commitment by 

the State to adopt specific enforceable 

measures by a date certain but not later 

than one year after the date of the Plan 

approval, consistent with CAA section 

110(k)(4). Finally, the EPA proposed to 

disapprove the Plan’s contingency 

measures for failure to satisfy the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9). 

Section 188(e) of the CAA provides 

the Administrator with discretionary 

authority to grant a state’s request for an 

extension of a Serious area attainment 

date where certain conditions are met. 

Before the EPA may extend the 

attainment date for a Serious area under 

section 188(e), the State must: (1) Apply 

for an extension of the attainment date 

beyond the statutory attainment date; (2) 

demonstrate that attainment by the 

statutory attainment date is 

impracticable; (3) have complied with 

all requirements and commitments 

pertaining to the area in the 

implementation plan; (4) demonstrate to 

the satisfaction of the Administrator that 

the plan for the area includes the ‘‘most 

stringent measures’’ that are included in 

the implementation plan of any state or 

are achieved in practice in any state, 

and can feasibly be implemented in the 

area; and (5) submit a demonstration of 

attainment by the most expeditious 

alternative date practicable.2 The EPA’s 

determination of whether such a plan 

provides for attainment by the most 

expeditious date practicable depends on 

whether the plan provides for 

implementation of BACM no later than 

the statutory implementation deadline, 

the most stringent measures (MSM) as 

expeditiously as practicable, and any 

other technologically and economically 

feasible measures that will result in 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

Given the strategy in the 

nonattainment provisions of the Act to 

offset longer attainment time frames 

with more stringent control 

requirements, the EPA interprets the 

MSM provision to assure that additional 

controls that can feasibly be 

implemented in the area beyond the set 

of measures adopted as BACM are 

implemented. Two ways to do this are 

(1) to require that more sources and 

source categories be subject to MSM 

analysis than to BACM analysis and 

controlled as necessary—i.e., by 

expanding the applicability provisions 

in the MSM control requirements to 

cover more sources, and (2) to require 

reanalysis of any measures adopted in 

other areas that were rejected during the 

BACM analysis because they could not 

be implemented by the BACM 

implementation deadline to see if they 

are now feasible for the area given the 

longer attainment timeframe.3

The EPA provided a 30-day period for 

public comment on the proposed rule 

and received comment letters from Mr. 

Paul Cort, on behalf of Earthjustice, and 

from Mr. Shawn Dolan. The comments 

from Earthjustice primarily argued that 

the control measure analysis in the Plan 

for several sources categories, including 

ammonia emission sources, glass 

melting furnaces, and internal 

combustion engines used in agricultural 

operations, fail to satisfy CAA 

requirements. The comments from Mr. 

Shawn Dolan argued that EPA Method 

9 should be phased out in favor of other 

methods for evaluating visible 

emissions such as the Digital Camera 

Opacity Technique (DCOT). 

II. Final Action on Section 188(e) 

Extension Request 

Based on our reevaluation of the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan and related control measures 

and consideration of the comments we 

received, the EPA is denying CARB’s 

request for extension of the December 

31, 2015 Serious area attainment date 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

As explained in our proposed rule, one 

of the minimum criteria for extension of 

an attainment date under CAA section 

188(e) is that the state demonstrate to 

the satisfaction of the Administrator that 

the plan for the area includes the most 

stringent measures that are included in 

the implementation plan of any state or 

are achieved in practice in any state, 

and can feasibly be implemented in the 

area. For a number of source categories, 

CARB and the SJVUAPCD have 

demonstrated that the SIP includes the 

most stringent measures required or 

achieved in practice in other areas. For 

the following reasons, however, we find 

that CARB and the SJVUAPCD have not 

demonstrated to the EPA’s satisfaction 

that the plan for the SJV area includes 

all MSM that can feasibly be 

implemented in the area. 

First, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not 

adequately demonstrate that it includes 

MSM for sources of ammonia emissions 

in the SJV.4 As explained in our 

proposed rule, three source categories 

collectively emitted 95% of all ammonia 

emissions in the 2012 annual average 

base year inventory for the SJV area: 

Confined animal facilities (CAFs), 

composting operations, and fertilizer 

application.5 The 2015 PM2.5 Plan states 

that three SIP-approved rules designed 

to limit volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions also control ammonia 

emissions from two of these source 

categories (i.e., CAFs and composting 

operations) but does not substantiate 

these conclusions. For example, 

according to the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, many 

of the VOC control measures in 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (‘‘Confined 

Animal Facilities’’), as amended 

October 21, 2010, have an ammonia ‘‘cobenefit,’’ and these measures have 

reduced ammonia emissions in the SJV 

by over 100 tons per day (tpd).6 The 

2015 PM2.5 Plan does not, however, 

specifically identify any enforceable 

requirement in SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 

that reduces ammonia emissions from 

CAF operations, nor does it substantiate 

its calculation of ammonia emission 

reductions attributed to SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4570 other than by reference to an 

outdated analysis from 2006.7 Moreover, 

a number of provisions in SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4570 allow CAF owners/operators 

to implement ‘‘alternative mitigation 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
69398 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

8 ‘‘Alternative Mitigation Measure’’ is defined in 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 as ‘‘a mitigation measure that 

is determined by the APCO, ARB, and EPA to 

achieve reductions that are equal to or exceed the 

reductions that would be achieved by other 

mitigation measures listed in this rule that owners/ 

operators could choose to comply with rule 

requirements.’’ SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended 

October 21, 2010), section 3.4. Because SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4570 explicitly applies only to VOC emissions, 

the requirement for equivalent ‘‘reductions’’ in 

section 3.4 applies only to VOC emission 

reductions and does not apply to ammonia 

emission reductions. 

9See, e.g., SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended 

October 21, 2010) at section 5.6, Table 4.1.F. 

10 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, pp. B–17 and B– 

19. 

11 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–271 to C– 

278. 

12SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 (adopted January 10, 

2003), section (d) and SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 

(adopted July 8, 2011), section (d). 

13 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–268 to C– 

271. 

14The SJVUAPCD’s Moderate area plan for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, adopted in 2012, relies upon 

the same SIP-approved VOC control measures to 

satisfy RACM requirements for these NAAQS. See 

EPA, Final Rule, ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; 

San Joaquin Valley; Moderate Area Plan for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ August 16, 2016 (prepublication notice). 

15SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 (amended November 14, 

2013), sections 2.0 and 5.2. 

16 Id. at section 5.2.3 and Table 3. 

17 Id. at section 5.2.4 and Table 4 and section 3.37 

(defining Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 engines). 

18SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 (amended February 1, 

2008), section (d)(1) (referencing Tables I and II). 

Rule 1110.2 provides an exemption from the 11 

ppmv emission limit for agricultural engines that 

meet EPA Tier 4 emission standards and either of 

two additional conditions: (1) The engine operator 

submits documentation to the SCAQMD, by the 

deadline for a permit application, that the 

applicable electric utility has rejected an 

application for an electrical line extension to the 

location of the engines, or (2) the SCAQMD 

determines that the operator does not qualify for 

funding under California Health and Safety Code 

Section 44229 to replace, retrofit or repower the 

engine. SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 at section (h)(9). 

19Email dated May 3, 2016, from Kevin Orellana 

(SCAQMD) to Nicole Law (EPA), regarding 

‘‘Question on Engines under Rule 1110.2.’’ 

20FRAQMD Rule 3.22 (amended October 6, 

2014), section D.1, Table 2 (South FRAQMD 

Emission Limits) and section B.1.e (Exemptions). 

As of June 2016, staff at the FRAQMD were 

unaware of any stationary SI engines currently 

operating at agricultural facilities in the Feather 

River area that have demonstrated compliance with 

the 25 ppm or 65 ppm NOX emission limits in 

FRAQMD Rule 3.22. See email dated June 2, 2016, 

from Alamjit Mangat (FRAQMD) to Nicole Law 

(EPA), regarding ‘‘Engines in FRAQMD’’ (stating 

that all 423 agricultural engines currently operating 

in the Feather River area qualify for an exemption 

from the NOX emission limits in FRAQMD Rule 

3.22). Nonetheless, because these NOX emission 

limits are approved into the California SIP as part 

of an earlier version of FRAQMD Rule 3.22 (see 77 

FR 12493, March 1, 2012), they are required as 

MSM if they can feasibly be implemented in the 

SJV. 

measures’’ 8 in lieu of the mitigation 

measures listed in the rule, without any 

requirement to ensure that such 

alternative mitigation measures achieve 

any particular level of ammonia 

emission reductions.9 We find these 

analyses in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

insufficient to demonstrate that the plan 

includes MSM for ammonia emissions 

from CAFs in the SJV. Because 

emissions from CAFs account for more 

than half of all ammonia emissions in 

the SJV,10 a more robust analysis of 

potential ammonia emission reduction 

measures for this source category is 

necessary to satisfy the MSM 

requirement. 

Similarly, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan states 

that SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 (‘‘Biosolids, 

Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter 

Operations’’), as adopted March 15, 

2007, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4566 

(‘‘Organic Material Composting 

Operations’’), as adopted August 18, 

2011, limit ammonia emissions from 

composting operations but does not 

specifically identify any enforceable 

requirement in either of these rules that 

reduces ammonia emissions, nor does it 

identify a basis for the District’s 

statement that ‘‘the [ammonia] control 

efficiencies are assumed to be the same 

as the VOC control efficiencies . . . 

since the same control measures will 

reduce both VOC and [ammonia] from 

these operations.’’ 11 By contrast, South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) Rule 1133.2 (‘‘Emission 

Reductions from Co-Composting 

Operations’’), as adopted January 10, 

2003, and SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 

(‘‘Emission Reductions from Greenwaste 

Composting Operations’’), as adopted 

July 8, 2011, both contain specific 

requirements to reduce ammonia 

emissions and, in some cases, to achieve 

an overall ammonia emission reduction 

of at least 80% by weight from specified 

baseline levels.12

With respect to fertilizer application, 

the 2015 PM2.5 Plan discusses ongoing 

research on improved methods of 

fertilizer application to maximize 

nitrogen use efficiency and minimize air 

and water quality impacts and states 

that ‘‘the weight of evidence suggests 

that managing nutrient applications to 

fields . . . has significantly reduced 

losses of nitrogen compounds to the 

environment, including leaching of 

nitrogen compounds to groundwater 

and air emissions such as ammonia and 

nitrous oxide.’’ 13 The 2015 PM2.5 Plan 

does not, however, provide any specific 

analysis of potential control measures to 

reduce ammonia emissions from 

fertilizer application or identify any 

enforceable SIP requirement that 

reduces ammonia emissions from this 

source category. 

In sum, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan fails to 

identify any specific, enforceable 

requirement to reduce ammonia 

emissions in the SIP for the area and 

does not demonstrate that the State or 

District adequately considered potential 

control measures to expand or 

strengthen the reasonably available 

control measure (RACM) strategy for 

ammonia emission sources.14 We 

therefore find the District’s analyses in 

the 2015 PM2.5 Plan insufficient to 

demonstrate that the plan includes 

MSM for ammonia emission sources in 

the SJV. 

Second, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not 

adequately demonstrate that it includes 

MSM for NOX emissions from internal 

combustion engines used in agricultural 

operations in the SJV. SJVUAPCD Rule 

4702, as amended November 14, 2013, 

regulates NOX emissions from two types 

of agricultural internal combustion (IC) 

engines rated at 25 brake horsepower 

(bhp) or greater: Spark-ignited (SI) 

engines and compression-ignited (CI) 

engines.15 For SI engines used in 

agricultural operations, the rule 

establishes NOX emission limits of 90 

parts per million by volume (ppmv) for 

rich-burn engines and 150 ppmv for 

lean-burn engines.16 For CI engines used 

in agricultural operations, Rule 4702 

requires compliance by specified dates 

with EPA Tier 3 or Tier 4 NOX emission 

standards for non-road CI engines in 40 

CFR part 89 or part 1039, as applicable, 

or an 80 ppmv NOX emission limit, 

depending on engine type.17

SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, by contrast, 

establishes an 11 ppmv NOX emission 

limit for all stationary SI and CI engines 

rated over 50 bhp, effective July 1, 2011, 

with limited exceptions for agricultural 

engines that meet certain conditions.18

According to the SCAQMD, three 

natural gas-fired SI engines used in 

agricultural operations are currently 

subject to the 11 ppmv NOX emission 

limit in Rule 1110.2 and use 

nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR, 

also called ‘‘three-way catalysts’’) 

control technology to comply with this 

emission limit.19 The Feather River Air 

Quality Management District 

(FRAQMD) Rule 3.22, as amended 

October 6, 2014, establishes NOX

emission limits of 25 parts per million 

(ppm) and 65 ppm for rich-burn and 

lean-burn agricultural engines in 

southern FRAQMD, respectively, except 

for agricultural engines that emit less 

than 50% of the major source thresholds 

for regulated air pollutants and/or 

hazardous air pollutants.20 The NOX

emission limits for agricultural engines 

in SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 and FRAQMD 

Rule 3.22 are significantly more 

stringent than the 90 ppmv and 150 

ppmv limits applicable to agricultural 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 69399 

21SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 (amended November 14, 

2013), section 5.2.1. Table 1 and section 5.2.2. Table 

2. 

22 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–132 to C– 

139. 

23Email dated April 27, 2016, from Sheraz Gill 

(SJVUAPCD) to Andrew Steckel (EPA), regarding 

‘‘Additional SJV info.’’ 

24Email dated June 25, 2015, from Sheraz Gill 

(SJVUAPCD) to Andrew Steckel (EPA), regarding 

‘‘Requested Information.’’ 

25Email dated May 3, 2016, from Kevin Orellana 

(SCAQMD) to Nicole Law (EPA), regarding 

‘‘Question on Engines under Rule 1110.2.’’ 

26SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 (amended May 19, 

2011), section 5.1. 

27BARCT is defined as ‘‘an emission limitation 

that is based on the maximum degree of reduction 

achievable taking into account environmental, 

energy, and economic impacts by each class or 

category of source.’’ California Health & Safety Code 

Section 40406. 

28The RECLAIM program requires that container 

glass melting facilities achieve NOX reductions 

consistent with the 2015 BARCT determination 

(0.24 lbs NOX/ton of glass pulled) by 2022. 

SCAQMD Rule 2002 (as amended December 4, 

2015), subparagraph (f)(1)(L) and Table 6 

(‘‘RECLAIM NOX 2022 Ending Emission Factors’’); 

see also SCAQMD, Draft Final Staff Report, 

‘‘Proposed Amendments to Regulation XX, Regional 

Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM), NOX

RECLAIM,’’ December 4, 2015, at pp. 170–171. 

29Email dated May 13, 2016, from Kevin Orellana 

(SCAQMD) to Idalia Perez (EPA) regarding 

‘‘question regarding SCAQMD boilers and container 

glass facility;’’ see also email dated April 28, 2016, 

from Kevin Orellana (SCAQMD) to Idalia Perez 

(EPA) regarding ‘‘question regarding SCAQMD 

boilers and container glass facility.’’ 

30Email dated April 13, 2016, from Kevin 

Orellana (SCAQMD) to Idalia Perez (EPA) regarding 

‘‘question regarding SCAQMD boilers and container 

glass facility.’’ 

31Email dated April 27, 2016, from Sheraz Gill 

(SJVUAPCD) to Andrew Steckel (EPA) regarding 

‘‘Additional SJV info.’’ 

32 Id. 

engines in SJVUAPCD Rule 4702. 

Moreover, SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 itself 

establishes NOX emission limits for IC 

engines used in other (non-agricultural) 

operations that range from 11 to 50 

ppmv for rich-burn engines and 11 to 75 

ppmv for lean-burn engines, depending 

on type of fuel and use.21

In Appendix C of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, 

the SJVUAPCD estimated the following 

costs of replacing agricultural SI 

engines: $76,209 per ton to replace a 

lean-burn engine to meet an 11 ppmv 

NOX limit; $42,146 per ton to replace a 

lean-burn engine to meet a 65 ppmv 

NOX limit; $59,754 per ton to replace a 

rich-burn engine to meet an 11 ppmv 

NOX limit; and $69,521 per ton to 

replace a rich-burn engine to meet a 25 

ppmv NOX limit.22 The District 

subsequently submitted additional 

information indicating that the cost of 

replacing a lean-burn engine to meet 65 

ppmv or 25 ppmv NOX limits would be 

the same as the replacement cost to 

meet an 11 ppmv NOX limit ($76,209 

per ton), as selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR) would be necessary for a leanburn engine to meet any of these limits, 

and indicating that the cost of replacing 

a rich-burn engine to meet a 65 ppmv 

NOX limit would also be the same as the 

replacement cost to meet 25 ppmv or 11 

ppmv NOX limits ($59,754 or $69,521 

per ton), as three-way catalysts (NSCR) 

would be necessary for a rich-burn 

engine to meet any of these limits.23 The 

SJVUAPCD did not, however, identify 

the bases for any of these cost estimates 

or submit related technical 

documentation. At the EPA’s request, 

the SJVUAPCD provided additional 

information about the technological and 

economic feasibility of IC engine 

retrofits to meet lower NOX limits but 

similarly did not identify the bases for 

its cost estimates or provide any related 

technical documentation.24 Moreover, 

according to the SCAQMD, the costeffectiveness of replacing an agricultural 

SI engine ranges from $5,650 to $29,000 

per ton of NOX reduced and, for most 

engine categories, is below $20,000 per 

ton.25

Given the absence of a technical basis 

for the SJVUAPCD’s cost estimates for 

engine replacements or retrofits, the 

contrary information presented by the 

SCAQMD regarding costs for the same 

type of engines, and the significantly 

lower NOX emission levels achieved in 

practice in the South Coast area, as well 

as the lower NOX limits for similar 

engines required in SIP-approved rules 

for both the Feather River area and the 

SJV, we find the District’s analyses in 

the 2015 PM2.5 Plan insufficient to 

demonstrate that the plan includes 

MSM for NOX emissions from IC 

engines used in agricultural operations. 

Third, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not 

adequately demonstrate that it includes 

MSM for NOX emissions from container 

glass melting furnaces in the SJV. 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, as amended May 

19, 2011, establishes a NOX emission 

limit of 1.5 pounds of NOX per ton (lbs 

NOX/ton) of glass pulled, over a 30-day 

rolling average.26 Under the SCAQMD’s 

Regional Clean Air Incentives Market 

(RECLAIM) Program, the SCAQMD 

determined in 2000 that a NOX limit of 

1.2 lbs NOX/ton of glass pulled 

represented Best Available Retrofit 

Control Technology (BARCT) 27 for glass 

melting furnaces, and in 2015 the 

SCAQMD determined that a lower NOX

limit of 0.24 lbs NOX/ton of glass pulled 

represents BARCT for this source 

category based on use of SCR or the 

‘‘Ultra Cat ceramic filter system,’’ which 

the SCAQMD found is guaranteed to 

achieve an 80% NOX reduction and has 

been installed or is under construction 

at 12 glass manufacturing locations 

worldwide.28 The Owens-Brockway 

Glass Container facility, which 

manufactures clear and colored beer 

bottles, is the only glass melting facility 

currently operating in the South Coast 

area.29 At the EPA’s request, the 

SCAQMD provided continuous 

emission monitoring system (CEMS) 

data from February 2015 for the OwensBrockway facility. The CEMS data 

shows that the facility operated at 

approximately 90% production capacity 

and consistently emitted below 0.72 lbs 

NOX/ton of glass pulled during that 

month, using oxyfuel firing to control 

NOX emissions.30

According to the SJVUAPCD, NOX

emissions from glass melting facilities 

operating oxyfuel or SCR systems can 

vary widely depending on multiple 

factors, including the stability of the 

glass pull rate and the condition and age 

of the furnace refractory and 

insulation.31 The SJVUAPCD states that 

glass melting facilities in the SJV 

manufacture a large variety of sizes and 

shapes of still and sparkling wine glass 

bottles and often must respond to 

fluctuating demands in the wine 

industry, which require operators to use 

their furnaces in a manner that results 

in a less stable pull rate compared to 

facilities located in the South Coast, 

which mainly produce beer bottles. 

Additionally, according to the 

SJVUAPCD, as furnaces age the 

refractory is not as effective at retaining 

heat in the furnace and the burner fire 

rate must be increased over time to 

maintain the same overall furnace and 

glass temperature, which increases NOX

emissions on a lb/ton basis. The District 

states that all of these factors result in 

varied NOX emission rates depending 

on production conditions, furnace age, 

and furnace design.32 The District did 

not, however, submit or reference any 

technical documentation to support its 

conclusions about the feasibility of 

lower NOX emission limits for glass 

melting furnaces in the SJV. Given the 

absence of a technical basis for the 

SJVUAPCD’s conclusions about the 

feasibility of more stringent controls for 

glass melting furnaces, and the available 

information from the SCAQMD about 

significantly lower NOX emission levels 

that have been achieved in practice both 

in the South Coast and elsewhere, we 

find the District’s analyses in the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan insufficient to demonstrate 

that the plan includes MSM for NOX

emissions from container glass melting 

furnaces. 

Finally, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not 

adequately demonstrate that the State 

and District reevaluated, for potential 

adoption, control measures rejected 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
69400 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

33 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011) (final rule 

approving most elements of 2008 PM2.5 Plan). 

34 81 FR 6936, 6941 (February 9, 2016); see also 

EPA, Final Rule, ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards: State 

Implementation Plan Requirements,’’ 81 FR 58010, 

58096–58097 (August 24, 2016). 

35 81 FR at 6973–6975 (February 9, 2016). The 

four District control measures are: (1) Rule 4308 

(‘‘Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 

0.075 to <2 MMBtu/hr’’), as amended November 14, 

2013; (2) an enforceable commitment to amend Rule 

4692 (‘‘Commercial Charbroiling’’) in 2016 to add 

requirements for under-fired charbroilers; (3) Rule 

4901 (‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood 

Burning Heaters’’), as amended September 18, 2014; 

and (4) Rule 4905 (‘‘Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type 

Residential Central Furnaces’’), as amended January 

22, 2015. 

36 Id. at 6975, Table 9. 

37See generally 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C 

(BACM and MSM for Stationary and Area Sources). 

38See, e.g., 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. 

C–106 to C–114 (discussing SJVUAPCD Rule 4550, 

as adopted August 19, 2004); pp. C–194 to C–197 

(discussing SJVUAPCD Rule 8061, as amended 

August 19, 2004); and pp. C–275 to C–278 

(discussing SJVUAPCD Rule 4565, as adopted 

March 15, 2007). 

during the State’s and District’s 

development of the previous attainment 

plan for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

SJV area (the ‘‘2008 PM2.5 Plan’’) 33 in 

accordance with the EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of the MSM requirement. 

As explained in our proposed rule, 

given the strategy in the nonattainment 

provisions of the Act to offset longer 

attainment time frames with more 

stringent control requirements, the EPA 

interprets the MSM provision to assure 

that additional controls that can feasibly 

be implemented in the area beyond the 

set of measures adopted as BACM are 

implemented. Two ways to do this are 

(1) to require that more sources and 

source categories be subject to MSM 

analysis than to BACM analysis and 

controlled as necessary—i.e., by 

expanding the applicability provisions 

in the MSM control requirements to 

cover more sources, and (2) to require 

reanalysis of any measures adopted in 

other areas that were rejected during the 

BACM analysis because they could not 

be implemented by the BACM 

implementation deadline to see if they 

are now feasible for the area given the 

longer attainment timeframe.34 In this 

case, because CARB submitted both the 

BACM demonstration required under 

CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) and the MSM 

demonstration required under CAA 

section 188(e) simultaneously, we 

compared the BACM and MSM analyses 

in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan with the previous 

RACM analysis carried out by the 

District to support the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

The 2015 PM2.5 Plan identifies four 

District control measures not included 

in the RACM control strategy that the 

EPA approved as part of the 2008 PM2.5

Plan.35 Collectively, these four District 

measures are projected to achieve a total 

of 0.0357 tpd of NOX emission 

reductions and 3.3 tpd of direct PM2.5

emission reductions by 2018 and to 

achieve a total of 0.4011 tpd of NOX

emission reductions and 2.0 tpd of 

direct PM2.5 emission reductions by 

2020.36 The MSM evaluation in the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan provides little 

discussion of actions to either expand 

the applicability provisions in the 

RACM control measures to cover more 

sources, or to reanalyze measures that 

were rejected during the previous 

RACM analysis to see if they are now 

feasible for the area given the longer 

attainment timeframe (i.e., the extended 

attainment dates requested by the State). 

While the Plan provides the District’s 

conclusions that its existing SIP control 

measures satisfy BACM and MSM 

requirements and that no additional 

control measures are feasible, it 

provides limited technical support for 

these conclusions.37 We note that many 

of the SJVUAPCD rules that the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan relies on to address the MSM 

requirement have not been revised in 

many years 38 and that the State and 

District should conduct a more 

comprehensive evaluation of potential 

measures to strengthen these 

regulations, subject to notice-andcomment rulemaking, to ensure 

expeditious attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

In light of the deficiencies in the 

MSM analyses, we find that the State 

and District have not demonstrated to 

the EPA’s satisfaction that the 2015 

PM2.5 Plan includes the most stringent 

measures that are included in the 

implementation plan of any state or are 

achieved in practice in any state, and 

can feasibly be implemented in the area, 

in accordance with the requirements of 

CAA section 188(e). For these reasons, 

the EPA is denying CARB’s request for 

extension of the December 31, 2015 

Serious area attainment date under CAA 

section 188(e) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV. 

We note that the EPA had proposed 

to grant the State’s requested extension 

of the Serious area attainment date in 

the SJV for the reasons explained in our 

February 9, 2016 proposed action on the 

2015 PM2.5 Plan. Public comments on 

our proposal, however, presented 

information indicating that our proposal 

to grant the requested extension would 

not be consistent with the requirements 

of the Act. Our proposal to grant the 

State’s request for extension of the 

Serious area attainment date raised the 

question as to whether the 2015 PM2.5

Plan satisfied the minimum criteria in 

CAA section 188(e) for such extensions. 

Implicit in any such proposal to grant 

an extension requested by a state is the 

possibility that the EPA may decide to 

deny the extension, after considering 

public comments. Because our February 

9, 2016 proposed rule provided 

adequate notice of both the possibility 

that the EPA would grant the State’s 

request for extension of the attainment 

date for the SJV and the possibility that 

the EPA would deny this request, we are 

not providing additional opportunity for 

comment before this final action takes 

effect. 

The EPA is taking final action only to 

deny the State’s requested extension of 

the attainment date for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV and is not finalizing 

its proposed actions on other elements 

of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan at 81 FR 6936 

(February 9, 2016) at this time. The EPA 

will take final action on the remaining 

portions of the submitted 2015 PM2.5

Plan, as appropriate, in a subsequent 

rulemaking. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 69401 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because 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, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 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 in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Ammonia, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide. 

Dated: September 23, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9. 

[FR Doc. 2016–24082 Filed 10–5–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0121; FRL–9951–90] 

Dichlormid; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of dichlormid in 

or on all commodities for which there 

is a tolerance for metolachlor and Smetolachlor. Drexel Chemical Company 

requested these tolerances under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

October 6, 2016. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before December 5, 2016, and 

must be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0121, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Goodis, Acting Director, 

Registration Division (7505P), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

main telephone number: (703) 305– 

7090; email address: RDFRNotices@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES