Vol. 76 Wednesday, 

No. 217 November 9, 2011 

Part IV 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 50 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; 2008 San 

Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy; Final Rule 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69896 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1 ‘‘The Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ 72 FR 20586 

(April 25, 2007) and codified at 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart Z (PM2.5 implementation rule). 

2These SIP submittals are: 

1. SJVUAPCD, 2008 PM2.5 Plan, adopted on April 

30, 2008 by the SJVUAPCD and on May 22, 2008 

by CARB, submitted on June 30, 2008. 

2. CARB, Proposed State Strategy for California’s 

2007 State Implementation Plan, as amended and 

adopted on September 27, 2007 by CARB, 

submitted on November 16, 2007. 

3. CARB, Status Report on the State Strategy for 

California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

and Proposed Revisions to the SIP Reflecting 

Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy (pages 

11–27 only), adopted on April 24, 2009 by CARB, 

submitted on August 12, 2009. 

4. SJVUAPCD, 2008 PM2.5 Plan Amendment to 

Extend the Rule 4905 Amendment Schedule, 

adopted on June 17, 2010 by the SJVUAPCD, 

submitted on September 15, 2010 

5. CARB, Progress Report on Implementation of 

PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the 

South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and 

Proposed SIP Revisions (Appendices B, C and D 

only), adopted on April 28, 2011 by CARB, 

submitted on May 18, 2011. ‘‘2011 Progress 

Report.’’ 

6. CARB, 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation 

Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM2.5

State Implementation Plan Transportation 

Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basins, adopted on July 21, 2011 

by CARB and submitted on July 29, 2011. (‘‘2011 

Ozone SIP Revisions’’) Only the PM2.5 motor 

vehicle emissions budgets in this submittal are 

addressed in today’s action. 

3The 2011 Progress Report contained budgets 

that were not approvable because they included 

emissions reductions from a rule that was ineligible 

for SIP credit. These budgets also included data 

entry errors. See 76 FR 41338, 41360. We proposed 

instead to approve alternative budgets that CARB 

had developed and posted for public comment as 

part of its 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions and stated that 

the approval was contingent on our receipt of the 

SIP revision containing the revised budgets. Id. 

CARB submitted that SIP revision on July 29, 2011. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0516; FRL–9482–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California; 2008 

San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan and 

2007 State Strategy 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving in part and 

disapproving in part state 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by California to provide for 

attainment of the 1997 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) national ambient air 

quality standards in the San Joaquin 

Valley (SJV). These SIP revisions are the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan (revised 2010 and 

2011) and SJV-related provisions of the 

2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 

2011). EPA is approving the emissions 

inventory, the reasonably available 

control measures/reasonably available 

control technology demonstration, 

reasonable further progress 

demonstration, attainment 

demonstration and associated air quality 

modeling, and the transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emissions 

budgets. EPA is also granting 

California’s request to extend the 

attainment deadline for the SJV to April 

5, 2015 and approving commitments to 

measures and reductions by the SJV 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

and the California Air Resources Board. 

Finally, it is disapproving the SIP’s 

contingency provisions and issuing a 

protective finding for transportation 

conformity determinations under 40 

CFR 93.120(a)(3) for this disapproval. 

DATES: The rule is effective January 9, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0516 for 

this action. The index to the docket is 

available electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material) and some 

may not be publicly available at either 

location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

Copies of the SIP materials are also 

available for inspection at the following 

locations: 

• California Air Resources Board, 

1001 I Street, Sacramento, California 

95812 

• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District, 1990 E. Gettysburg, 

Fresno, California 93726. 

The SIP materials are also 

electronically available at: http:// 

www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/ 

PM_Plans.htm and http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 9, (415) 972–3957, 

wicher.frances@epa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of EPA’s Proposed and Final 

Actions on the 2008 State 

Implementation Plan for Attainment of 

the 1997 PM2.5 Standards in the San 

Joaquin Valley 

II. Response to Public Comments Received on 

the Proposals 

III. Approval Status of the Control Strategy 

Measures and Final Actions on the 

Attainment Demonstration and 

Enforceable Commitments 

IV. Approval of the Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets and Trading Mechanism for 

Transportation Conformity 

V. Final Actions and Resulting Clean Air Act 

Consequences 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of EPA’s Proposed and 

Final Actions on the 2008 State 

Implementation Plan for Attainment of 

the 1997 PM2.5 Standards in the San 

Joaquin Valley 

On July 13, 2011, EPA proposed to 

approve in part and disapprove in part 

California’s state implementation plan 

(SIP) for attaining the 1997 fine 

particulate (PM2.5) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) in the San 

Joaquin Valley (SJV). See 76 FR 41338. 

California developed this SIP to provide 

for expeditious attainment of the PM2.5

standards in the SJV and to meet other 

applicable PM2.5 planning requirements 

in Clean Air Act (CAA) section 172(c) 

and EPA’s PM2.5 implementation rule.1

In all, California has made six 

submittals to address the PM2.5 SIP 

planning requirements for the SJV. The 

two principal ones are the SJV Unified 

Air Pollution Control District’s 

(SJVUAPCD or District) 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

(amended 2010 and 2011) and the 

California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 

State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan (amended 2009 

and 2011).2 Together, the 2008 PM2.5

Plan and the 2007 State Strategy present 

a comprehensive and innovative 

strategy for attaining the 1997 PM2.5

standards in the SJV. 

In our July 2011 notice, EPA proposed 

multiple approval actions on the SJV 

2008 PM2.5 SIP. First, we proposed to 

approve the SIP’s reasonably available 

control measure/reasonably available 

control technology (RACM/RACT) 

demonstration, reasonable further 

progress (RFP) demonstration, 

attainment demonstration and 

associated air quality modeling, base 

year emissions inventory; air quality 

modeling; and motor vehicle emissions 

budgets.3 Second, we proposed to 

approve enforceable commitments by 

both the District and CARB to certain 

measures and specific amounts of 

emissions reductions. Third, we 

proposed to concur with the State’s 

determination that volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and ammonia are not 

attainment plan precursors for 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 69897 

4We also proposed to disapprove a commitment 

by the District to adopt revisions to its Rule 4702 

‘‘Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines’’ by 

December 2010 because that date had passed and 

the District had not adopted revisions to the rule. 

We stated in the proposal that we would not 

finalize this proposed disapproval if the District 

adopted revisions to the rule by the time of our final 

action on the SIP. See 76 FR 41338, 41361. On 

August 18, 2011, the District adopted the revisions 

to Rule 4702; therefore, we are not finalizing our 

proposed disapproval of this commitment. 

5 ‘‘Technical Support Document and Response to 

Comments Final Rule on the San Joaquin Valley 

2008 PM2.5 State Implementation Plan,’’ Air 

Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, September 30, 2011. 

The TSD can be found in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

6The majority of CARB’s and the District’s 

comments addressed the November 2010 proposed 

disapprovals and EPA’s grounds for them. These 

comments were, for the most part, addressed by our 

July 2011 amended proposal. 

7 ‘‘Technical Support Document for the Revised 

Proposed Rulemaking Action on the San Joaquin 

Valley 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the San Joaquin Valley 

Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strategy,’’ Air 

Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9, June 29, 2011, ‘‘2011 

Proposal TSD.’’ 

the SJV. Lastly, we proposed to grant 

California’s request to extend the 

attainment date for the San Joaquin 

Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area to 

April 5, 2015. See 76 FR 41338, 41361. 

EPA also proposed to disapprove the 

contingency measures provisions of the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP for failing to provide 

sufficient emissions reductions.4 Id. 

A more detailed discussion of each of 

California’s SIP submittals for the SJV 

area, the CAA and EPA requirements 

applicable to them, and our evaluation 

and proposed actions can be found in 

our July 2011 proposal (76 FR 41338) 

and the technical support document 

(TSD) for this final action.5

Our July 2011 proposal was the 

second time that EPA proposed action 

on California’s SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP. On 

November 30, 2010 (75 FR 74518), EPA 

proposed to disapprove the majority of 

the provisions in this SIP. During the 

comment period for the November 2010 

proposal, we received several comment 

letters from the public as well as 

comment letters from CARB and the 

District. Subsequent to the close of the 

comment period, CARB adopted and 

submitted revisions to the SJV PM2.5

Plan and 2007 State Strategy. After 

considering information contained in 

the comment letters and the 

supplemental SIP submittals, we issued 

the July 2011 proposed rule which 

substantially amended our November 

2010 proposal. 

EPA is today approving most 

elements of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP 

based on our conclusion that they 

comply with applicable CAA 

requirements and provides for 

expeditious attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 standards in the San Joaquin 

Valley. We are also today disapproving 

the SIP’s contingency measure 

provisions because they do not provide 

sufficient emissions reductions. We are 

continuing to working with the State 

and District to identify additional 

control measures and incentive 

programs that meet the CAA’s 

requirements for contingency measures 

consistent with EPA regulations and 

policy. 

II. Response to Public Comments 

Received on the Proposals 

As part of this final action, EPA has 

considered and provided responses to 

the comments submitted in response to 

both the November 2010 and the July 

2011 proposals. Comments on our 

proposals were received from: 

The Center on Race, Poverty & the 

Environment on behalf of the 

Association of Irritated Residents (AIR) 

and other San Joaquin Valley-based 

environmental and community 

organizations. AIR submitted comments 

on both proposals. 

Earthjustice, on behalf of Medical 

Advocates for Healthy Air and other San 

Joaquin Valley-based environmental and 

community organizations. Earthjustice 

submitted comments on both proposals. 

SJVUAPCD provided comments on 

the November 2010 proposal. 

CARB provided two comment letters 

on our November 2010 proposal. The 

first transmitted air quality modeling 

documentation and the second provided 

comments on the proposal.6

Tom Frantz, President, AIR, 

submitted comments on our November 

2010 proposal. 

Arthur D. Unger submitted comments 

on our November 2010 proposal. 

A copy of these comment letters and 

their attachments can be found in the 

docket for this final rule. 

In the following sections, we 

summarize our responses to the most 

significant comments received on the 

proposals. Our full responses to all 

comments received can be found in the 

‘‘Response to Comments’’ section 

(section III) of the TSD for this final 

rule. 

A. Comments on the Proposed Action 

on the Emissions Inventory 

Comment: Earthjustice comments on 

the importance of emissions inventories, 

noting that CAA section 172(c)(3) 

requires that nonattainment plans 

‘‘include a comprehensive, accurate, 

current inventory of actual emissions 

from all sources of the relevant 

pollutant or pollutants in such area.’’ 

Earthjustice objects to EPA’s proposal to 

approve the inventories in the 2008 

PM2.5 SIP because they were current and 

accurate ‘‘at the time the Plan was 

developed and submitted,’’ arguing that 

such language is not in the CAA and is 

not a reasonable extension of Congress’s 

intent, which is to ensure the adoption 

and approval of SIPs that will achieve 

clean air meeting the NAAQS. 

Earthjustice argues that an inventory 

that is ‘‘known to be wrong’’ 

undermines the modeling 

demonstration of the emissions 

reductions needed to attain, and that 

EPA’s interpretation suggests that 

revisions to an inventory are needed 

only when it is found that the inventory 

is not current or accurate as of the date 

it is submitted. Earthjustice argues that 

such an interpretation undermines any 

assurance that ‘‘the requirements of 

[Part D of the CAA] are met.’’ Finally, 

Earthjustice asserts that ‘‘EPA cannot 

approve these inventories as complying 

with the requirements of section 

172(c)(3) knowing that the data are not 

valid for purposes of building an 

attainment plan.’’ 

Response: EPA does not dispute the 

importance of emissions inventories. 

We evaluated the emissions inventories 

in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan to determine 

whether they satisfy the requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(3) and adequately 

support the Plan’s RACM, RFP and 

attainment demonstrations. Based on 

this evaluation, we have concluded that 

the Plan’s 2005 base year emissions 

inventory was based on the most current 

and accurate information available to 

the State and District at the time the 

Plan was developed and submitted and 

comprehensively addresses all source 

categories in the SJV area, consistent 

with applicable CAA requirements and 

EPA guidance. See 76 FR 41338 at 

41342–41343 and 2011 Proposal TSD 7

at section IIA; see also ‘‘General 

Preamble for Implementation of Title I 

of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 at 13502 (April 16, 

1992) (‘‘General Preamble’’). 

We do not agree with Earthjustice’s 

suggestion that EPA interprets the CAA 

to require revisions to an emissions 

inventory only when it is found that 

such inventory is not current or accurate 

as of the date it is submitted. Significant 

changes to a base year inventory that 

undermine the assumptions in an 

attainment demonstration may, on a 

case by case basis, call for a reevaluation 

of the modeling or other planning 

analyses supporting that demonstration. 

In this case, however, as discussed in 

the proposed rule (76 FR 41562, 41567) 

and in section II.A. below, we have 

concluded that the State’s changes to its 

methodologies for estimating future 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69898 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

8See line D on Table 7 in the November 30, 2010 

proposed action on the SJV PM2.5 SIP at 75 FR 

74518. On this table, the baseline NOX reductions 

are listed as 199.2 tpd but include 4.2 tpd of 

uncreditable reductions that are not included in 

AIR’s numbers. By ‘‘baseline inventories’’ or 

‘‘projected baseline inventories,’’ we mean 

projected emissions inventories for future years that 

account for, among other things, the ongoing effects 

of economic growth and adopted emissions control 

requirements. A 2014 baseline inventory is 

important because this year is the ‘‘attainment 

year,’’ the year by which all reductions needed for 

attainment need to be in place for the SJV. See 40 

CFR 51.1007(b). 

9CARB, ‘‘Staff Report: Initial State of Reasons for 

Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed Amendments to 

the Truck and Bus Regulations, The Drayage Truck 

Regulation and the Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas 

Regulation,’’ October 2010 (‘‘2010 Truck Rule 

ISOR’’). 

10CARB Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons 

for Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for InUse Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets and the Off-Road 

Large Spark-Ignition Fleet Requirements, October 

2010, including Appendix D1 (‘‘2010 Off-Road Rule 

ISOR’’). 

11For an overview of these changes and their 

results, see the presentation to the CARB Board by 

CARB’s Planning and Technical Support Division 

on November 18, 2010, entitled, ‘‘Diesel Inventory 

Improvements for Regulatory Development,’’ 

available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/books/ 

2010/111810/10-10-9pres.pdf and in the docket for 

this rule. 

emissions do not significantly affect the 

2002 base year inventories and, 

consequently, do not undermine the 

modeling or other analyses that rely on 

those inventories and that support the 

attainment demonstration in the Plan. 

Based on this technical assessment, we 

have concluded that it is not necessary 

in this case for the State to submit a 

revised base year inventory. We note 

that states are required to report 

comprehensive emissions inventories to 

EPA every three years under the Air 

Emissions Reporting Requirements in 40 

CFR part 51, subpart A. See 40 CFR 

51.30(b). 

CAA section 172(b) provides that ‘‘the 

State containing [a nonattainment] area 

shall submit a plan or plan revision 

(including the plan items) meeting the 

applicable requirements of [section 

172(c) and section 110]’’ on the 

schedule established by EPA, and 

section 172(c) contains, inter alia, the 

requirement that nonattainment plans 

‘‘shall include a comprehensive, 

accurate, current inventory of actual 

emissions from all sources of the 

relevant pollutant or pollutants in such 

area.’’ We believe it is reasonable to read 

these provisions together as requiring 

that the State submit an inventory that 

is ‘‘comprehensive, accurate, [and] 

current’’ at the time the State submitted 

it to EPA, rather than requiring that the 

State continually revise its plan as new 

emissions data becomes available. See 

Brief of Respondents, EPA, in Sierra 

Club, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., Case Nos. 

10–71457 and 10–71458 (consolidated), 

May 5, 2011. States could never 

effectively plan for air quality 

improvements if they had to constantly 

revise their inventories as new data 

became available. Air quality planning 

is an iterative process and states and 

EPA must rely on the best available data 

at the time the plans are created. 

Comment: Throughout its comments, 

AIR uses the term ‘‘recession 

reductions’’ which it defines as ‘‘the 

emissions reductions the [C]ARB claims 

have occurred as a result of the 

recession.’’ 

Response: In its comments, AIR 

calculates what it considers ‘‘the total 

reductions from baseline reductions 

without recession reductions’’ as 11 tpd 

of PM2.5, 195 tons per day (tpd) of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and 0.9 tpd of 

sulfur oxides (SOX). These figures are 

the same as the calculated reductions 

from the baseline measures prior to the 

updates to the 2014 baseline inventory.8

Based on these calculations, AIR seems 

to consider the ‘‘recession reductions’’ 

to be the difference between the 2014 

baseline inventory submitted with the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan in 2008 and the revised 

2014 baseline inventory submitted with 

the 2011 Progress Report in 2011. By 

labeling this difference as ‘‘recession 

reductions,’’ AIR attributes the 

differences entirely to revisions to the 

economic forecasts. This is not entirely 

correct. 

Changes to the 2014 baseline 

inventory include revisions not only to 

the economic forecasts but also to a 

variety of other factors (out-of-state 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates, 

cumulative mileage, equipment 

populations, load factors, and hours of 

use, etc.) used to calculate emissions 

from trucks, buses, and certain off-road 

equipment categories. See 2011 Progress 

Report, Appendix E. CARB estimates 

that revisions to the truck inventory 

excluding recession impacts reduced 

truck emissions statewide by 10 percent 

from the 2014 baseline levels estimated 

when the Truck rule was adopted in 

2008 while recession impacts reduced 

the baseline level by a further 7 percent. 

See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 19.9 For 

off-road equipment, CARB estimates 

that inventory changes independent of 

the recession were responsible for half 

the overall reduction in projected 

statewide emissions. See 2010 Off Road 

Rule ISOR, p. 17.10 We note that these 

figures are average statewide figures and 

not specific to the SJV. 

Comment: AIR contends that in the 

2011 Progress Report, CARB first claims 

that the reduced economic activity 

caused by the recession has reduced 

2014 emissions levels in the SJV by 2.7 

tpd of PM2.5, 63.1 tpd of NOX and 0.1 

tpd of SOX. AIR further contends that 

CARB claims that the recession has 

caused current inventories of the goods 

movement and construction sectors to 

be lower than projected in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan. Finally, citing EPA’s 

statement in the 2011 Proposal TSD 

about the effect of the 2007–2009 

economic recession on activity levels in 

the State’s construction and goods 

movement sectors, AIR asserts that 

accounting for the recession through 

inventory adjustments is improper. 

Response: CARB does not claim that 

the recession alone has reduced the 

projected 2014 baseline emissions in the 

SJV nor did it provide the numbers cited 

by AIR. As discussed in the response to 

the preceding comment, revisions to the 

baseline inventory took into account not 

only changes to the State’s economic 

forecasts but also updated information 

on out-of-state VMT estimates, 

cumulative mileage, equipment 

populations, and other data used to 

calculate emissions from trucks, buses, 

and certain off-road equipment. The 

emissions reduction figures that AIR 

ascribes to CARB are figures EPA 

calculated using data provided by 

CARB. 

EPA uses the phrase ‘‘adjustments to 

the baseline’’ to refer to the difference 

between the 2014 baseline initially 

submitted in the 2008 SJV PM2.5 Plan 

and the recently revised 2014 baseline 

as submitted in the 2011 Progress 

Report. This ‘‘adjustments to baseline’’ 

figure is nothing more than EPA’s 

summary of the overall impact of both 

recession and non-recession related 

changes between the two projected 

inventories. EPA calculated this 

adjustment from summary data CARB 

provided in Appendix E of the 2011 

Progress Report. The adjustment 

represents the net results of CARB’s 

changes to its inventories rather than 

the changes themselves. 

CARB revised its inventories for 

trucks and diesel off-road equipment to 

incorporate new and better data 

including new research on truck travel 

within California. See 2010 Truck Rule 

ISOR, Appendix G. These revisions 

were not mere adjustments to previous 

inventories but thorough reviews of 

much of the data that goes into 

estimating emissions from these 

sources. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, 

Appendix G and 2010 Off-Road Rule 

ISOR, Appendix D.11 These inventory 

revisions also included review of 

current and future activity data (such as 

fuel consumption, diesel fuel sales, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 69899 

12See CARB, ‘‘ARB Staff Assessment of the 

Impact of the Economy on California Trucking 

Activity and Emissions 2006–2014,’’ draft 

December 2009, available in the docket for this rule. 

Sources of economic data included California 

Department of Finance, California Legislative 

Analyst’s Office, California Energy Commission, 

UCLA Anderson School, Beacon Economics, 

University of the Pacific, Congressional Budget 

Office, and US Energy Information Agency. Id. pp. 

11–12. 

13See ‘‘Emission Projections,’’ STAPPA/ 

ALAPCO/EPA Emissions Inventory Improvement 

Project, Volume X (December 1999) at 1–1 

(available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eiip/ 

techreport/volume10/x01.pdf). 

14See ‘‘Procedures for Preparing Emissions 

Projections,’’ EPA Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, EPA–450/4–91–019 (July 1991) at p. 

6 and section III. 

15The ‘‘Regional Model Performance Analysis’’ is 

an appendix to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

16EPA ‘‘Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of 

Air Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS and Regional Haze,’’ April 2007. (‘‘EPA 

Guidance’’). 

17This procedure is in some ways parallel to but 

not the same as the RRF calculation and could be 

applied even if the model were not used in a 

relative sense. The inventory estimates the 

emissions reduction between the base and future 

years. An RRF scales the monitored design value 

using the relative model response to a given 

emissions reduction estimate, in order to account 

for that reduction. The procedure here scales the 

model’s future predictions using model sensitivity, 

in order to account for changes in the emissions 

reduction estimate. 

trucking industry tonnage reports, truck 

sales trends, and truck registration data) 

for these categories as well as economic 

forecasts from a number of reputable 

sources.12 Throughout its development 

of these revisions, CARB held 

workshops seeking public review and 

input into its work. See 2010 Truck Rule 

ISOR, p. 13. 

Emissions projections are a function 

of change in activity (growth or decline) 

combined with changes in the emissions 

rate or controls applicable to emissions 

sources. Projected inventories are, 

therefore, necessarily affected by 

forecasts of industrial growth, 

population growth, and transportation 

growth, among other factors.13 EPA 

guidance emphasizes the importance of 

developing reliable methods for 

estimating future source activity levels 

as part of the SIP planning process.14

We disagree with AIR’s assertion that 

‘‘EPA claims that the ARB has opted to 

take credit for the decrease in the 

inventory in the attainment 

demonstration as ‘a line-item 

adjustment to the baseline 

inventories.’ ’’ EPA stated in the 2011 

Proposal TSD (pg. 18) that ‘‘California is 

reflecting these recession impacts as a 

line-item adjustment to the baseline 

inventories.’’ This statement was 

incorrect and should have read that EPA 

(not CARB) is reflecting the recession 

impacts as a line-item adjustment to the 

baseline inventories. EPA believes this 

adjustment is appropriate in light of the 

impact of these emissions changes on 

the baseline. We should have also been 

clearer that the 2014 adjustments 

included the technical revisions to the 

inventory that are discussed on page 19 

of the 2011 Proposal TSD. 

Finally, we note that although AIR 

objects categorically to the revisions to 

the projected emissions inventories 

based on CARB’s revised economic 

forecasts, it provides no information to 

refute CARB’s extensive documentation 

of the impact of the economic recession 

on air pollution generating activity. It 

also provides no information to refute 

CARB’s non-recession related revisions 

to the projected inventories. 

B. Comments on the Proposed Action on 

the Air Quality Modeling 

Comment: Earthjustice and AIR 

comment that CARB’s emissions 

inventory update necessitates new 

attainment demonstration modeling. 

AIR alleges that EPA’s 2011 Proposal 

TSD stated that updates should trigger 

new modeling. AIR notes EPA’s 

statement in that TSD that the model 

underpredicts. In addition, AIR 

questions EPA’s reliance on unreviewed 

model sensitivity results from CARB as 

the basis for not requiring new 

modeling. Earthjustice comments that 

the difficulty of performing new 

modeling is not a valid reason for 

approving an erroneous attainment 

demonstration. It adds that EPA’s 

method for assessing the effect of the 

inventory update has the ‘‘obvious 

flaw’’ that it relies on design value 

changes to within hundredths of a 

percent, starting from design values that 

are, according to Earthjustice, 

acknowledged to be erroneous. 

Response: While some large emissions 

inventory changes might indeed 

necessitate new modeling, EPA does not 

agree that the inventory changes were 

large enough to substantially affect the 

SJV modeling conclusions, or to 

invalidate the SJV attainment 

demonstration. As EPA stated in the 

2011 Proposal TSD (p. 47), ideally new 

modeling would be performed when an 

area’s emissions inventory is changed. 

However, since the cost in time and 

resources of remodeling and consequent 

reworking of a plan is not trivial, 

administrative necessity requires a 

judgment call about when changes are 

large enough to merit new modeling; 

there is no automatic trigger. An 

important criterion in making this 

judgment is whether the changes would 

affect the conclusion that the plan’s 

emissions reductions are adequate for 

attaining the NAAQS. Another 

consideration is the uncertainty 

inherent in modeling; although model 

results may be reported to several 

decimal places, model performance 

goals for fractional bias are typically in 

the range of 30 percent. Plan’s Regional 

Model Performance Analysis,15 p.12, 

and EPA Guidance 16 Appendix B. 

Small changes in the emissions 

inventory could be in the range of the 

‘‘noise’’ of the model. This is not to 

discount the importance of an accurate 

emissions inventory, but rather to make 

the point that relatively small changes 

in inventory estimates do not 

necessarily invalidate a model 

application. EPA finds that the 5–6 

percent base year emissions decreases 

due to the inventory updates in this case 

are relatively small. 

EPA did assess the effect of the 

emissions inventory improvements on 

the attainment demonstration, using a 

procedure described in the 2011 

Proposal TSD and other supporting 

documents. EPA did note in the 2011 

Proposal TSD (p. 48) that the emissions 

update revealed some model bias. The 

model appears to be underpredicting 

(biased low): Its emissions inputs are 

now known to be too high, so its 

predicted concentrations should have 

been higher, too. Model bias is an 

important issue that modelers address 

in developing the model application for 

a specific area and pollution episode, 

through testing and refinement of a 

model’s many inputs. The bias problem 

is somewhat ameliorated by the use of 

models in a relative sense via ‘‘relative 

reduction factors’’ (RRFs), as 

recommended in EPA Guidance (p. 20). 

The various influences that lead to 

model underestimation in the base year 

would also be expected to cause 

underestimation in the attainment year, 

and these tend to cancel out in the RRF 

ratio calculation used to project the 

future effect of controls. In other words, 

the effect of model bias is minimized 

when it is accounted for at both end 

points, the base and attainment years. In 

a similar vein, EPA assessed the effect 

of the emissions update on the 

attainment demonstration, essentially 

by removing the bias revealed by the 

update from both the base year and the 

attainment year.17 The bias was 

estimated by combining the emissions 

changes with an estimate of model PM2.5

sensitivity per unit of emissions change. 

The effect of removing the bias by this 

procedure was to increase predicted 

attainment year annual PM2.5 design 

values by 1–2 percent. EPA finds that 

this is small enough to be considered 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69900 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

18Letter and enclosure, John DaMassa, Chief, 

Modeling and Meteorology Branch; California Air 

Resources Board, January 28, 2011 (‘‘CARB 

modeling supplement’’). 

within the ‘‘noise’’ of the model and 

does not change the overall modeling 

conclusions. But even with this increase 

added in, the predicted concentrations 

meet the NAAQS. This is a quantitative 

showing that the emissions updates are 

small enough that they do not invalidate 

the attainment demonstration. 

As described in the 2011 Proposal 

TSD (section II.B), EPA reviewed the 

development of the model application, 

the procedures used to develop the 

model inputs, model testing methods 

and performance statistics, and the 

methods used to compute RRFs and 

attainment year PM2.5 design values. 

EPA finds that CARB applied these 

methods appropriately, including to the 

sensitivity results and believes that 

these modeling inputs and RRF 

calculations were carried out as 

described by CARB. As a result, we find 

that the sensitivity results provide a 

reasonable basis for assessing the effect 

of the inventory update on the 

attainment demonstration. 

EPA does not agree with Earthjustice 

that starting from the Plan’s modeled 

design values and ending with small 

design value changes constitute flaws in 

the procedure for estimating the effect of 

the baseline inventory revisions. All 

modeling has uncertainty and bias 

including any new modeling that would 

be done using the updated emissions 

inventory estimates. Every modeling 

result is an approximation and is likely 

to contain errors. Administrative 

necessity, therefore, requires a judgment 

call about whether such problems are 

substantial enough to impact regulatory 

decisions. Modeling experts from 

regulatory agencies, academia, and 

consulting firms were involved in 

developing the SJV modeling. It 

underwent successful diagnostic testing 

and performs well. EPA finds that it 

continues to constitute an adequate 

basis for the attainment demonstration. 

Further, EPA believes that the original 

modeling is basically sound in how it 

portrays SJV atmospheric chemistry and 

transport and that results derived from 

model sensitivity tests are a reasonable 

approximation to what would result 

from new modeling with the updated 

inventory. EPA’s procedure for 

estimating the effect of the inventory 

changes using model sensitivity results 

does make a number of assumptions: 

Emissions changes are small enough 

that the model response is linear, model 

sensitivity is similar in the starting and 

ending years, and the spatial and 

temporal distribution of emissions is 

little changed with the inventory 

update. EPA believes that these 

assumptions are reasonable and that the 

procedure it used provides strong 

evidence for the attainment 

demonstration’s validity. 

As for the smallness of the design 

value changes resulting from the 

procedure, EPA does not believe this is 

a substantive issue. Any procedure 

(even new modeling) that starts with 

small emissions changes will 

necessarily result in small design value 

changes. Within a small range, over 

which the chemistry does not shift 

fundamentally, ambient concentrations 

are approximately proportional to 

emissions, by the law of conservation of 

matter. This is not a case of an overly 

precise tiny number being added to a 

large erroneous random number, but 

rather of an adjustment ratio applied to 

a number derived from extensive data 

and analysis. Some intermediate steps 

in the calculation procedure that EPA 

used to evaluate the emissions 

inventory change did involve tenths of 

a percent (not hundredths as stated by 

the commenter), but this is largely an 

artifact of showing the procedure in 

multiple steps for comprehensibility. 

EPA could have done the calculation in 

a single step to avoid this artifact. When 

modeling a 10 percent change in NOX

emissions results in a design value 

change of 1.4 percent, a calculation 

using this model sensitivity result will 

necessarily involve fractions of 1 

percent or less. In this case, the 

emissions inventory update involved a 

change in NOX emissions of less than 10 

percent, and thus, would also be 

expected to yield relatively small design 

value changes. 

Comment: Earthjustice comments that 

a simple screening analysis cannot 

substitute for an unmonitored area 

analysis, as it is inadequate to address 

the sharp ambient concentration 

gradients that occur in near-highway 

areas. 

Response: EPA agrees that the simple 

screening analysis in the Plan as 

originally submitted in June 2008 is not 

an adequate substitute for an 

unmonitored area analysis (UAA) and 

noted this deficiency in our November 

2010 proposal. See 75 FR 74518, 74530. 

As noted in the 2011 proposal (76 FR 

41388, 41348), CARB subsequently 

submitted a modeling supplement that 

included a UAA that follows EPA 

Guidance. See CARB modeling 

supplement, p. 139.18 The UAA led to 

the conclusion that there would not be 

any NAAQS violations at locations 

away from monitors, and EPA has 

evaluated and accepted that conclusion. 

As for whether the UAA itself 

adequately addresses the commenter’s 

underlying concern about sharp 

concentration gradients, the EPA 

Guidance states: 

‘‘The unmonitored area analysis is 

intended to be the primary means for 

identifying high PM2.5 concentrations outside 

of traditionally monitored locations. * * * 

Based on the monitoring guidance, we 

believe that an unmonitored area analysis 

conducted at 12 km or finer resolution is 

sufficient to address unmonitored PM2.5 for 

the annual NAAQS. Conducting the 

unmonitored analysis at 4 km or finer 

resolution will provide an even more 

detailed analysis of the spatial gradients of 

primary PM2.5, especially when evaluating 

violations of the 24-hr. NAAQS.’’ 

This modeling guidance 

recommendations are consistent with 

the requirements of the EPA’s PM2.5

monitoring rules. The modeling 

guidance UAA spatial scale 

recommendations are intended to 

capture neighborhood scale and larger 

areas, since the monitoring rules do not 

require micro or middle scale monitors 

for either the annual or 24-hr PM2.5

standards. CARB’s UAA was conducted 

at a resolution of 4 km, so it is more 

detailed than EPA’s recommended 

approach for UAA. In addition, it is 

intended for areas with a large primary 

PM2.5 contribution (that is, directly 

emitted rather than formed chemically 

over time), and relying on local primary 

PM controls to reach attainment. EPA 

Guidance, p.100. By contrast, the 

attainment demonstration in the 2008 

p.m.2.5 Plan mainly relies on area-wide 

control of NOX, a PM2.5 precursor, rather 

than on control of local primary PM2.5. 

Comment: Earthjustice comments that 

air quality worsened after 2005 despite 

the economic downturn, so that new air 

quality modeling should be performed 

to account for this upward trend. 

Response: EPA did review the 

evaluation of air quality progress 

presented in the Plan and also 

independently examined air quality 

data. See 2011 Proposal TSD, p.6 and 

p.45. Air quality monitoring data is 

useful for a general understanding of the 

SJV’s air quality problem, as well as for 

use in supplemental analyses that 

accompany the modeled attainment 

demonstration. Downward trending 

emissions and ambient concentrations 

would tend to support the conclusion 

that the area is on track toward 

attainment of the NAAQS, although 

evaluation of such trends should 

account for the particular location, time 

period, and air quality metric examined. 

In addition, overall trends may be hard 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 69901 

19Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation 

Rule, 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007), codified at 40 

CFR part 51, subpart Z ‘‘PM2.5 implementation 

rule.’’ 

20A determination of attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard is based on monitoring data 

that shows a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations of less than 15 microgram per cubic 

meter (m/m3), and a determination of the attainment 

of the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard is based on 

monitoring data that shows the 3-year average of 

98th percentile 24-hour concentrations is less than 

65 m/m3. See 40 CFR 50.7. 

21EPA has long interpreted analogous provisions 

for ozone nonattainment areas in CAA sections 

181(a)(5) and 182(c)(2) in this same manner. See 

Brief of Respondents, EPA, in Sierra Club, et al. v. 

U.S. EPA, et al., Case Nos. 10–71457 and 10–71458 

(consolidated), May 5, 2011; see also Environmental 

Defense v. U.S .EPA, 369 F.3d 193 (2nd Cir. 2004) 

(denying petition for review of EPA’s approval of 

New York’s 1-hour ozone attainment plan based on, 

inter alia, EPA’s reasonable interpretation of the 

extension provision in CAA section 181(a)(5)). 

to discern given the year-to-year 

variability of meteorology and other 

factors. 

The Plan used the data that was 

available at the time it was developed, 

focusing on 2001–2006, for which the 

Plan’s Weight of Evidence analysis 

makes a strong case for air quality 

progress according to several metrics, 

including design value concentrations, 

frequency of high concentrations, 

concentration of PM2.5 component 

species, and emissions. We conclude 

that these analyses adequately support 

the attainment demonstration. EPA also 

looked at a longer period, 2000–2010, 

and found that the slight PM2.5

concentration increase shown in the 

Plan for 2006 continued through 2008 

and flattened in 2009. Although PM2.5

concentrations continued to improve in 

2010, the Bakersfield area’s annual and 

24-hour PM2.5 design values calculated 

from 2008–2010 data were the highest 

in the U.S. See 76 FR 41338, 41339. We 

note, however, that data over the longer 

time frame shows there has been 

substantial air quality progress over the 

past decade. See TSD, section I.B.1. 

The concentration increases during 

2006–2009 are not well understood but 

may have been partly a result of 

unfavorable meteorology during that 

time. District and CARB efforts to 

evaluate the effect of meteorology on air 

quality trends are under way. The 

higher values during that period do 

weaken the case made in the Plan’s 

Weight of Evidence analysis, which is a 

supplemental analysis to the attainment 

demonstration itself, but are not 

themselves grounds for disapproving 

the attainment demonstration or the 

Plan. 

Comment: Citing 40 CFR 51.1000 and 

72 FR at 20600, Earthjustice asserts that 

attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS by 

April 5, 2015 will require review of 

ambient data from 2012, 2013, and 

2014. Earthjustice also asserts that the 

majority of emissions reductions in the 

Plan are delayed until 2014 and argues 

that modeling ambient concentration in 

2014 does not provide an accurate 

picture of what emissions will be in 

2012 and 2013. It further states that the 

modeling year must be adjusted to give 

a more reasonable prediction of what a 

3-year average concentration from 2012– 

2014 will be since it is this 

concentration that will determine if the 

Valley has attained the PM2.5 standards 

by the attainment date. Finally, 

Earthjustice asserts that the fact that the 

majority of reductions are in 2014 

violates the reasonable further progress 

requirement. 

Response: We disagree with 

Earthjustice’s assertion that the Plan 

delays the majority of emissions 

reductions until 2014 and therefore fails 

to satisfy RFP requirements. As 

explained in our amended proposal (76 

FR 41338 at 41355–41357) and further 

in section II.H. of the TSD, the majority 

of the reductions needed for attainment 

occur well before 2014. The Plan’s RFP 

demonstration shows that more than 87 

percent of the NOX, 80 percent of the 

PM2.5 and all the SOX reductions needed 

for attainment will occur by 2012. See 

2011 Progress Report, Appendix C, p. 1. 

We explain further in section II.H. of the 

TSD our reasons for concluding that the 

2008 PM2.5 SIP provides for RFP 

consistent with the CAA and the PM2.5

implementation rule.19 We also explain 

in section II.D. our reasons for 

concluding that the Plan demonstrates 

that all control measures needed for 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards 

will be in place as expeditiously as 

practicable and no later than the 

beginning of 2014, consistent with the 

CAA and 40 CFR 51.1007(b) (requiring 

‘‘implementation of all control measures 

needed for attainment as expeditiously 

as practicable, but no later than the 

beginning of the year prior to the 

attainment date’’). See section II.G. and 

II.D. of the TSD. 

We also concluded that the 

attainment demonstration in the Plan 

was developed consistent with 

procedures in EPA’s modeling guidance. 

In addition, to a degree the modeling 

procedures already reflect the expected 

continuing emissions decreases during 

the years before the attainment year. 

The monitored base year design value 

reflects an emissions decrease over the 

three years of 2004–2006, not just the 

single 2005 emissions year. The 

projected design value reflects a 

modeled change to that monitored 

design value, so it too is consistent with 

some decreases occurring over multiple 

years, not just the single year of 2014. 

Finally, we note that Earthjustice 

conflates the requirements governing 

EPA’s action on an attainment 

demonstration under CAA section 

172(c)(1) with those governing an 

attainment determination under CAA 

section 179(c). Earthjustice appears to 

assume that a demonstration of 

attainment by April 5, 2015, requires a 

demonstration that the area will have air 

quality measurements at or below the 

levels of the standards three years prior 

to that date. This is incorrect. An 

attainment determination under CAA 

179(c) is a fact-based determination 

made after the attainment date based on 

air quality monitoring data.20 An 

attainment demonstration, on the other 

hand, is a predictive tool for assessing 

what air quality will be at a future time. 

An attainment demonstration is based 

on air quality modeling showing that 

the projected design value of the 

relevant pollutant in attainment year 

will be at or below the level of the 

relevant ambient air quality standard. 

See 72 FR from 20605 to 20609. 

Additionally, for a PM2.5

nonattainment area subject only to the 

requirements of subpart 1 of title I, part 

D of the CAA, a State may demonstrate 

that in the attainment year, the area will 

have air quality such that the area could 

be eligible for the first of two one-year 

extensions allowed under CAA section 

172(a)(2)(C). Under CAA section 

172(a)(2)(C), an area that does not have 

three years of monitored data 

demonstrating attainment of the PM2.5

NAAQS but has complied with all 

requirements and commitments 

pertaining to the area in the applicable 

SIP, and that has no more than minimal 

number of exceedances of the NAAQS 

in the attainment year, may receive a 

one-year extension of its attainment 

date. If the same conditions are met in 

the following year, the area may receive 

an additional one-year extension. 

Should the SJV area qualify for both of 

these extensions, the relevant 3-year 

period for determining whether the area 

has attained the PM2.5 NAAQS would be 

2014–2016.21

Comment: Earthjustice comments that 

given the problems it has described with 

the air quality modeling, the 9:1 NOX to 

PM2.5 relative effectiveness ratio cannot 

be used for transportation conformity or 

other purposes, unless it is supported 

with new modeling. 

Response: EPA does not agree with 

Earthjustice that the modeling problems 

are substantial enough to invalidate the 

9:1 ratio for NOX to direct PM2.5

emissions trading in the transportation 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69902 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

22Letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, 

CARB, to Frances Wicher, Office of Air Planning, 

EPA Region 9, January 28, 2011, Attachment 4, ‘‘Air 

Resources Board comments on U.S. EPA’s 

November 30, 2010 proposal that VOC be 

considered a significant PM2.5 Precursor for the San 

Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 State Implementation 

Plan (SIP).’’ (‘‘CARB VOC supplement’’). 

conformity context. As discussed above, 

EPA believes that the modeling is 

basically sound, including the model’s 

(relative) sensitivity to emissions 

changes. There is no established method 

for determining trading ratios in 

conformity, but as discussed in the 2011 

Proposal TSD (p.148), EPA finds that 

the model sensitivity-based method 

used by CARB for determining an 

equivalency or relative effectiveness 

ratio is adequate for assessing the effect 

of area-wide emissions changes, such as 

are used in conformity budgets. The 

method modeled ‘‘across the board’’ 

emissions changes over the entire 

modeling domain; emissions considered 

in transportation conformity are also 

domain-wide. Trading in other contexts 

could involve additional consideration 

of spatial and temporal variation of the 

emissions, and would require an 

additional technical demonstration by 

the State and evaluation by EPA. EPA is 

not approving the trading ratio for any 

other purpose than in conformity 

budgets. 

C. Comments on the Identification of 

PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors 

Comment: Earthjustice comments that 

EPA should rely on the November 2010 

proposal’s technical demonstration that 

VOC should be considered a PM2.5 plan 

precursor and should disapprove the 

Plan for its failure to address control of 

VOC emissions. The commenter states 

that EPA reversed its earlier VOC 

finding without receiving any new 

credible evidence on the issue. 

Response: The PM2.5 implementation 

rule establishes a presumption that VOC 

is not a PM2.5 plan precursor requiring 

controls. See 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3). This 

presumption may be overturned if either 

EPA or the State provides an 

appropriate technical demonstration 

showing that VOC emissions from 

sources in the State significantly 

contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the 

nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 

51.1002(c)(3)(i) and (ii). The preamble to 

the implementation rule suggests 

various analyses that could be part of 

such a demonstration, such as emissions 

inventory, speciation data, modeling 

information, or other special studies. 

But the preamble is not prescriptive on 

required technical demonstrations, and 

neither the preamble nor the rule 

defines ‘‘significantly.’’ Under the rule, 

excluding VOC as an attainment plan 

precursor does not require a showing 

that VOC controls are ineffective or 

counterproductive. Rather, since VOC is 

already excluded by presumption, the 

lack of a clear showing that VOC 

controls are effective is sufficient for it 

to remain excluded. 

For the November 2011 proposal, EPA 

reviewed various monitoring and 

modeling studies on the role of VOC as 

a PM2.5 precursor in the SJV. EPA 

proposed to find that these studies 

constitute a technical demonstration 

that VOC is a PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor, and used that as a basis to 

propose disapproval of the Plan, which 

lacks VOC controls. 

Earthjustice correctly notes that CARB 

did not submit any new study results 

per se in response to our 2010 proposal 

but rather reinterpretation of the same 

modeling studies that EPA had already 

examined. For the 2011 proposal, EPA 

reviewed and accepted several of 

CARB’s arguments made in its VOC 

supplement.22 CARB noted the 

importance of considering simultaneous 

VOC and NOX reductions, a more 

realistic scenario than VOC-only or 

NOX-only reductions, given the various 

controls that are already in place for the 

ozone plan. The only study to consider 

simultaneous reductions found a 

disbenefit from VOC control, while NOX

control continued to be beneficial. 

CARB discounted one study that had 

found VOC control to be beneficial by 

noting that it had used artificially 

doubled VOC emissions in order to 

perform reasonably well at predicting 

PM2.5. For another study, CARB pointed 

out some features of the multi-day 

model response to VOC reductions that 

are inconsistent with the photochemical 

VOC pathway to PM2.5 formation and 

that the benefits from VOC reduction 

were seen only at high PM2.5

concentrations that are seldom seen 

today. 

EPA found these arguments 

persuasive enough to raise questions 

about the efficacy of VOC controls for 

reducing PM2.5 levels in the SJV. Even 

setting aside the concern that VOC 

control could worsen PM2.5

concentrations in some circumstances, 

EPA finds that the evidence of the 

effectiveness of VOC controls is at this 

time not clear enough to overcome the 

presumption in the PM2.5

implementation rule that VOC should 

not be an attainment plan precursor. 

However, EPA also believes it is 

important that reductions of VOC, 

ammonia, and other PM2.5 precursors be 

more thoroughly explored with realistic 

model sensitivity and other analyses as 

part of future modeling efforts in the 

SJV. 

In its comment letter, Earthjustice also 

included additional information in favor 

of VOC as a precursor. We have 

reviewed this information (which 

mainly duplicates information EPA has 

already reviewed) and concluded that it 

does not provide sufficient grounds to 

reverse the presumption that VOC is not 

a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor in the 

SJV. Our complete analysis of 

Earthjustice’s information can be found 

in the response to comments section 

(section III.D.) of the TSD. 

D. Comments on the Proposed Action on 

the Reasonably Available Control 

Measures/Reasonably Available Control 

Technology Demonstration 

Comment: Earthjustice asserts that 

EPA must disapprove the Plan’s RACM/ 

RACT demonstration because many of 

the rules that the District and CARB rely 

on have not been approved as satisfying 

RACT requirements. Earthjustice also 

states that the demonstration fails to 

address VOC controls or to provide 

adequate air quality modeling 

documentation. Finally, Earthjustice 

asserts that several of the rules intended 

to provide the majority of NOX and PM 

reductions from stationary sources in 

the Valley were adopted with 

substantially weakened controls from 

what was anticipated during plan 

development and will now provide only 

a fraction of what is needed to bring the 

area into attainment by 2014. 

Response: Section 172(c)(1) of the 

CAA requires that each attainment plan 

‘‘provide for the implementation of all 

reasonably available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology), and shall provide 

for attainment of the national primary 

ambient air quality standards.’’ For over 

30 years, EPA has consistently 

interpreted this provision to require that 

States adopt only those ‘‘reasonably 

available’’ measures necessary for 

expeditious attainment and to meet RFP 

requirements. 40 CFR 51.1010; see also 

44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979) (Part D of 

title I of the CAA ‘‘does not require that 

all sources apply RACM if less than all 

RACM will suffice for [RFP] and 

attainment’’); 57 FR 13498 at 13560 

(April 16, 1992) (‘‘where measures that 

might in fact be available for 

implementation in the nonattainment 

area could not be implemented on a 

schedule that would advance the date 

for attainment in the area, EPA would 

not consider it reasonable to require 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 69903 

23As explained in our June 30, 2011 proposal to 

approve Rule 4692 (76 FR 38340), the specific 

ozone RACT requirement in CAA section 182(b)(2) 

does not apply to this rule because there are no 

Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) documents for 

this source category and no major sources of NOX

or VOC subject to this rule in the SJV area. See 76 

FR at 38341. We therefore interpret the 

commenters’ reference to RACT as referring to the 

general requirement for reasonably available control 

measures (including RACT for stationary sources) 

in CAA section 172(c)(1). See 40 CFR 51.1010. 

implementation of such measures’’); 

‘‘Guidance on the Reasonably Available 

Control Measures (RACM) Requirement 

and Attainment Demonstration 

Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas,’’ November 30, 1999 (1999 Seitz 

Memo) (a State may justify rejection of 

a measure as not ‘‘reasonably available’’ 

for that area based on technological or 

economic grounds); and 70 FR 71612 

(November 29, 2005) at 71661 (noting 

that States ‘‘need adopt measures only 

if they are both economically and 

technologically feasible and will 

advance the attainment date or are 

necessary for RFP’’). EPA’s 

interpretation of section 172(c)(1) has 

been upheld by several courts. See, e.g., 

Sierra Club v. EPA, et al., 294 F. 3d 155 

(DC Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 

F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Under the PM2.5 implementation rule 

at 40 CFR 51.1010, a RACM 

demonstration must include ‘‘the list of 

the potential measures considered by 

the State, and information and analysis 

sufficient to support the State’s 

judgment that it has adopted all RACM, 

including RACT.’’ 40 CFR 51.1010(a). In 

addition, ‘‘[p]otential measures that are 

reasonably available considering 

technical and economic feasibility must 

be adopted as RACM if, considered 

collectively, they would advance the 

attainment date by one year or more.’’ 

As explained in the preamble to the 

PM2.5 implementation rule, Congress 

provided EPA and States broad 

discretion to determine what measures 

to include in an attainment plan, and 

the language in section 172(c)(1) 

requiring only ‘‘reasonably available’’ 

measures and implementation of these 

measures ‘‘as expeditiously as 

practicable’’ indicates that Congress 

intended for the RACT/RACM 

requirement to be driven by an overall 

requirement that the measure be 

‘‘reasonable.’’ 72 FR 20586 at 20610 

(April 25, 2007). Thus, the rule of 

‘‘reason’’ drives the decisions on what 

controls to apply, what should be 

controlled, by when emissions must be 

reduced, and finally, the rigor required 

in a State’s RACT/RACM analysis. See 

id. States may, as part of a RACM 

analysis, consider the costs of potential 

control measures and whether the 

measures can be readily and effectively 

implemented without undue 

administrative burden. See id. (citing 55 

FR 38327 and 66 FR 26969). 

As a threshold matter, we note that 

VOC controls are not a required element 

of the RACM demonstration in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan because EPA agrees with the 

State’s determination that VOCs are not 

attainment plan precursors for purposes 

of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV 

area. See 76 FR at 41343 (citing 40 CFR 

51.1002(c) and 51.1010) and our 

responses to comments on attainment 

plan precursors, in section II.C. above. 

Second, as to air quality modeling 

documentation, we explain in section 

II.B. above in our responses to 

comments on the air quality modeling 

our reasons for concluding that the 

modeling in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

adequately supports the Plan’s RACM 

and attainment demonstration. 

Third, as to Earthjustice’s assertions 

about RACT, we note that although CAA 

section 182(b)(2) requires States to 

implement RACT for specific types of 

sources in ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as moderate or above, there is 

no specific RACT control mandate for 

PM2.5 purposes that applies to specific 

sources in PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

Rather, under the PM2.5 implementation 

rule, RACT and RACM are those 

measures that a state finds are both 

reasonably available and contribute to 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable in the specific 

nonattainment area. See 76 FR at 41343 

(citing 40 CFR 51.1010 and 72 FR 20586 

at 20612). EPA has, therefore, evaluated 

the collection of reasonably available 

control measures that CARB and the 

District have adopted and submitted 

with the attainment demonstration in 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan to meet the RACM/ 

RACT requirement in CAA section 

172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1010. See 76 FR 

41338 at 41343–41346 and 2011 

Proposal TSD at section II.D. 

Finally, as to the specific NOX and 

PM control options that Earthjustice 

asserts should also be required as 

RACM, we have considered whether 

these additional control options are 

reasonably available for implementation 

in SJV considering technical and 

economic feasibility, and as to those 

measures that are potentially 

reasonable, whether they would 

considered collectively would advance 

the attainment date in the SJV by one 

year or more. For the reasons discussed 

below, we conclude that the control 

options identified by Earthjustice are 

not required RACM for purposes of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area. 

Comment: Earthjustice states that EPA 

should not approve Rule 4692 

(Commercial Charbroiling) as RACT 

because there is no justification for the 

District’s decision to exclude control 

requirements for under-fired 

charbroilers (UFC) from the rule. In 

support of this assertion, Earthjustice 

states, among other things, that: (1) 

SJVUAPCD had initially found certain 

control options for UFC units to be costeffective and that its later revisions to 

these cost estimates in response to 

comments were based on inappropriate 

criteria, such as its ‘‘10 percent of the 

industry’s profits’’ test; (2) that 

BAAQMD’s adoption of UFC control 

requirements in 2007 indicates that 

such controls are considered feasible; 

and (3) that SJVUAPCD’s failure to 

control UFCs means that PM emissions 

reductions from this rule are reduced 

from more than 2 tons per day (tpd) to 

just 0.02 tpd. 

Response: EPA recently determined 

that Rule 4692 satisfied applicable CAA 

requirements and fully approved the 

rule into the SJV portion of the 

California SIP.23 See 76 FR 38340 (June 

30, 2011) (proposed rule) and 

‘‘Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District’’ final rule, pre-publication 

notice signed September 30, 2011 (Rule 

4692). As part of that action, EPA 

reviewed the District’s evaluation of 

potential UFC controls and concurred 

with the District’s conclusion that those 

controls are not reasonably available for 

implementation in the SJV area at this 

time, considering technological and 

economic feasibility (see EPA’s June 9, 

2011 Proposal TSD at pp. 4–5). Given 

EPA’s long-standing position that States 

may justify rejection of certain control 

measures as not ‘‘reasonably available’’ 

based on economic grounds (among 

others), we believe that it is appropriate 

for the District to consider the cost of 

controls at sources actually located 

within the specific area to determine if 

they are economically feasible with 

respect to those sources. Although we 

do not endorse the District’s use of a ‘‘10 

percent of the industry’s profit’’ test for 

economic feasibility, we agree with the 

District’s conclusion that UFC controls 

are not economically feasible based on 

the facts and circumstances related to 

actual cost of those controls in the SJV 

area. For the reasons stated in our 

separate proposed and final rules on 

Rule 4692, we conclude in this final 

action on the 2008 PM2.5 Plan that Rule 

4692 requires all RACM for charbroilers 

in SJV, and that the additional controls 

for UFC identified by Earthjustice are 

not required RACM for purposes of the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan because they are not 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69904 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

24As explained in our June 30, 2011 proposal to 

approve Rule 4692 (76 FR 38340), the specific 

ozone RACT requirement in CAA section 182(b)(2) 

does not apply to this rule because there are no 

Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) documents for 

this source category and no major sources of NOX

or VOC subject to this rule in the SJV area. See 76 

FR at 38341. We therefore interpret the 

commenters’ reference to RACT as referring to the 

general requirement for reasonably available control 

measures (including RACT for stationary sources) 

in CAA section 172(c)(1). See 40 CFR 51.1010. 

25The CAA requires implementation of RACT at 

any major source of NOX or VOC in ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above 

(see CAA 182(b)(2)(C) and 182(f)) but does not 

contain such a major source RACT control mandate 

for SOX or PM purposes. 

reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility. 

Comment: Earthjustice asserts that 

Rule 4103 (Open Burning) achieves far 

less than what was anticipated in the 

Plan, and that the District had 

inappropriately relied on the 10 percent 

of profits test to exempt from control the 

three largest source categories of NOX, 

PM, and VOC covered by the Rule. 

Earthjustice asserts that this resulted in 

foregone emissions reductions of 1,030 

tpy NOX, 1,262 tpy PM2.5 and 1,138 tpy 

VOC. 

Response: EPA recently determined 

that Rule 4103 satisfied applicable CAA 

requirements and fully approved the 

rule into the SJV portion of the 

California SIP. See 76 FR 40660 (July 11, 

2011) (proposed rule) and ‘‘Revisions to 

the California State Implementation 

Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District;’’ final rule, 

pre-publication notice signed September 

30, 2011 (Rule 4103)). As part of that 

action, EPA reviewed the District’s 

evaluation of the postponements of 

certain burning prohibitions for certain 

agricultural crop categories and 

concurred with the District’s conclusion 

that alternatives to open burning for 

these crop categories are not reasonably 

available for implementation in the SJV 

area at this time, considering 

technological and economic feasibility 

(see, e.g., EPA’s June 2011 TSD at pp. 

5–7). For the reasons stated in those 

separate proposed and final rules on 

Rule 4103, we conclude in this final 

action on the 2008 PM2.5 Plan that Rule 

4103 requires all RACM for open 

burning in SJV, and that the additional 

controls identified by Earthjustice are 

not required RACM for purposes of the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan because they are not 

reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility. 

Comment: Earthjustice stated that 

SJVUAPCD added a contingency 

provision to Rule 4901 (Wood Burning 

Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters) 

stating that, should the Valley fail to 

attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards by the 

attainment date, the PM2.5 concentration 

triggering a mandatory wood burning 

curtailment would be lowered from 30 

to 20 mg/m3. Earthjustice contends that, 

given the underperformance of other 

SJVUAPCD rules, this ‘‘contingency’’ 

should be adopted now to achieve 

additional reductions before the 

attainment date. 

Response: EPA determined that Rule 

4901 satisfied applicable CAA 

requirements and fully approved the 

rule into the SJV portion of the 

California SIP. See 74 FR 57907 

(November 10, 2009). As part of that 

action, EPA reviewed the District’s 

evaluation of available controls and 

concluded that Rule 4901 requires 

implementation of Best Available 

Control Measures under CAA section 

189(b) for particulate matter of 10 

microns or less (PM–10) in the SJV area. 

This conclusion was based in part on 

our finding that SJV’s 30 mg/m3

threshold for mandatory wood burning 

curtailment is more stringent than the 

35 mg/m3 threshold adopted in other 

areas such as Sacramento, South Coast 

and Bay Area. See SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Final 

Draft Staff Report, Proposed 

Amendments to Rule 4901 ‘‘Wood 

Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning 

Heaters,’’ October 16, 2008, at pp. 5–6. 

Earthjustice has provided no 

information to support an argument that 

reducing the threshold for mandatory 

wood burning curtailment in the SJV 

from 30 to 20 mg/m3 is a ‘‘reasonably 

available’’ control measure, nor any 

information to support an argument that 

such a measure would, individually or 

in combination with other reasonable 

measures, advance attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV by at 

least a year. We have, nonetheless, 

evaluated in the section entitled 

‘‘Evaluation of potential to advance 

attainment’’ below the additional PM 

emissions reductions that could be 

achieved by implementing a mandatory 

wood burning curtailment at a 20 mg/m3

threshold (1.6 tons per winter average 

day, see 76 FR at 41358) to determine 

whether this measure could, in 

combination with other potentially 

reasonable measures, advance 

attainment in the SJV area. 

Comment: Earthjustice asserts that the 

exemption in Rule 4354 (Glass Melting 

Furnaces) for furnaces that actually emit 

less than 8 tons per year of NOX or VOC 

(but are located at major sources) is 

‘‘illegal’’ because the CAA requires that 

RACT be implemented for all major 

sources. Earthjustice states that this 

exemption cost the Valley 1.6 tons per 

day of SOX reductions and 2.9 tons per 

day of PM reductions. Earthjustice also 

states that the District had adopted a 

previous version of Rule 4354 that had 

earlier compliance deadlines than the 

version EPA ultimately approved into 

the SIP. Earthjustice asserts that the 

District should have removed the 

exemption for small furnaces at large 

facilities and should not have delayed 

compliance requirements, and that ‘‘it is 

unacceptable for the District to forego 

any emissions reductions in the years 

leading up to attainment.’’ 

Response: EPA recently determined 

that Rule 4354 satisfied applicable CAA 

requirements and fully approved the 

rule into the SJV portion of the 

California SIP. 24 See 76 FR 53640 

(August 29, 2011). As part of that action, 

we determined that the VOC and NOX

emission limits in Rule 4354 meet the 

CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f) RACT 

requirements for major sources of VOC 

and NOX. The compliance schedule for 

NOX and VOC limits in the SIPapproved rule requires implementation 

of all technologically and economically 

feasible controls by January 2014. See 

SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, 

‘‘Proposed Amendments to Rule 4354 

(Glass Melting Furnaces),’’ August 19, 

2010, at pp. 10–12. We conclude, 

therefore, that this rule implements all 

VOC and NOX controls that are 

reasonably available for this source 

category in the SJV. We did not fully 

evaluate in that action the stringency of 

the rule’s requirements for SOX and 

PM10 emissions, as there is no specific 

RACT control mandate for SOX or PM10

purposes that necessarily applies to 

sources covered by this rule.25 We 

disagree with Earthjustice’s assertion 

that the exemption from the SOX and 

PM10 limits for certain furnaces that 

actually emit less than 8 tpy of VOC or 

NOX (see Rule 4354, section 4.3) is 

‘‘illegal,’’ as the CAA does not establish 

a specific RACT control mandate for 

major sources of SOX or PM10. Under 

CAA section 172(c)(1), however, the 

State/District are required to adopt all 

RACM necessary to demonstrate 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable and to meet RFP 

requirements. 40 CFR 51.1010. Given 

the need for substantial NOX and PM2.5

emissions reductions in the SJV to meet 

both the 1997 PM2.5 standards and the 

more stringent 2006 PM2.5 standard by 

the applicable attainment dates, we 

encourage the SJVUAPCD to reevaluate 

the PM10 control requirements in Rule 

4354 and to adopt, as expeditiously as 

practicable, any additional PM10 and 

PM2.5 control requirements that are 

reasonably available for implementation 

in the Valley. For purposes of the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, additional PM control 

requirements for glass melting facilities 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 69905 

26For this assessment, we use Earthjustice’s 

estimate of the foregone PM reductions and assume 

conservatively that all such PM reductions are 

PM2.5 reductions. 

27 Documentation of this estimate can be found in 

the TSD, section III.E. 

28See also Letter dated April 25, 2011, from Lisa 

P. Jackson, EPA, to Paul Cort, Earthjustice, denying 

Petition for Reconsideration with respect to the 

deferral of the requirement to establish emission 

limits for condensable particulate matter (CPM) 

until January 1, 2011. 

29 In our proposed rule, we noted that the 

SJVUAPCD has deferred limits for CPM in its rules 

but that this limited deferral does not affect the 

Plan’s RACM/RACT and expeditious attainment 

demonstrations. 76 FR 41338 at 41342, n. 12. We 

also noted that we would evaluate any PM2.5 rule 

adopted or revised by the District after January 1, 

2011 to assure that it appropriately addresses CPM. 

See id. 

30See SCAQMD Protocol, Determination of 

Particulate and Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions From Restaurant Operations, November 

14, 1997 (available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/

R9Testmethod.nsf/0/3D4DEB4D21AB4AAF8825

70AD005DFF69/$file/SC%20Rest%20emiss.pdf) 

and SCAQMD Test Method 5.1, Determination of 

Particulate Matter Emissions From Stationary 

Sources Using a Wet Impingement Train, March 

1989 (available at http://aqmd.gov/tao/methods/

stm/stm-005-1.pdf). 

may, upon SIP approval, be credited 

toward the District’s remaining 

enforceable commitments. See 76 FR at 

41354, Table 8. 

Earthjustice asserts that the 

exemption in Rule 4354 for furnaces 

emitting less than 8 tpy of NOX or VOC 

cost the Valley 1.6 tons per day of SOX

reductions and 2.9 tons per day of PM 

reductions. For purposes of the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, the foregone SOX emissions 

reductions do not affect the RACM and 

attainment demonstration because SJV 

has exceeded its target level of SOX

reductions needed for attainment. See 

76 FR at 41354, Table 8. As to PM, we 

have evaluated the additional emissions 

reductions that Earthjustice claims 

could have been achieved from glass 

melting facilities 26 in our evaluation 

below of the potential for such 

additional controls, in combination with 

other potential control options, to 

advance attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

standards in the SJV. See section 

‘‘Evaluation of potential to advance 

attainment’’ below. 

Comment: Earthjustice states that EPA 

recently rejected all of the NOX

emission limits in Rule 4352 (Solid 

Fuel-Fired Boilers, Steam Generators 

and Process Heaters) for failing to satisfy 

RACT and asserts that substantial NOX

reductions could be achieved if the 

District amended this rule to meet the 

stringent limits in place in other areas 

of the Country. 

Response: Earthjustice correctly notes 

that EPA recently disapproved all of the 

NOX emission limits in Rule 4352 based 

on our conclusion that the District had 

failed to adequately demonstrate that 

these limits satisfy CAA section 182 

RACT requirements. See 75 FR 60623 

(October 1, 2010). Earthjustice did not 

provide any specific information about 

additional control measures that are 

reasonably available, nor has it provided 

information about the amount of 

emissions reductions that might be 

achieved by such controls. We have, 

however, developed a conservative 

(high) estimate of the additional NOX

reductions that could be achieved under 

this rule if the emission limits are 

strengthened. We developed this 

estimate based on the NOX emission 

limits in the SIP-approved version of 

Rule 4352, the emissions attributed in 

the 2008 PM2.5 plan to solid fuel-fired 

boilers, steam generators, and process 

heaters in the SJV, emissions data from 

existing solid fuel-fired boilers in the 

SJV, and technical information about 

available control options from EPA’s 

1994 Alternative Control Techniques 

Document for NOX Emissions from 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 

Boilers, U.S. EPA 453/R–94–022 (1994 

Boiler ACT). Based on this information, 

we have conservatively estimated that 

more stringent control requirements for 

solid fuel-fired boilers, steam 

generators, and process heaters in SJV 

could achieve an additional 3.16 tpd of 

NOX reductions.27

Comment: Earthjustice states that 

EPA’s proposal fails to address the fact 

that the RACM/RACT analysis ‘‘does 

not include reasonable controls for 

condensable [PM2.5] emissions’’ and 

contains no discussion of such controls. 

Earthjustice references 40 CFR 

51.1002(c) to support its assertion that 

‘‘[t]he transition period allowing 

agencies to ignore controls on 

condensable emissions ended on 

January 1, 2011,’’ and also quotes EPA’s 

statement in the preamble to the PM2.5

implementation rule (72 FR at 20652) 

that ‘‘[w]e expect States to address the 

control of direct PM2.5 emissions, 

including condensables with any new 

actions taken after January 1, 2011.’’ 

Earthjustice asserts that EPA must 

disapprove the RACM demonstration for 

failure to assess reasonably available 

controls on condensable emissions. 

Response: EPA’s PM2.5

implementation rule states that ‘‘[a]fter 

January 1, 2011, for purposes of 

establishing emission limits under 

51.1009 and 51.1010, States must 

establish such limits taking into 

consideration the condensable fraction 

of direct PM2.5 emissions.’’ 40 CFR 

51.1002(c). Prior to this date, the rule 

required that nonattainment area SIPs 

identify and evaluate sources of PM2.5

direct emissions and PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursors as part of the RFP and 

RACM/RACT demonstrations but did 

not specifically require states to address 

condensable PM2.5. See id.28 Because 

the attainment, RFP and RACM 

demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

were adopted on May 22, 2008 (see 76 

FR at 41340), California was not 

required to address condensable PM in 

establishing the emission limits 

contained in these demonstrations as 

originally submitted, or in adopting any 

other PM emission limits under 40 CFR 

sections 51.1009 and 51.1010 prior to 

January 1, 2011. Consistent with these 

requirements, EPA has evaluated the 

RFP and RACM demonstrations in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan and concluded that 

these elements of the Plan appropriately 

address all sources of direct PM2.5

emissions and PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursors (SO2 and NOX) in the SJV. 

See 76 FR 41338 at 41343.29

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan relies on several 

rules regulating direct PM2.5 emissions 

as part of the PM2.5 control strategy (e.g., 

Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling, 

adopted 9/17/09), Rule 4103 (Open 

Burning, adopted 4/15/10), Rule 4354 

(Glass Melting Furnaces, adopted 9/16/ 

10) and Rule 4901 (Wood Burning 

Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters, 

adopted 10/16/08)) as well as rules 

controlling NOX and SOX emissions. See 

2011 Proposal TSD at Tables F–2, F–3, 

and F–4. Of the rules that control direct 

PM2.5 emissions, only two establish 

emission limits for particulate matter 

(Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) 

and Rule 4354 (Glass Melting 

Furnaces)). EPA has not yet acted on 

any District rule adopted or revised after 

January 1, 2011 that regulates direct 

PM2.5 emissions. As part of our action 

on any such rule, we will evaluate the 

emission limits in the rule to ensure that 

they appropriately address CPM as 

required by 40 CFR 51.1002(c). We note 

that the revised version of Rule 4692 

(Commercial Charbroiling) that EPA has 

recently proposed to approve (see 76 FR 

38340 (June 30, 2011)) requires testing 

in accordance with the SCAQMD 

Protocol, which requires measurement 

of both condensable and filterable PM in 

accordance with South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) Test Method 5.1.30 We also 

note that the SIP-approved version of 

Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces) 

requires testing for condensable PM 

emissions using EPA Method 202. See 

76 FR 53640 (August 29, 2011). 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69906 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

31For NOX, 15.6 tpd represents the difference 

between the 2013 ‘‘controlled inventory’’ (306.8 

tpd) and the 2014 ‘‘NOX emissions level needed for 

PM2.5 attainment’’ (291.2 tpd). For PM2.5, 3.9 tpd 

represents the difference between the 2013 

‘‘controlled inventory’’ (67.2 tpd) and the 2014 

‘‘Direct PM2.5 emissions level needed for PM2.5

attainment’’ (63.3 tpd). 

32For example, the 2013 ‘‘controlled inventory’’ 

for PM2.5 (67.2 tpd) is the sum of the expected 

emissions reductions from four PM2.5 control 

measures identified in Table F–2. See 2011 

Proposal TSD at Table E–2 (pg. 87). 

33The updates to the PM2.5 emissions reduction 

estimates reduced the creditable reductions from 

6.7 tpd to 4.2 tpd, which in turn increased the 2013 

‘‘controlled inventory’’ from 67.2 tpd to 69.7 tpd. 

6.4 tpd is the difference between the updated 2013 

‘‘controlled inventory’’ (69.7 tpd) and the 2014 

‘‘Direct PM2.5 emissions level needed for PM2.5

attainment’’ (63.3 tpd). 

Evaluation of Potential to Advance 

Attainment 

Table E–2 of our 2011 Proposal TSD 

indicates that to advance attainment of 

the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV by 

one year, i.e., from 2014 to 2013, the 

area would need an additional 15.6 tpd 

of NOX reductions and an additional 3.9 

tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions. These 

figures represent the difference between 

the 2013 ‘‘controlled inventory’’ and the 

2014 ‘‘NOX emissions level needed for 

PM2.5 attainment.’’ See 2011 Proposal 

TSD at Table E–2 (pg. 80).31 The 2013 

‘‘controlled inventory’’ figures were 

based on the District’s expected 

emissions reductions from individual 

measures as identified in the 2008 PM2.5

Plan. See Plan at pp. 6–11 and 6–12 

(Table 6–3).32 Following adoption of 

these measures, however, the District 

updated its estimates of the emissions 

reductions associated with several of 

these measures. See 2011 Proposal TSD 

at Table F–4 (pg. 91). Based on these 

updated estimates of the reductions 

associated with specific control 

measures, which alter the 2013 

‘‘controlled inventory’’ estimates, we 

have re-calculated the amount of PM2.5

reductions needed to advance 

attainment by one year as 6.4 tpd.33

As discussed above, with respect to 

Rule 4692 (Charbroiling) and Rule 4103 

(Open Burning), we have concluded that 

the additional PM emissions control 

options that Earthjustice identified are 

not reasonably available considering 

economic and technical feasibility. 

Therefore, these potential control 

measures are not required RACM for 

purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in 

the Valley. With respect to Rule 4901 

(Wood Burning), Rule 4354 (Glass 

Melting Furnaces), and Rule 4352 (Solid 

Fuel-Fired Boilers), we assume for 

purposes of this analysis that additional 

control options are reasonably available 

for implementation in the SJV. We 

therefore evaluate whether the 

emissions reductions from these 

additional control options would, 

collectively, advance attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV by at 

least one year. 

Our estimate of the total reductions of 

direct PM2.5 that could be achieved by 

the potential control options for wood 

burning (1.6 tpd) and glass melting 

furnaces (2.9 tpd) identified by 

Earthjustice is 4.5 tpd. As to NOX

reductions, although Earthjustice did 

not provide any estimate of the 

reductions that could be achieved by 

more stringent requirements for solid 

fuel-fired boilers, steam generators, and 

process heaters, we have conservatively 

estimated that such controls could 

result in an additional 3.12 tpd of NOX

reductions from existing emissions units 

in the SJV. These combined emissions 

reductions (4.5 tpd of direct PM2.5 and 

3.12 tpd of NOX) are significantly lower 

than the total reductions necessary to 

advance attainment by one year in the 

SJV (6.4 tpd of direct PM2.5 and 15.6 tpd 

of NOX). Therefore, even assuming that 

additional control options for these 

three source categories are reasonably 

available for implementation in the SJV, 

they are not required RACM for 

purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 standards 

because they would not advance the 

attainment date in SJV by at least one 

year. See 40 CFR 51.1010(b). 

Conclusion on RACM Demonstration 

For all of these reasons and as 

discussed in our proposed rule (76 FR 

41338) and 2011 Proposal TSD, we 

conclude that the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

includes all RACM (including RACT for 

stationary sources) necessary for RFP 

and expeditious attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 standards in the SJV and, 

therefore, satisfies the requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.1010. 

E. Comments on the Proposed Actions 

on the Control Strategy and Enforceable 

Commitments 

1. Baseline Measures 

Comment: Earthjustice and AIR assert 

that the baseline inventories are flawed 

because they include emissions 

reduction credit from both ‘‘waiver 

measures’’ and ‘‘non-waiver measures’’ 

adopted before December 2006 (together 

referred to as ‘‘baseline measures’’) that 

have not been approved into the SIP, 

and that the inclusion of credit for these 

baseline measures undermines the 

attainment and progress demonstrations 

attached to these inventories. For 

example, both commenters object to the 

inclusion of credit for CARB’s antiidling requirements in the baseline 

inventories because these requirements 

have never been submitted for SIP 

approval, and Earthjustice suggests that 

EPA should have adjusted the credit for 

these anti-idling requirements based on 

CARB’s failure to enforce them. Both 

commenters assert that EPA has not 

specifically evaluated these baseline 

measures to determine how they should 

be credited in the baseline inventories, 

and Earthjustice asserts that the 

measures upon which the attainment 

and progress demonstrations rely must 

be enforceable, creditable controls 

approved into the SIP subject to the 

CAA’s anti-backsliding provisions. 

In addition, based on information 

provided in Table 7 of the 2011 

Proposal and tables F–7 and F–9 of the 

2011 Proposal TSD, AIR provides its 

own calculations of the total amount of 

emissions reduction credits attributed to 

baseline measures and requests that 

EPA confirm the accuracy of AIR’s 

calculations. 

Finally, AIR asserts that these 

additional ‘‘non-waiver’’ baseline 

measures should also be SIP-approved: 

• Heavy Duty Diesel Chip Reflash 

(adopted March 27, 2004); 

• Diesel Particulate Matter Control 

Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty 

Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or 

Operated by Public Agencies and 

Utilities (adopted December 8, 2005); 

• Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule 

(adopted September 24, 2003); 

• Fork Lifts and Other Industrial 

Equipment (adopted May 26, 2006); 

• Pesticides—Field Fumigant Limits 

(submitted to EPA October 12, 2009). 

Response: We disagree that there is 

any inadequacy in the emissions 

projections that undermines the RACM, 

RFP or attainment demonstrations in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan. We explained in our 

2011 proposal (76 FR 41338 at 41342, 

41343) our reasons for concluding both 

that the 2005 base year inventory in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan is comprehensive, 

accurate, and current as required by 

CAA section 172(c)(3) and that the 

projected baseline inventories for 2009, 

2012 and 2014 provide adequate bases 

for the RACM, RFP and attainment 

demonstrations in the Plan. 

With respect to mobile source 

emissions, we believe that credit for 

emissions reductions from 

implementation of California mobile 

source rules that are subject to CAA 

section 209 waivers (‘‘waiver 

measures’’) is appropriate 

notwithstanding the fact that such rules 

are not approved as part of the 

California SIP. In the TSD supporting 

our 2011 proposal, we explained why 

we believe such credit is appropriate. 

See 2011 Proposal TSD at section 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 69907 

34MOVES replaced the MOBILE model as EPA’s 

on-road mobile source emissions estimation model 

for use in SIPs and conformity in 2010. 

35 Information about CARB’s emissions 

inventories for on-road and non-road mobile 

sources, and the EMFAC and OFFROAD models 

used to project changes in future inventories, is 

available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm. 

36 Information on base year emissions from 

stationary point sources is obtained primarily from 

the districts, while CARB and the districts share 

responsibility for developing and updating 

information on emissions from various area source 

categories. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 

21. 

II.F.4.a.i. Historically, EPA has granted 

credit for the waiver measures because 

of special Congressional recognition, in 

establishing the waiver process in the 

first place, of the pioneering California 

motor vehicle control program and 

because amendments to the CAA (in 

1977) expanded the flexibility granted 

to California in order ‘‘to afford 

California the broadest possible 

discretion in selecting the best means to 

protect the health of its citizens and the 

public welfare’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th 

Congr., 1st Sess. 301–2 (1977)). In 

allowing California to take credit for the 

waiver measures notwithstanding the 

fact that the underlying rules are not 

part of the California SIP, EPA treated 

the waiver measures similarly to the 

Federal motor vehicle control 

requirements, which EPA has always 

allowed States to credit in their SIPs 

without submitting the program as a SIP 

revision. 

EPA’s historical practice has been to 

give SIP credit for motor-vehicle-related 

waiver measures by allowing California 

to include motor vehicle emissions 

estimates made by using California’s 

EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor 

vehicle emissions factor model in SIP 

inventories. EPA verifies the emissions 

reductions from motor-vehicle-related 

waiver measures through review and 

approval of EMFAC, which is updated 

from time to time by California to reflect 

updated methods and data, as well as 

newly-established emissions standards. 

(Emissions reductions from EPA’s motor 

vehicle standards are reflected in an 

analogous model known as MOVES.34) 

The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan was developed 

using a version of the EMFAC model 

referred to as EMFAC2007, which EPA 

has approved for use in SIP 

development in California. See 73 FR 

3464 (January 18, 2008). Thus, the 

emissions reductions that are from the 

California on-road ‘‘waiver measures’’ 

and that are estimated through use of 

EMFAC are as verifiable as are the 

emissions reductions relied upon by 

states other than California in 

developing their SIPs based on 

estimates of motor vehicle emissions 

made through the use of the MOVES 

model. All other states use the MOVES 

model (and prior to release of MOVES, 

the MOBILE model) in their baseline 

inventories without submitting the 

federal motor vehicle regulations for 

incorporation into their SIPs. 

Similarly, emissions reductions that 

are from California’s waiver measures 

for non-road engines and vehicles (e.g., 

agricultural, construction, lawn and 

garden and off-road recreation 

equipment) are estimated through use of 

CARB’s OFFROAD emissions factor 

model.35 (Emissions reductions from 

EPA’s non-road engine and vehicle 

standards are reflected in an analogous 

model known as NONROAD). Since 

1990, EPA has treated California nonroad standards for which EPA has 

issued waivers in the same manner as 

California motor vehicle standards, i.e., 

allowing credit for standards subject to 

the waiver process without requiring 

submittal of the standards as part of the 

SIP. In so doing, EPA has treated the 

California non-road standards similarly 

to the Federal non-road standards, 

which are relied upon, but not included 

in, various SIPs. See generally 2011 

Proposal TSD at section II.F.4.a.i. 

CARB’s EMFAC and OFFROAD 

models employ complex routines that 

predict vehicle fleet turnover by vehicle 

model years and include control 

algorithms that account for all adopted 

regulatory actions which, when 

combined with the fleet turnover 

algorithms, provide future baseline 

projections. See 2007 State Strategy, 

Appendix F at 7–8. For stationary 

sources, the California Emissions 

Forecasting System (CEFS) projects 

future emissions from stationary and 

area sources (in addition to aircraft and 

ships) using a forecasting algorithm that 

applies growth factors and control 

profiles to the base year inventory.36See 

id. at 7. The CEFS model integrates the 

projected inventories for both stationary 

and mobile sources into a single 

database to provide a comprehensive 

statewide forecast inventory, from 

which nonattainment area inventories 

are extracted for use in establishing 

future baseline planning inventories. 

See id. In 2011, CARB updated the 

baseline emissions projections for 

several source categories to account for, 

among other things, more recent 

economic forecasts and improved 

methodologies for estimating emissions 

from the heavy duty truck and 

construction source categories. See 2011 

Progress Report at Appendix E. These 

methodologies for projecting future 

emissions based on growth factors and 

existing Federal, State, and local 

controls were consistent with EPA 

guidance on developing projected 

baseline inventories. See 2011 Proposal 

TSD at section II.A; see also 

‘‘Procedures for Preparing Emissions 

Projections,’’ EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, EPA–450/4– 

91–019, July 1991; ‘‘Emissions 

Projections,’’ STAPPA/ALAPCO/EPA 

Emissions Inventory Improvement 

Project, Volume X, December 1999 

(available at http://www.epa.gov/

ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume10/ 

x01.pdf). 

In sum, the 2005 base year and future 

projected baseline inventories in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan were prepared using a 

complex set of CARB methodologies to 

estimate and project emissions from 

stationary sources, in addition to the 

most recent emissions factors and 

models and updated activity levels for 

emissions associated with mobile 

sources, including: (1) The latest EPAapproved California motor vehicle 

emissions factor model (EMFAC2007) 

and the most recent motor vehicle 

activity data from each of the 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) in the San Joaquin Valley; (2) 

improved methodologies for estimating 

emissions from specific source 

categories; and (3) CARB’s non-road 

mobile source model (the OFFROAD 

model). See TSD Section II.A 

(referencing, inter alia, 2007 State 

Strategy at Appendix F) and 2011 

Progress Report. EPA has approved 

numerous California SIPs that rely on 

base year and projected baseline 

inventories including emissions 

estimates derived from the EMFAC, 

OFFROAD, and CEFS models. See, e.g., 

65 FR 6091 (February 8, 2000) 

(proposed rule to approve 1-hour ozone 

plan for South Coast) and 65 FR 18903 

(April 10, 2000) (final rule); 70 FR 

43663 (July 28, 2005) (proposed rule to 

approve PM–10 plan for South Coast 

and Coachella Valley) and 70 FR 69081 

(November 14, 2005) (final rule); 74 FR 

66916 (December 17, 2009) (direct final 

rule to approve ozone plan for Monterey 

Bay). The commenter has provided no 

information to support a claim that 

these methodologies for developing base 

year inventories and projecting future 

emissions in the SJV are inadequate to 

support the RACM, RFP, and attainment 

demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

For all of these reasons and as 

discussed in our 2011 proposal (76 FR 

41338 at 41342, 41343), we have 

concluded that the 2005 base year 

inventory in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan is a 

‘‘comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources of the relevant pollutant or 

pollutants’’ in the SJV area, consistent 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69908 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

37EPA is currently reviewing a request from 

CARB for a determination as to whether certain 

requirements of these anti-idling rules are 

preempted by section 209(a) of the CAA; certain 

provisions are conditions precedent pursuant to 

section 209(a) of the Act; certain provisions are 

within-the-scope of previous waivers and 

authorizations issued pursuant to sections 209(b) 

and 209(e) of the Act, respectively; and at least one 

provision requires and merits a full authorization 

pursuant to section 209(e) of the Act. See 75 FR 

43975 (July 27, 2010). CARB estimates that the 

operational requirement of the anti-idling rule, 

which is not subject to a CAA section 209 waiver, 

achieves 0.2 tpd of NOX in the SJV. See 

Memorandum, Doris Lo, Air Division, Planning 

Office (AIR–2); to the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5

Docket No. EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0516, ‘‘SIP Credit 

for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Low-NOX Software 

(‘‘Chip Reflash’’)’’; from, September 28, 2011. 

38See letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, 

CARB to Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, EPA 

RE: Request for Authorization Determination 

Pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 209(e) for 

Amendments to California’s Off-Road Emissions 

Standards Regulation for large Spark-Ignition (LSI) 

Engines and Fleet Requirement for In-Use LSI 

Forklifts and Other Industrial Equipment and 

California State Motor Vehicle and Nonroad Engine 

Pollution Control Standards; Truck Idling 

Requirements; Opportunity for Public Hearing and 

Request for Public Comment; Notice Of 

Opportunity For Public Hearing And Comment. 75 

FR 43975 (July 27, 2010). 

39The 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, 

‘‘Emissions Inventory Output Tables’’ documents 

the adjustment in the baseline that CARB made to 

account for Chip Reflash (or Heavy-Duty Diesel 

Engine Software Upgrade). As described in 

appendix A, CARB staff estimates that the overall 

benefits of the software upgrade regulation plus 

related actions provided approximately 38 tons per 

day of NOX emissions reductions statewide in year 

2007. CARB also indicates that it took into account 

the fact that the software upgrade regulation had 

been invalidated by including no additional 

emissions reductions from chip reflash other than 

those that had already occurred due to compliance 

with the regulation (prior to invalidation by the 

court), voluntary upgrade programs, ongoing engine 

rebuilds, engine upgrades by manufacturers exempt 

from the regulation, and interstate trucks. CARB 

staff recently confirmed that the baseline 

adjustment for chip reflash in the 2007 State 

Strategy reflects emissions reduction credit only for 

engines that have been ‘‘reflashed’’. See 

Memorandum, Doris Lo, Air Division, Planning 

Office (AIR–2); to the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5

Docket No. EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0516, ‘‘SIP Credit 

for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Low-NOX Software 

(‘‘Chip Reflash’’)’’; from September 28, 2011. 

with the requirements for emissions 

inventories in CAA section 172(c)(3), 40 

CFR 51.1008, and 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart A. In addition, we conclude that 

the projected baseline inventories for 

2009, 2012 and 2014 were prepared 

consistent with EPA’s guidance on 

development of emissions inventories 

and attainment demonstrations and, 

therefore, provide an adequate basis for 

the RACM, RFP and attainment 

demonstrations in the Plan. See 2011 

Proposal TSD at section II.A. 

As to the six specific baseline 

measures that CRPE asserts should be 

SIP-approved, we note first that the SJV 

2008 PM2.5 SIP does not rely on credit 

for emissions reductions from the 

Pesticides regulations (Field Fumigant 

Limits) as those regulations address 

only VOC and therefore do not apply to 

any pollutant that is a PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursor in the SJV (PM2.5, NOX, 

or SO2). 

Second, both the Requirements to 

Reduce Idling Emissions from New and 

In-Use Trucks (effective November 15, 

2006) 37 and the Fork Lifts and Other 

Industrial Equipment measure (adopted 

May 26, 2006) are pending EPA waiver 

determinations under CAA section 

209(b) or section 209(e).38 We expect 

that EPA will act on these requests for 

waivers of preemption or authorization 

under CAA section 209 in the near term, 

and that our final approval of the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan based in part on its reliance 

on the emissions reductions associated 

with these rules is, therefore, reasonable 

and appropriate. If, however, EPA either 

denies or does not issue the State’s 

requested waiver for any of these 

measures prior to the effective date of 

today’s action, we will take appropriate 

remedial action to ensure that our action 

on the plan is fully supportable or to 

reconsider that action. 

Third, as to the Diesel Particulate 

Matter Control Measure for On-Road 

Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles 

Owned or Operated by Public Agencies 

and Utilities (adopted December 8, 

2005), CARB’s staff report on this 

measure indicates that the projected 

baseline inventories have attributed 

emissions reductions of 0.1 tpd PM2.5

and 0.18 tpd NOX statewide to this 

measure. See Staff Report: Proposed 

Diesel Particulate Matter Control 

Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty 

Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or 

Operated by Public Agencies and 

Utilities, October 2005, at pg. 55. 

Assuming less than 25 percent of these 

reductions are attributed to the SJV area, 

the de minimis amounts of emissions 

reductions attributed to this measure in 

the 2008 PM2.5 SIP do not affect our 

evaluation of the attainment and RFP 

demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 SIP. 

Similarly, as to the Solid Waste 

Collection Vehicle Rule (adopted 

September 24, 2003), CARB’s staff 

report on this measure indicates that the 

projected baseline inventories have 

attributed emissions reductions of 0.17 

tpd PM2.5 and 2.3 tpd NOX statewide to 

this measure. See Supplemental Staff 

Report: Proposed Diesel Particulate 

Matter Control Measure for On-Road 

Heavy-Duty Residential and 

Commercial Solid Waste Collection 

Vehicles, August 8, 2003, at pg. 18. 

Assuming less than 25 percent of these 

reductions are attributed to the SJV area, 

the de minimis amounts of emissions 

reductions attributed to this measure in 

the 2008 PM2.5 SIP also do not affect our 

evaluation of the attainment and RFP 

demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 SIP. 

Finally, the Heavy Duty Diesel 

Engine-Chip Reflash rule (adopted 

March 27, 2004) (‘‘Chip Reflash’’ rule) 

was intended to ensure expeditious 

compliance with CARB’s NOX

emissions standard for heavy-duty 

diesel (HDD) engines by requiring 

installation of ‘‘Low-NOX Software.’’ 

The Chip Reflash rule was invalidated 

in part by a California State Court, and 

CARB repealed the related regulations 

in June 2007. The emissions reduction 

credit attributed to Chip Reflash in 

CARB’s baseline inventories is limited 

to vehicles that have been ‘‘reflashed,’’ 

i.e., physically installed the Low-NOX

Software,39 removal of which would 

constitute a violation of the CAA 

and/or California state law. See the 

statutory anti-tampering laws in CAA 

section 203(a)(3) and California Vehicle 

Code section 27156. Thus, the NOX

emissions reductions attributed to 

‘‘reflashed’’ engines are enforceable 

under the CAA and/or California state 

law. 

As to AIR’s calculation of the 

reductions from baseline measures, AIR 

calculates what it considers ‘‘the total 

reductions from baseline reductions 

without recession reductions’’ to be 11 

tpd of PM2.5, 195 tpd of NOX, and 0.9 

tpd of SOX. These figures are not correct 

because they do not take into account 

CARB’s recent updates to the projected 

2014 inventory. 

For the 2008 PM2.5 SIP, ‘‘baseline 

reductions’’ are calculated by 

subtracting the 2005 base year inventory 

form the projected 2014 pre-controlstrategy inventory. As we have 

discussed above, CARB revised its 

projected 2014 inventories to 

incorporate not only the continuing 

effects of the recent economic recession 

but also many non-recession related 

changes. These revisions have resulted 

in a more accurate projected 2014 

inventory. 

As we have discussed previously, 

projected emissions inventories are a 

function in part of changes in activity. 

Projected inventories are, therefore, 

necessarily affected by forecasts of 

industrial growth, population growth, 

and transportation growth, among other 

factors. EPA guidance emphasizes the 

importance of developing reliable 

methods for estimating future source 

activity levels as part of the SIP 

planning process. We believe that CARB 

has done this. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 69909 

40 In addition, the commenters’ concerns over the 

potential for relaxation by the State of the waiver 

measures because the underlying regulations are 

not subject to EPA review and approval as a SIP 

revision are not a practical concern for this 

particular plan given that the plan’s horizon is very 

short term (next couple of years), and the on-road 

and nonroad vehicles that in part will determine 

whether the area attains the standard are already in 

operation or in dealer showrooms. There is no 

practical means for the State to relax the standards 

of vehicles already manufactured, even if the State 

wanted to relax the standards. 

2. Waiver Measures 

Comment: Earthjustice and CRPE 

object to our proposal to grant emissions 

reduction credit to California’s mobile 

source control measures that have 

received a waiver of preemption under 

CAA section 209 without first approving 

them into the SIP. Both commenters 

argue that our reliance for this proposal 

on the general savings clause in CAA 

section 193 is inappropriate for several 

reasons. 

First, the commenters assert that CAA 

section 193 only saves those ‘‘formal 

rules, notices, or guidance documents’’ 

that are not inconsistent with the CAA. 

They argue that both the CAA and 

EPA’s long-standing policies and 

regulations require SIPs to contain the 

state and local emission limitations and 

control measures that are necessary for 

attainment and RFP and to meet other 

CAA requirements. They assert that our 

position on the treatment of California’s 

waived measures is inconsistent with 

this requirement. CRPE asserts that EPA 

has, in contrast, approved other (nonmobile source) state measures into the 

SIP, e.g., the consumer products rules 

and fuel standards. Earthjustice also 

argues that only SIP approval provides 

for the CAA’s enforcement oversight 

(CAA sections 179 and 304) and antibacksliding (CAA section 110(l) and 

193) safeguards. 

Second, the commenters argue that 

we cannot claim that our position was 

ratified by Congress because section 193 

saves only regulations, standards, rules, 

notices, orders and guidance 

‘‘promulgated or issued’’ by the 

Administrator and we have not 

identified documents promulgated or 

issued by EPA that establish our 

position here. Earthjustice further 

asserts that our interpretation has not 

been expressed through any affirmative 

statements and the only statements of 

relevant statutory interpretations are 

contrary to our position on California’s 

waived measures. 

Third, Earthjustice argues that there is 

no automatic presumption that Congress 

is aware of an agency’s interpretations 

and we have not provided any evidence 

that Congress was aware of our 

interpretation regarding the SIP 

treatment of California’s mobile source 

control measures. Similarly, CRPE 

argues that our positions that Congress 

must expressly disapprove of EPA’s 

long-standing interpretation and 

Congressional silence equates to a 

ratification of EPA’s interpretation are 

incorrect. 

Finally, CRPE argues that waiver 

measures may not be used in attainment 

demonstrations because EPA makes no 

finding during the waiver process that 

the rules achieve the reductions claimed 

or that the measures are SIP creditable. 

CRPE also notes that these issues are the 

subject of litigation in the 9th Circuit 

U.S. Court of Appeals in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, Consolidated Case Nos. 10–71457 

and 10–71458. 

Response: We continue to believe that 

credit for emissions reductions from 

implementation of California mobile 

source rules that are subject to CAA 

section 209 waivers (‘‘waiver 

measures’’) is appropriate 

notwithstanding the fact that such rules 

are not approved as part of the 

California SIP. In our 2011 proposal and 

the 2011 Proposal TSD, we explained 

why we believe such credit is 

appropriate. See 76 FR 41338 at 41345 

and 2011 Proposal TSD at section 

II.F.4.a.i. Historically, EPA has granted 

credit for the waiver measures because 

of special Congressional recognition, in 

establishing the waiver process in the 

first place, of the pioneering California 

motor vehicle control program and 

because amendments to the CAA (in 

1977) expanded the flexibility granted 

to California in order ‘‘to afford 

California the broadest possible 

discretion in selecting the best means to 

protect the health of its citizens and the 

public welfare,’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 

95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301–2 (1977)). In 

allowing California to take credit for the 

waiver measures notwithstanding the 

fact that the underlying rules are not 

part of the California SIP, EPA treated 

the waiver measures similarly to the 

Federal motor vehicle control 

requirements, which EPA has always 

allowed States to credit in their SIPs 

without submitting the program as a SIP 

revision. As we explained in the 2011 

Proposal TSD (pp. 100–102), credit for 

Federal measures, including those that 

establish on-road and nonroad 

standards, notwithstanding their 

absence in the SIP, is justified by 

reference to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), 

which establishes the following content 

requirements for SIPs: ‘‘* * * 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques (including economic 

incentives such as fees, marketable 

permits, and auctions of emissions 

rights), * * *, as may be necessary or 

appropriate to meet the applicable 

requirements of this chapter.’’ 

(emphasis added). Federal measures are 

permanent, independently enforceable 

(by EPA and citizens), and quantifiable 

without regard to whether they are 

approved into a SIP, and thus EPA has 

never found such measures to be 

‘‘necessary or appropriate’’ for inclusion 

in SIPs to meet the applicable 

requirements of the Act. Section 209 of 

the CAA establishes a process under 

which EPA allows California’s waiver 

measures to substitute for Federal 

measures, and like the Federal measures 

for which they substitute, EPA has 

historically found, and continues to 

find, based on considerations of 

permanence, enforceability, and 

quantifiability, that such measures are 

not ‘‘necessary or appropriate’’ for 

California to include in its SIP to meet 

the applicable requirements of the Act. 

First, with respect to permanence, we 

note that, to maintain a waiver, CARB’s 

on-road waiver measures can be relaxed 

only to a level of aggregate equivalence 

to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control 

Program (FMVCP). See section 

209(b)(1). In this respect, the FMVCP 

acts as a partial backstop to California’s 

on-road waiver measures (i.e., absent a 

waiver, the FMVCP would apply in 

California). Likewise, Federal nonroad 

vehicle and engine standards act as a 

partial backstop for corresponding 

California nonroad waiver measures. 

The constraints of the waiver process 

thus serve to limit the extent to which 

CARB can relax the waiver measures for 

which there are corresponding EPA 

standards, and thereby serve an antibacksliding function similar in 

substance to those established for SIP 

revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 

193.40 Meanwhile, the growing 

convergence between California and 

EPA mobile source standards 

diminishes the difference in the 

emissions reductions reasonably 

attributed to the two programs and 

strengthens the role of the Federal 

program in serving as an effective 

backstop to the State program. In other 

words, with the harmonization of EPA 

mobile source standards with the 

corresponding State standards, the 

Federal program is becoming essentially 

a full backstop to most parts of the 

California program. 

Second, as to enforceability, we note 

that the waiver process itself bestows 

enforceability onto California to enforce 

the on-road or nonroad standards for 

which EPA has issued the waiver. CARB 

has as long a history of enforcement of 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69910 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

41 In this regard, we disagree that we are treating 

the waiver measures inconsistently with other 

California control measures, such as consumer 

products and fuels rules, for the simple reason that, 

unlike the waiver measures, there is no history of 

past practice or legislative history supporting 

treatment of other California measures, such as 

consumer products rules and fuels rules, in any 

manner differently than is required as a general rule 

under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), i.e., state and local 

measures that are relied upon for SIP purposes must 

be approved into the SIP. 

vehicle/engine emissions standards as 

EPA, and CARB’s enforcement program 

is equally as rigorous as the 

corresponding EPA program. The 

history and rigor of CARB’s enforcement 

program lends assurance to California 

SIP revisions that rely on the emissions 

reductions from CARB’s rules in the 

same manner as EPA’s mobile source 

enforcement program lends assurance to 

other state’s SIPs in their reliance on 

emissions reductions from the FMVCP. 

While it is true that citizens and EPA 

are not authorized to enforce California 

waiver measures under the Clean Air 

Act (i.e., because they are not in the 

SIP), citizens and EPA are authorized to 

enforce EPA standards in the event that 

vehicles operate in California without 

either California or EPA certification. 

As to quantifiability, EPA’s historical 

practice has been to give SIP credit for 

motor-vehicle-related waiver measures 

by allowing California to include motor 

vehicle emissions estimates made by 

using California’s EMFAC (and its 

predecessors) motor vehicle emissions 

factor model in SIP inventories. EPA 

verifies the emissions reductions from 

motor-vehicle-related waiver measures 

through review and approval of EMFAC, 

which is updated from time to time by 

California to reflect updated methods 

and data, as well as newly-established 

emissions standards. (Emissions 

reductions from EPA’s motor vehicle 

standards are reflected in an analogous 

model known as MOVES.) The EMFAC 

model is based on the motor vehicle 

emissions standards for which 

California has received waivers from 

EPA but accounts for vehicle 

deterioration and many other factors. 

The motor vehicle emissions estimates 

themselves combine EMFAC results 

with vehicle activity estimates, among 

other considerations. See the 1982 Bay 

Area Air Quality Plan, and the related 

EPA rulemakings approving the plan 

(see 48 FR 5074 (February 3, 1983) for 

the proposed rule and 48 FR 57130 

(December 28, 1983) for the final rule) 

as an example of how the waiver 

measures have been treated historically 

by EPA in California SIP actions. The 

San Joaquin Valley plan was developed 

using a version of the EMFAC model 

referred to as EMFAC2007, which EPA 

has approved for use in SIP 

development in California. See 73 FR 

3464 (January 18, 2008). Thus, the 

emissions reductions that are from the 

California on-road ‘‘waiver measures’’ 

and that are estimated through use of 

EMFAC are as verifiable as are the 

emissions reductions relied upon by 

states other than California in 

developing their SIPs based on 

estimates of motor vehicle emissions 

made through the use of the MOVES 

model. 

Moreover, EPA’s waiver review and 

approval process is analogous to the SIP 

approval process. First, CARB adopts its 

emissions standards following notice 

and comment procedures at the state 

level, and then submits the rules to EPA 

as part of its waiver request. When EPA 

receives new waiver requests from 

CARB, EPA publishes a notice of 

opportunity for public hearing and 

comment and then publishes a decision 

in the Federal Register following the 

public comment period. Once again, in 

substance, the process is similar to that 

for SIP approval and supports the 

argument that one hurdle (the waiver 

process) is all Congress intended for 

California standards, not two (waiver 

process plus SIP approval process). 

Second, just as SIP revisions are not 

effective until approved by EPA, 

changes to CARB’s rules (for which a 

waiver has been granted) are not 

effective until EPA grants a new waiver, 

unless the changes are ‘‘within the 

scope’’ of a prior waiver and no new 

waiver is needed. Third, both types of 

final actions by EPA—i.e., final actions 

on California requests for waivers and 

final actions on state submittals of SIPs 

and SIP revisions may be challenged 

under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA in 

the appropriate United States Court of 

Appeals. 

In the 2011 Proposal TSD (pp. 102– 

103), we indicated that we believe that 

section 193 of the CAA, the general 

savings clause added by Congress in 

1990, effectively ratified our longstanding practice of granting credit for 

the California waiver rules because 

Congress did not insert any language 

into the statute rendering EPA’s 

treatment of California’s motor vehicle 

standards inconsistent with the Act. 

Rather, Congress extended the 

California waiver provisions to most 

types of nonroad vehicles and engines, 

once again reflecting Congressional 

intent to provide California with the 

broadest possible discretion in selecting 

the best means to protect the health of 

its citizens and the public welfare. 

Requiring the waiver measures to 

undergo SIP review in addition to the 

statutory waiver process is not 

consistent with providing California 

with the broadest possible discretion as 

to on-road and nonroad vehicle and 

engine standards, but rather, would add 

to the regulatory burden California faces 

in establishing and modifying such 

standards, and thus would not be 

consistent with Congressional intent. In 

short, we believe that Congress intended 

California’s mobile source rules to 

undergo only one EPA review process 

(i.e., the waiver process), not two. 

In summary, we disagree that our 

interpretation of CAA section 193 is 

fundamentally flawed. EPA has 

historically given SIP credit for waiver 

measures in our approval of attainment 

demonstrations and other planning 

requirements such as reasonable further 

progress and contingency measures 

submitted by California. We continue to 

believe that section 193 ratifies our 

long-standing practice of allowing credit 

for California’s waiver measures 

notwithstanding the fact they are not 

approved into the SIP, and correctly 

reflects Congressional intent to provide 

California with the broadest possible 

discretion in the development and 

promulgation of on-road and nonroad 

vehicle and engine standards.41

CRPE correctly notes that EPA’s 

treatment of California waiver measures 

in SIP actions is the subject of current 

litigation in Sierra Club v. EPA, 

Consolidated Case Nos. 10–71457 and 

10–71458 (9th Circuit). 

3. Enforceable Commitments 

Comment: AIR argues that EPA 

cannot make a finding that the 

‘‘recession reductions’’ are an 

‘‘enforceable’’ measure within the 

meaning of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) 

and 172(c)(6) because ‘‘recession 

reductions’’ are only voluntary behavior 

to reduce activity for economic reasons 

and nothing prevents such an increase 

in activity as the economy improves. 

Based on this argument, AIR asserts that 

EPA’s approval of the attainment 

demonstration is arbitrary and 

capricious and not in accordance with 

the law. AIR asserts that CARB concedes 

that the reductions coming from 

reduced activity may change in the 

future. 

Response: EPA is not making a 

finding that emissions ‘‘reductions’’ 

related to the economic recession are 

‘‘enforceable’’ measures under CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6). As 

explained in our amended proposal (76 

FR 41338 at 41354–41356), we are 

concluding that CARB’s 2011 SIP 

revisions, which updated the State’s 

projected (‘‘baseline’’) emissions 

inventories based on improved 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 69911 

42These five in-use rules are CARB’s Truck rule, 

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Reduction Regulation, In-Use On-Road DieselFueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks Regulation, OffRoad rule), and the LSI regulation (collective ‘‘inuse rules’’). 

43To determine the extent to which it could 

revise its in-use rules to provide economic relief 

and still meet the attainment target, CARB 

evaluated whether the lower emissions from the 

revised inventories for both trucks, buses and offroad equipment, when combined with the effects of 

the recession, provided greater emissions 

reductions from the in-use rules than were initially 

expected. CARB referred to these greater-thanexpected emissions reductions as the ‘‘emission 

margin.’’ Because the in-use diesel rules reduced 

both direct PM2.5 and NOX and both pollutants 

contribute to ambient levels of PM2.5, CARB 

calculated the margin on a ‘‘NOX equivalent’’ basis 

and found that the margin for the SJV was 40 tpd 

of NOX equivalents. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, 

p. 23. 

methodologies for estimating emissions 

and more recent growth factors, reduced 

the total amount of emissions 

reductions needed for attainment and 

that the control strategy in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, as revised in 2011, 

demonstrates expeditious attainment of 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV from 

the revised baseline. 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA 

requires that each implementation plan 

submitted by a State include 

‘‘enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques * * * as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance, as may 

be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of [the CAA].’’ 

Section 172(c)(6) contains substantively 

identical requirements for all 

nonattainment area plans. Baseline 

emissions inventories, however, are not 

‘‘enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques’’ or ‘‘schedules and 

timetables for compliance’’ that are 

necessary or appropriate to meet CAA 

requirements. See El Comite Para El 

Bienestar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam, 

539 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(concluding that a baseline inventory is 

not an enforceable ‘‘standard or 

limitation’’ as defined by the CAA and 

is not, therefore, an independently 

enforceable aspect[] of the SIP’’). Rather, 

baseline emissions inventories provide 

the basis for, among other things, the 

demonstrations of attainment and 

progress toward attainment required by 

CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 172(c)(2). 

Specifically, CAA section 172(c)(3) 

requires that each plan for a 

nonattainment area include ‘‘a 

comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources of the relevant pollutant or 

pollutants in such area * * *’’). After 

developing this ‘‘base year’’ emissions 

inventory, States use modeling and 

other analyses to calculate future 

emissions projections and ‘‘target’’ 

emissions levels, which then inform the 

State’s development of progress 

milestones and control strategies for 

attaining the NAAQS. See General 

Preamble at 13507–13510. In short, 

emissions inventories provide estimates 

of current and future emissions that, in 

turn, provide the starting point for the 

State’s attainment demonstration and 

enforceable control strategy. 

Nothing in the CAA precludes a State 

from revising a submitted plan to take 

into account revised emissions 

estimates and projections. All 

projections of future emissionsgenerating activity (including the 

original projections in the 2008 PM2.5

Plan that AIR would have CARB and 

EPA continue to use) are based on 

projections of population and 

employment and other growth factors 

that reflect voluntary behavior, all of 

which can increase or decrease as 

economic conditions change. However, 

reliance on projections from reputable 

sources of economic behavior based on 

established methods of predicting such 

behavior is the historic practice for 

development of emissions inventories. 

CARB’s revised projections of future 

emissions-generating activity are based 

on reputable sources, represent the most 

current understanding of expected 

economic conditions through at least 

2014, and were subject to extensive 

public review and comment before 

CARB adopted its 2011 SIP revisions 

containing these updated projections. 

Given the magnitude of the economic 

recession’s impact on emissionsgenerating activity in SJV and other 

parts of California, and the resulting 

impact on the State’s assessment of the 

control strategy necessary to 

demonstrate attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 standards, we conclude that it is 

appropriate to take these updated 

emissions projections into account as 

part of our action on the 2008 PM2.5

Plan. Other than asserting generally that 

CARB and EPA should not rely on the 

revised economic data to determine the 

reductions needed for attainment and 

that future conditions may change, AIR 

provides no information that 

undermines the State’s revised 

economic data or the related changes to 

the projected inventories. 

We disagree with AIR’s unsupported 

assertion that ‘‘CARB concedes that the 

reductions coming from reduced 

activity may change in the future.’’ 

CARB has stated that it will continue to 

track emissions trends to ensure that the 

2014 emissions targets are met and 

maintains its commitment to adopt and 

implement additional control 

requirements, incentive programs, or 

other measures as appropriate to reduce 

emissions to the levels necessary to 

attain. See 2011 Progress Report, p. 4. 

Moreover, as discussed above, the 

revisions to the 2014 baseline inventory 

that AIR characterizes as ‘‘recession 

reductions’’ took into account not only 

the State’s revised economic forecasts 

but numerous other factors, including 

updated activity data and growth 

projections. See section II.A 

(‘‘Comments on the Proposed Actions 

on the Emissions Inventory’’) above. 

Comment: AIR asserts that the Plan 

relies on emissions reductions caused 

by the recent economic recession to 

demonstrate attainment, rather than 

requiring reductions from diesel trucks 

and other diesel equipment in 2014. 

Noting CARB’s recent revisions to five 

of its in-use rules,42 AIR argues that 

these rule revisions ‘‘reduc[ed] the 

amount of reductions that those five inuse rules would have achieved by 

2014,’’ and that CARB has equated 

recession-related emissions reductions 

with the reductions necessary to meet 

the 2014 tonnage targets. AIR asserts 

that the difference between the prerecession and recession inventories in 

the Valley is 40 tons per day of NOX. 

Response: As discussed above, 

CARB’s revisions to the 2014 baseline 

inventories took into account not only 

the State’s revised economic forecasts 

but numerous other factors, including 

updated activity data and growth 

projections. See section II.A above. 

These improvements to the emissions 

estimates reduced the projected 2014 

emissions levels for trucks, buses and 

certain off-road equipment compared to 

the levels expected when CARB initially 

adopted its rules for these sources in 

2007 and 2008. These revised 

projections, in turn, reduced the State’s 

assessment of the amount of emissions 

reductions needed from these emissions 

sources to provide for attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and 

allowed CARB to provide some 

economic relief to the affected 

industries.43 We note that because EPA 

has not previously approved California’s 

in-use truck rules into the SIP, EPA’s 

approval of these rules strengthens the 

SIP and meets the requirements of CAA 

section 110(l). See CAA 110(l) 

(prohibiting EPA from approving a 

revision of a plan ‘‘if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress * * * or any 

other applicable requirement of [the 

Act]’’). 

Both the revised Truck rule and the 

revised Off-Road rule continue to 

require reductions from diesel trucks 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69912 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

and other diesel equipment in 2014 and 

future years. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, 

p. 45 and 2010 Off-Road Equipment 

ISOR, p. 38; see also, 76 FR 41338, 

41346 (Table 6). 

Comment: AIR claims that the 2011 

Progress Report shows CARB considers 

‘‘recession reductions’’ as a part of its 

‘‘global’’ emissions reduction 

commitment. In support of this claim, 

AIR quotes the 2011 Progress Report at 

page 4: 

As a result of the recession, actual 

emissions decreases moved California closer 

to the emissions levels needed for attainment 

in 2014. The recession has reduced economic 

activity and emissions, most notably in the 

goods movement sector. This has allowed 

ARB to maintain the State’s SIP 

commitments in the South Coast and San 

Joaquin Valley while also providing some 

near-term economic relief to affected 

industries. 

As the economy recovers, ARB will 

continue to track emissions trends to ensure 

the 2014 emissions targets are met. If future 

emissions were to exceed the SIP target, the 

State’s commitment could be made up with 

additional controls, incentive programs, or 

other programs to bring emissions down to 

the necessary levels. A discussion of how 

ARB accounted for the recession is found 

later in this report. 

Response: EPA is not treating any 

‘‘recession reductions’’ as part of the 

State’s enforceable commitments. As 

explained above, we are approving the 

attainment demonstration and control 

strategy in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan based on 

our conclusion that the Plan, as revised 

by CARB’s 2011 revisions to the 

projected baseline inventories, 

demonstrates expeditious attainment of 

the PM2.5 standards in the SJV. EPA 

interprets the quoted language as a 

statement of CARB’s future plans to 

revise the SIP as necessary should 

economic activity change significantly 

in the future. 

Comment: AIR claims that in 

proposing to disapprove the CARB’s 

global commitment in November 2010, 

EPA recognized that the Truck rule 

could reduce that percentage of 

reductions remaining as commitments 

below 10 percent. It then asserts that 

EPA cannot now approve the 

commitment and the attainment 

demonstration because CARB’s 

relaxation of the Truck rule and the OffRoad rule to delay reductions beyond 

2014 mean that the percentages of PM2.5

and NOX reductions needed for 

attainment that remain as commitments 

are still well above the 10 percent 

threshold. AIR states that based on its 

calculations, the percentage of total 

reductions remaining as commitments, 

if adjustments to the baseline are not 

included, would be 25.1 percent for 

PM2.5 and 26.7 percent for NOX. 

Response: EPA did not propose to 

disapprove CARB’s aggregate 

commitments in its 2010 proposal. We 

proposed then and again in our 2011 

proposal to approve CARB’s aggregate 

emissions reductions commitments as 

described in CARB Resolution 07–28, 

Attachment B. See 75 FR 74518 at 74541 

and 76 FR 41338 at 41361. EPA did 

initially propose to disapprove the 

attainment demonstration based in part 

on our finding that the percentage of the 

emissions reductions needed for 

attainment that remained as 

commitments was too high. See 75 FR 

at 74541. As explained in our 2011 

proposal, however, additional 

submittals from CARB have reduced the 

percentages of emissions reductions 

remaining as commitments to 13.2 

percent for direct PM2.5 and 4.5 percent 

for NOX. These percentages are 

reasonably close to the 10 percent range 

that EPA has historically accepted as 

appropriate for enforceable 

commitments in approving attainment 

demonstrations. See 76 FR at 41355, 

41356. Because the State’s revisions to 

the projected baseline inventories in the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP have reduced the 

total tonnage of emissions reductions 

necessary to attain the 1997 PM2.5

standards (see section II.A above), we 

disagree with AIR’s calculation of the 

percentage of total reductions remaining 

as commitments. 

Comment: Earthjustice comments that 

EPA has outlined a three-factor test to 

assess whether the commitments in the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP are reasonable but 

has not documented, under the first 

factor, how we determine the level of 

remaining reductions and what is meant 

by ‘‘reasonably close.’’ 

Response: In our 2011 proposal we 

provide a detailed discussion of the 

emissions reductions needed for 

attainment and how they have been or 

will be achieved. See generally 76 FR 

41339, 41344–41347 and 41354–41357 

and 2011 Proposal TSD, sections II.F. 

and G. These reductions include those 

from measures adopted prior to 2007 

(baseline measures), measures adopted 

since 2007 and measures that are yet to 

be adopted (i.e., enforceable 

commitments). The expected reductions 

from each of these sets of measures are 

provided in the 2011 proposal, as are 

EPA’s calculations of the percentages of 

needed reductions remaining as 

commitments. See 76 FR 41338 at 

41354, Table 8; see also 2011 Proposal 

TSD at pp. 105–106 and 113–114. As 

provided in the tables in our 2011 

proposal and 2011 Proposal TSD, the 

reductions remaining as commitments 

are 12.9 tpd of NOX and 3.0 tpd of 

PM2.5. Id. These reductions represent 4.5 

percent and 13.2 percent of the total 

NOX and PM2.5 emissions reductions 

(respectively) needed for attainment. Id. 

In support of our statement that these 

percentages (4.5 percent of NOX and 

13.2 percent of PM2.5) are ‘‘reasonably 

close to the 10 percent range that EPA 

has historically accepted in approving 

attainment demonstrations,’’ we 

referenced several prior EPA approvals 

of SIPs relying on similar enforceable 

commitments. See 76 FR 41339 at 41355 

and n. 30. We also explained our legal 

rationale for approving such enforceable 

commitments and referenced several 

court decisions that support our 

interpretation of the CAA. See id. at n. 

27 and 28. Based on our evaluations, we 

proposed to allow the State to rely on 

these limited enforceable commitments 

as part of the attainment demonstration 

in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State 

Strategy. Id. at 41356. Earthjustice does 

not explain why these explanations 

were not adequate or why reliance on 

enforceable commitments consistent 

with these court cases is inappropriate. 

Comment: Earthjustice comments that 

it is not reasonable to approve a ‘‘plan 

to make a plan,’’ which is what they 

believe the District and CARB have 

provided. Earthjustice states that the 

District and CARB are asking EPA to 

trust them that they will find emissions 

reductions needed to meet the standards 

by 2015. Earthjustice states that this is 

not what the CAA contemplates, citing 

section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA 

(requiring plans to include ‘‘enforceable 

emission limitations and other control 

measures * * * necessary or 

appropriate to meet the applicable 

requirements of this Act’’). Earthjustice 

states that there is no point in having a 

plan which does not specifically 

identify how it plans to accomplish the 

needed reductions. 

Response: We disagree with 

Earthjustice’s assertion that the 2008 

PM2.5 SIP does not identify how CARB 

and the SJVUAPCD plan to accomplish 

the reductions needed for attainment of 

the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV by 

2015. As discussed in our amended 

proposal, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan relies 

principally on adopted measures 

approved into the SIP or given waivers 

under CAA section 209 rules to achieve 

the emissions reductions needed to 

attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the 

SJV by April 5, 2015, including baseline 

(pre-2007) measures that continue to 

achieve emissions reductions through 

2014. See 76 FR at 41356. The balance 

of the needed reductions is currently in 

the form of enforceable commitments 

that account for 13.2 percent of the 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 69913 

direct PM2.5 and 4.5 percent of the NOX

emissions reductions needed from 2005 

levels to attain. See id. These SIPapproved or CAA-waived control 

measures and enforceable commitments 

satisfy the requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) to include ‘‘enforceable 

emission limitations and other control 

measures, means or techniques * * * as 

well as schedules and timetables for 

compliance, as may be necessary or 

appropriate to meet the applicable 

requirements’’ of the CAA. See id. at 

41355, n. 27. Although CARB’s and the 

District’s enforceable commitments to 

achieve additional emissions reductions 

are expressed in aggregate tonnages and 

not tied to specific measures, both 

CARB and the District have provided a 

list of potential measures that may 

achieve the additional reductions 

needed to attain the standards, together 

with expeditious rule development, 

adoption, and implementation 

schedules consistent with EPA’s policy 

on acceptable enforceable commitments. 

See id. at 41355, 41356. Both CARB and 

the District have also made significant 

progress to date in meeting their 

enforceable commitments. Id. 

Comment: AIR notes that one of EPA’s 

criteria for evaluating an attainment 

demonstration that relies on 

commitments is whether the state is 

capable of fulfilling the commitment. 

AIR argues that CARB is not capable of 

fulfilling its commitment given CARB’s 

alleged use of ‘‘recession reductions’’ 

instead of actual measures to meet its 

commitment when diesel emissions can 

change based on economic forces that 

the State cannot control. It also claims 

that CARB’s decision to revise its five 

in-use rules is evidence that CARB can 

and likely will amend rules in the future 

that may undermine its commitment. 

Response: We disagree with AIR’s 

assertion that CARB’s revisions to the 

in-use rules or to its projected emissions 

levels based on updated economic 

forecasts undermine its commitments or 

demonstrate that the State is not capable 

of fulfilling its commitment. We 

discussed above in section II.A our 

reasons for concluding that the revisions 

to the 2014 baseline emissions 

inventories are legitimate. 

Contrary to AIR’s assertions, CARB’s 

rulemaking record for the revisions to 

its in-use rules indicate that the State 

intends to ensure that any future 

revisions to the rules will not 

undermine its SIP commitment. See, 

e.g., 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 2 and 

2010 Off-Road Rule ISOR, p. 2 (stating 

that rule revisions should ‘‘continue 

progress toward cleaner air’’ and ‘‘meet 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

commitments’’). Before revising its inuse rules, CARB calculated the 

maximum level of relief it could provide 

without violating it SIP commitment. 

This ‘‘SIP margin’’ was calculated as 40 

tpd in NOX equivalent (a weighted 

combination of NOX and PM2.5

emissions) in the SJV. See 2010 Truck 

Rule ISOR, p. 23 and 2010 Off-Road 

Rule ISOR, p. 20. The revisions to the 

in-use rules did not decrease their 

combined benefits by more this amount. 

See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 51 and 

2010 Off-Road Rule ISOR, p. 43. Thus, 

CARB’s actions did not reflect any lack 

of intention to fully meet its enforceable 

commitments to provide emissions 

reductions sufficient for timely 

attainment. 

Comment: Earthjustice also contends 

that the second factor for determining 

whether to approve an attainment 

demonstration that relies on 

commitments, whether the state is 

capable of meeting its commitment, is 

not met because CARB has repeatedly 

fallen short of achieving its estimated 

emissions reduction from its rules and 

has not begun to develop its 

Agricultural Equipment Rule which was 

to achieve 5 to 10 tons per day of NOX

in the SJV and be adopted by 2009. To 

support its argument, it points to the 

methodology changes associated with 

the Truck Rule and Off-Road Rule and 

the ‘‘massive recession reductions’’ that 

have resulted in fewer reductions being 

needed from these rules. Earthjustice 

concludes that it does not believe that 

CARB is capable of meeting the 

‘‘massive, last-minute commitments’’ 

relied upon in the Plan given CARB’s 

history of avoiding satisfying its 

commitments. It also argues that CARB 

cannot rely on changes to the inventory 

to lessen the reductions from its rules 

without reassessing the relationship 

between emissions and ambient 

concentrations of fine particulates and 

that the ‘‘massive recession reductions’’ 

are neither permanent nor enforceable. 

Response: We disagree with 

Earthjustice’s assertion that CARB has a 

history of not satisfying its 

commitments or that the State’s recent 

revisions to its future emissions 

projections indicate it is not capable of 

meeting its commitments. We discussed 

above in section II.A. our reasons for 

concluding that the revisions to the 

2014 baseline emissions inventories are 

valid. We also note that Earthjustice has 

provided no information or data to 

undermine CARB’s revisions to its 

future emissions projections based on 

its revised economic forecasts and 

updated methodologies for estimating 

emissions. 

In addition, Earthjustice’s assertion 

that CARB’s actions with respect to 

regulation of in-use agricultural 

equipment indicate it will not meet its 

enforceable commitment is 

unsupported. CARB recently adopted 

changes to its rulemaking schedule to 

establish an adoption date of 2013 for 

regulation of in-use agricultural 

equipment. See 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, p. 3. The 2007 State Strategy 

indicates that this measure is expected 

to achieve 5 to 10 tpd NOX reductions 

in 2017, well after the period covered by 

the 2008 PM2.5 SIP. See 2009 State 

Strategy Status Report, p. 18. CARB did 

not quantify emissions reductions for 

this measure for 2014. See id. at 16. The 

fact that the State revised its adoption 

schedule for a measure that is not relied 

on for attainment or RFP in the SJV 

2008 PM2.5 SIP does not establish that 

the State is generally incapable of 

meeting its enforceable commitments in 

that SIP. As discussed in the 2011 

proposal and its TSD and in our 

response to comments on the air quality 

modeling above in section II.B., EPA has 

concluded as a technical matter that the 

revisions to the base year inventory are 

not significant enough to change the 

basic conclusions drawn from the air 

quality modeling or to warrant a new air 

quality modeling assessment at this 

time. See 76 FR 41338, 41349 and 2011 

Proposal TSD, section II.B. 

Comment: Earthjustice states that 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) 

require SIPs to contain ‘‘enforceable 

limitations * * * as may be necessary 

or appropriate’’ to achieve attainment. 

Earthjustice further states that, while 

section 110(k)(4) allows EPA to grant 

‘‘conditional approval’’ of a SIP lacking 

certain statutory elements ‘‘based on a 

commitment of the state to adopt 

specific enforceable measures’’ by a date 

certain, the statute provides that the 

conditional approval automatically 

becomes a disapproval if the state fails 

to comply with the commitment within 

one year. Earthjustice then claims that 

EPA appears to be trying to avoid this 

limitation by treating open-ended 

promises of the State to reduce 

emissions as enforceable commitments 

even though the State has never 

specified exactly what it commits to do. 

Earthjustice states that courts have 

rejected similar attempts to circumvent 

the statute’s limitations on conditional 

approval and cites Sierra Club v. EPA, 

356 F.3d 296, 298 (DC Cir. 2004) as 

overturning EPA’s conditional approval 

of SIPs based in part on the fact that the 

commitments identified no specific 

measures the state would implement. 

Response: As pertinent to the 

comment, Sierra Club involved EPA’s 

conditional approval under section 

110(k)(4) of SIPs lacking in their entirety 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69914 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

44 In our proposed rule (76 FR 41338, 41346) we 

reference the 2007 State Strategy, p. 63 and CARB 

Resolution 07–28, Attachment B. p.6. Note that 

page 63 of the 2007 State Strategy was replaced 

with information in the 2009 State Strategy Status 

Report, pp. 20–21. 

RACM and rate-of-progress (ROP) 

demonstrations and contingency 

measures based on letters submitted by 

states that committed to cure these 

deficiencies. The court rejected EPA’s 

construction of section 110(k)(4) as 

contrary to the unambiguous statutory 

language requiring the state to commit 

to adopt specific enforceable measures. 

Sierra Club at 302. The court found that 

EPA’s construction turned the section 

110(k)(4) conditional approval into a 

means of circumventing SIP deadlines. 

Id. at 303. 

EPA does not dispute the holding of 

Sierra Club. However that case is not 

germane to EPA’s approval of CARB’s 

and the District’s commitments here 

because the Agency is not approving 

those commitments under section 

110(k)(4). The relevant precedent is 

instead BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 

355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003). The facts 

in BCCA were very similar to those 

presented here. In BCCA, EPA approved 

an enforceable commitment in the 

Houston ozone SIP to adopt and 

implement unspecified NOX controls on 

a fixed schedule to achieve aggregate 

emissions reductions. Petitioners 

claimed that EPA lacked authority 

under the CAA to approve a SIP 

containing an enforceable commitment 

to adopt unspecified control measures 

in the future. The court disagreed and 

found that section 110(k)(4) conditional 

approvals do not supplant EPA’s 

practice of fully approving enforceable 

commitments: 

Nothing in the CAA speaks directly to 

enforceable commitments. The CAA does, 

however, provide EPA with great flexibility 

in approving SIPs. A SIP may contain 

‘‘enforceable emission limitations and other 

control measures, means, or techniques 

* * * as well as schedules and timetables for 

compliance, as may be necessary or 

appropriate’’ to meet the CAA’s requirements 

* * *. Thus, according to the plain language 

of the statute, SIPs may contain ‘‘means,’’ 

‘‘techniques’’ and/or ‘‘schedules and 

timetables for compliance’’ that the EPA 

considers ‘‘appropriate’’ for attainment so 

long as they are ‘‘enforceable.’’ See id. 

§ 7410(a)(2)(A). ‘‘Schedules and timetables’’ 

is broadly defined as ‘‘a schedule of required 

measures including an enforceable sequence 

of actions or operations leading to 

compliance with an emission limitation, 

prohibition or standard.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(p). 

The remaining terms are not defined by the 

Act. Because the statute is silent on the issue 

of whether enforceable commitments are 

appropriate means, techniques, or schedules 

for attainment, EPA’s interpretation allowing 

limited use of an enforceable commitment in 

the Houston SIP must be upheld if 

reasonable. 

BCCA at 839–840. The court upheld 

EPA’s approval of the commitment, 

finding that ‘‘EPA reasonably concluded 

that an enforceable commitment to 

adopt additional control measures on a 

fixed schedule was an ‘appropriate’ 

means, technique, or schedule or 

timetable for compliance’’ under 

sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6). Id. 

at 841. Thus the court recognized that 

sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) 

provide a basis for EPA to approve 

enforceable commitments as distinct 

from the commitments contemplated by 

section 110(k)(4), which are not in fact 

enforceable but instead lead to SIP 

disapproval if not honored. See also 

Environmental Defense v. EPA, 369 F.3d 

193, 209–210 (2nd Cir. 2004) (similarly 

upholding enforceable SIP 

commitments). As a result, contrary to 

Earthjustice’s contention, section 

110(k)(4) is not a bar to EPA’s approval 

of CARB’s and the District’s enforceable 

commitments and that approval under 

section 110(k)(3) is permissible as an 

appropriate means, technique or 

schedule or timetable for compliance 

under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 

172(c)(6). 

Comment: Earthjustice states that the 

commitments are ‘‘absurd’’ because 

CARB may claim credit toward its 

aggregate commitments from everything 

from new regulations to unenforceable 

incentive programs to ‘‘actual decreases 

occurring in any air basin for which 

emissions reduction commitments have 

been made.’’ Earthjustice states this is 

arbitrary and that EPA needs to explain 

how the commitments offered in the 

plan would be enforced, what relief EPA 

or the public could demand, and when 

a suit could be brought. Earthjustice 

states that it does not see how these 

open-ended commitments are 

practically enforceable in a court of law 

and asserts that EPA must lay out a 

roadmap that can be followed by courts 

in the future to ensure that meaningful 

emissions reductions are achieved. 

Response: As discussed in our 

amended proposal (76 FR at 41355), the 

CAA allows approval of enforceable 

commitments that are limited in scope 

where circumstances warrant the use of 

such commitments in place of adopted 

control measures. Commitments 

approved by EPA under section 

110(k)(3) of the CAA are enforceable by 

EPA and citizens under, respectively, 

sections 113 and 304 of the CAA. In the 

past, EPA has approved enforceable 

commitments and courts have enforced 

these actions against states that failed to 

comply with those commitments: See, 

e.g., American Lung Ass’n of N.J. v. 

Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), 

aff’d, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); 

NRDC, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. 

Cons., 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); 

Citizens for a Better Env’t v. 

Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. 

granted in par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. 

Cal. 1990); Coalition for Clean Air v. 

South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist., No. 

CV 97–6916–HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 

1999). See 76 FR at 41355, n. 27. 

In response to Earthjustice’s 

comment, we are clarifying in this final 

action that we are not providing SIP 

credit for ‘‘actual decreases’’ in air 

pollution emissions or ‘‘recessionrelated reductions’’ in approving the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan. Rather, we are 

approving the 2008 PM2.5 Plan taking 

into account CARB’s revisions to the 

control strategy based on the revisions 

to its projected baseline inventories. 

Specifically, as explained in our 2011 

proposal, CARB’s aggregate emissions 

reduction commitment in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan as submitted in 2008 is to 

achieve 76 tpd of NOX reductions and 

5 tpd of PM2.5 reductions by 2014. See 

76 FR at 41346; CARB Resolution 07– 

28, Attachment B at pp. 3–6 and 2009 

State Strategy Status Report, p. 21.44

The District’s aggregate emissions 

reduction commitment in the Plan as 

submitted in 2008 is to achieve 8.97 tpd 

of NOX reductions, 6.7 tpd of PM2.5

reductions, and 0.92 tpd of SO2

reductions by 2014. See 76 FR at 41345, 

Table 3. More broadly, however, CARB’s 

emissions reduction commitment is to 

achieve the ‘‘total emissions reductions 

necessary to attain Federal standards’’ 

through ‘‘the implementation of control 

measures; the expenditure of local, 

State, or federal incentive funds; or 

through other enforceable measures.’’ 

See CARB Resolution 07–28, 

Attachment B at pp. 3–6. The updates 

and improvements to the inventories as 

presented in CARB’s 2011 Progress 

Report altered the calculation of the 

reductions needed for attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 standards in SJV by reducing 

the total reductions needed from control 

strategy measures to 9 tpd (for PM2.5), 

26.1 tpd (for NOX), and 0.8 tpd (for 

SO2). See 76 FR at 41354, Table 7. We 

therefore interpret CARB’s emissions 

reduction commitment, together with 

the adjustments to the 2014 baseline 

inventories provided in CARB’s 2011 

SIP revision and the District’s 

commitments, as adjusting CARB’s total 

emission reduction commitment such 

that the CARB is now obligated to 

achieve 2.3 tpd of PM2.5 reductions and 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 69915 

45Note that the District has already achieved all 

of the SOX reductions necessary to attain. See 76 

FR 41338, 41354, Table 8. 

17.1 tpd of NOX reductions 45 by 2014 

through enforceable control measures to 

provide for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in SJV. The District’s aggregate 

emissions reduction commitment in the 

Plan as submitted in 2008 (8.97 tpd of 

NOX reductions, 6.7 tpd of PM2.5

reductions, and 0.92 tpd of SO2

reductions by 2014) remains unchanged. 

See Table 3 below. 

We also note that we do not agree 

with CARB’s position that ‘‘actual 

decreases occurring in any air basin for 

which emissions reduction 

commitments have been made’’ or 

incentive programs may be counted as 

SIP credit toward CARB’s enforceable 

commitment, unless the State provides 

a demonstration that such emissions 

decreases are actually enforceable or 

otherwise meet EPA’s requirements for 

SIP creditability. 

CARB’s commitment is to adopt and 

implement measures that will achieve 

specific reductions of NOX and PM2.5

emissions and are, as such, specific 

strategies designed to achieve the SIP’s 

overall objectives. Further, if CARB fails 

to meet its commitments, EPA could 

make a finding of failure to implement 

the SIP under CAA Section 179(a), 

which starts an 18-month period for the 

State to correct the non-implementation 

before mandatory sanctions are 

imposed, or alternatively either EPA or 

citizens could enforce the commitments 

directly against CARB under CAA 

section 113 or 304, respectively. 

Comment: Earthjustice states that 

courts ‘‘may only enforce SIP strategies’’ 

and that ‘‘[m]ere approval of an 

aspirational goal or non-specific 

promise into the SIP does not convert 

that goal or promise into an enforceable 

commitment.’’ In support of these 

assertions, Earthjustice cites Bayview 

Hunters Point Community Advocates v. 

Metropolitan Transp. Comm’n, 366 F.3d 

692, 701 (9th Cir. 2004) and Citizens for 

a Better Environment v. Metropolitan 

Tranp. Comm’n, 746 F. Supp. 976, 980 

(N.D.Cal. 1990) [known as CBE II]. In 

addition, Earthjustice singles out El 

Comite Para El Bienstar de Earlimart v. 

Warmerdam, 539 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th 

Cir. 2008), stating that in El Comite the 

court explained that because an 

inventory in a SIP is not a ‘‘standard or 

limitation’’ as defined by the CAA, it 

was not an independently enforceable 

aspect of the SIP. Thus, Earthjustice 

reasons, in order to be enforceable, not 

only must a state’s commitment to adopt 

additional measures to attain emission 

standards be specific and announced in 

plain language, but any data or rubric 

that will be used to determine when and 

how the state will adopt those measures 

must be enforceable. 

Similarly, citing Bayview and El 

Comite, AIR characterizes CARB’s and 

the District’s commitments to achieve 

aggregate emissions reductions by the 

attainment year as ‘‘global 

commitments’’ that could be interpreted 

as ‘‘goals’’ unenforceable by citizens 

under Ninth Circuit precedent, rather 

than enforceable ‘‘strategies’’ to achieve 

those goals. AIR argues that the plans’ 

global commitments are not enforceable 

for two reasons. First, enforcement is 

not practical because it is virtually 

impossible for citizens or EPA to 

determine whether the CARB and the 

District have, in fact, met the global 

commitments. Second, the manner in 

which CARB and the District determine 

compliance with the tonnage target is 

left to their discretion, and citizens and 

EPA would be placed in the situation 

held by the plaintiffs in Warmerdam. 

AIR adds that even if the 

commitments are viewed as ‘‘strategies’’ 

enforcement is not practical because 

when no measures are submitted to EPA 

for inclusion into the SIP, citizens have 

no idea which measures CARB has used 

to satisfy the total tonnage 

commitments. AIR also states that there 

are no provisions for CARB and the 

District to report to EPA and the public 

what actions they have taken to comply 

with the tonnage commitments. EPA 

and citizens are left to determine, based 

on information collected by CARB and 

the District, whether the commitments 

have in fact been met. 

Response: Under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), SIPs must include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means or 

techniques necessary to meet the 

requirements of the Act, as well as 

timetables for compliance. Similarly, 

section 172(c)(6) provides that 

nonattainment area SIPs must include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

such other control measures, means or 

techniques ‘‘as may be necessary or 

appropriate to provide for attainment’’ 

of the NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. 

Control measures, including 

commitments in SIPs, are enforced 

directly by EPA under CAA section 113 

and also through CAA section 304(a) 

which provides for citizen suits to be 

brought against any person who is 

alleged ‘‘to be in violation of * * * an 

emission standard or limitation* * *.’’ 

‘‘Emission standard or limitation’’ is 

defined in subsection (f) of section 304. 

As observed in Conservation Law 

Foundation, Inc. v. James Busey et al., 

79 F.3d 1250, 1258 (1st Cir. 1996): 

Courts interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction 

have largely focused on whether the 

particular standard or requirement plaintiffs 

sought to enforce was sufficiently specific. 

Thus, interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction as 

limited to claims ‘‘for violations of specific 

provisions of the act or specific provisions of 

an applicable implementation plan,’’ the 

Second Circuit held that suits can be brought 

to enforce specific measures, strategies, or 

commitments designed to ensure compliance 

with the NAAQS, but not to enforce the 

NAAQS directly. See, e.g., Wilder, 854 F.2d 

at 613–14. Courts have repeatedly applied 

this test as the linchpin of citizen suit 

jurisdiction. See, e.g., Coalition Against 

Columbus Ctr. v. City of New York, 967 F.2d 

764, 769–71 (2d Cir. 1992); Cate v. 

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 904 F. 

Supp. 526, 530–32 (W.D. Va. 1995); Citizens 

for a Better Env’t v. Deukmejian, 731 F. 

Supp. 1448, 1454–59 (N.D. Cal.), modified, 

746 F. Supp. 976 (1990). 

Thus courts have found that the 

citizen suit provision cannot be used to 

enforce the aspirational goal of attaining 

the NAAQS, but can be used to enforce 

specific strategies to achieve that goal, 

including enforceable commitments to 

develop future emissions controls. 

We describe CARB’s and the District’s 

commitments in the 2007 State Strategy 

(revised in 2009 and 2011) and the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan in detail in our amended 

proposal. See 76 FR at 41343–41347. 

The 2007 State Strategy includes 

commitments to propose defined new 

measures and an enforceable 

commitment for emissions reductions 

sufficient, in combination with existing 

measures and the District’s 

commitments, to attain the PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV by April 5, 2015. See 

CARB Resolution 07–28, Attachment B 

at pp. 3–6 and 2009 State Strategy 

Status Report, p. 21. For the SJV, the 

CARB’s emissions reductions 

commitments as submitted in 2008 were 

to achieve 76 tpd NOX and 5 tpd of 

direct PM2.5 by 2014. Id. 

SJVUAPCD’s commitments as 

submitted in 2008 were to achieve 9 tpd 

NOX and 6.7 tpd direct PM2.5 by 2014. 

See 76 FR at 41345–41346, See also 

2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 6–9, Table 6–2. The 

language used in the Board’s resolution 

adopting the 2008 PM2.5 Plan at page 5 

to describe its commitment is 

mandatory and unequivocal in nature: 

9. The District Governing Board commits to 

adopt and implement the rules and measures 

in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan by the dates specified 

in Chapter 6 to achieve the emissions 

reductions shown in Chapter 6, and to submit 

these rules and measures to the ARB within 

one month of adoption for transmittal to EPA 

as a revision to the State Implementation 

Plan. If the total emissions reductions from 

the adopted rules are less than those 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69916 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

46 In this passage, the court was referring 

specifically to the stationary source contingency 

measures in the Bay Area plan which contained a 

commitment to adopt such measures if emissions 

targets were not met. The Plan identified a number 

of potential stationary sources but did not commit 

to any particular one. In discussing the 

transportation contingency measures, the court 

applied this same reasoning. Id. at 1456–1457. 

committed to in the Plan, the District 

Governing Board commits to adopt, submit, 

and implement substitute rules and measures 

that will achieve equivalent reductions in 

emissions of direct PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors 

in the same adoption and implementation 

timeframes or in the timeframes needed to 

meet CAA milestones. (emphasis added). 

SJVUAPCD Board Resolution No. 08– 

04–10, p. 5. 

As discussed above, the 2011 SIP 

revisions reduced the reductions needed 

from new measures in 2014 to attain to 

9 tpd of PM2.5 reductions, 26.1 tpd of 

NOX reductions, and 0.8 tpd of SOX. See 

76 FR at 41354, Table 7. The District’s 

aggregate emissions reduction 

commitment in the Plan as submitted in 

2008 remains unchanged (8.97 tpd of 

NOX reductions, 6.7 tpd of PM2.5

reductions, and 0.92 tpd of SO2

reductions by 2014). Thus, CARB 

remains obligated to achieve through 

the adoption of enforceable measures by 

2014, 2.3 tpd of PM2.5 and 17.1 tpd of 

NOX. The District’s commitments 

remain as submitted in 2008 at 9 tpd 

NOX, 6.7 tpd direct PM2.5 and 0.9 tpd 

SOX by 2014. See Table 3 below. 

Thus, CARB’s and the District’s 

commitments here are to adopt and 

implement measures that will achieve 

specific amounts of NOX and direct 

PM2.5 emissions reductions by 2014. 

These are not mere aspirational goals to 

ultimately achieve the standards or 

emissions inventories as mentioned by 

Earthjustice. Rather, the State and 

District have committed to adopt 

enforceable measures no later than 2014 

that will achieve these specific amounts 

of emissions reductions prior to the 

attainment date of April 5, 2015. All of 

these control measures are subject to 

State and local rulemaking procedures 

and public participation requirements, 

through which EPA and the public may 

track the State/District’s progress in 

achieving the requisite emissions 

reductions. EPA and citizens may 

enforce these commitments under CAA 

sections 113 and 304(a), respectively, 

should the State/District fail to adopt 

measures that achieve the requisite 

amounts of emissions reductions by the 

beginning of 2014. See 40 CFR 

51.1007(b) (requiring implementation of 

all control measures needed for 

expeditious attainment no later than the 

beginning of the year prior to the 

attainment date). We conclude that 

these enforceable commitments to adopt 

and implement additional control 

measures to achieve aggregate emissions 

reductions on a fixed schedule are 

appropriate means, techniques, or 

schedules for compliance under 

sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) of 

the Act. 

Both Earthjustice and AIR cite 

Bayview as support for their contention 

that the plan’s commitments are 

unenforceable aspirational goals. 

Bayview does not, however, provide any 

such support. That case involved a 

provision of the 1982 Bay Area 1-hour 

ozone SIP, known as TCM 2, which 

states in pertinent part: 

Support post-1983 improvements 

identified in transit operator’s 5-year plans, 

after consultation with the operators adopt 

ridership increase target for 1983–1987. 

Emission Reduction Estimates: These 

emission reduction estimates are predicated 

on a 15% ridership increase. The actual 

target would be determined after consultation 

with the transit operators. 

Following a table listing these estimates, 

TCM 2 provided that ‘‘[r]idership increases 

would come from productivity improvements 

* * *.’’ 

Ultimately the 15 percent ridership 

estimate was adopted by the 

Metropolitan Transportation 

Commission (MTC), the implementing 

agency, as the actual target. Plaintiffs 

subsequently attempted to enforce the 

15 percent ridership increase. The court 

found that the 15 percent ridership 

increase was an unenforceable estimate 

or goal. In reaching that conclusion, the 

court considered multiple factors, 

including the plain language of TCM 2 

(e.g., ‘‘[a]greeing to establish a ridership 

‘target’ is simply not the same as 

promising to attain that target,’’ Bayview 

at 698); the logic of TCM 2, i.e., the 

drafters of TCM 2 were careful not to 

characterize any given increase as an 

obligation because the TCM was 

contingent on a number of factors 

beyond MTC’s control, id. at 699; and 

the fact that TCM 2 was an extension of 

TCM 1 that had as an enforceable 

strategy the improvement of transit 

services, specifically through 

productivity improvements in transit 

operators’ five-year plans, id. at 701. As 

a result of all of these factors, the Ninth 

Circuit found that TCM 2 clearly 

designated the productivity 

improvements as the only enforceable 

strategy. Id. at 703. 

The commitments in the 2007 State 

Strategy (revised in 2009 and 2011) and 

2008 PM2.5 Plan are in stark contrast to 

the ridership target that was deemed 

unenforceable in Bayview. The language 

in CARB’s and the District’s 

commitments, as stated multiple times 

in multiple documents, is specific; the 

intent of the commitments is clear; and 

the strategy of adopting measures to 

achieve the required reductions is 

completely within CARB’s and the 

District’s control. Furthermore, as stated 

previously, CARB and the District 

identify specific emissions reductions 

that they will achieve, how they will be 

achieved and the time by which these 

reductions could be achieved, i.e., by 

2014. 

Earthjustice also cites CBE II at 980 for 

the proposition that courts can only 

enforce ‘‘express’’ or ‘‘specific’’ 

strategies. However, as discussed below, 

there is nothing in the CBE cases that 

supports the commenter’s view that the 

CARB and District commitments are 

neither express nor specific. In fact, 

these cases support our interpretation of 

CARB’s and the District’s commitments. 

Citizens for a Better Environment v. 

Deukmejian, 731 F.Supp.1448 (N.D. Cal. 

1990), known as CBE I, concerned in 

part contingency measures for the 

transportation sector in the 1982 Bay 

Area 1-hour ozone SIP. The provision 

states: ‘‘If a determination is made that 

RFP is not being met for the 

transportation sector, MTC will adopt 

additional TCMs within 6 months of the 

determination. These TCMs will be 

designed to bring the region back within 

the RFP line.’’ The court found that 

‘‘[o]n its face, this language is both 

specific and mandatory.’’ Id. at 1458. In 

CBE I, CARB and MTC argued that TCM 

2 could not constitute an enforceable 

strategy because the provision fails to 

specify exactly what TCMs must be 

adopted. The court rejected this 

argument, finding that ‘‘[w]e discern no 

principled basis, consistent with the 

Clean Air Act, for disregarding this 

unequivocal commitment simply 

because the particulars of the 

contingency measures are not provided. 

Thus we hold that the basic 

commitment to adopt and implement 

additional measures, should the 

identified conditions occur, constitutes 

a specific strategy, fully enforceable in 

a citizens action, although the exact 

contours of those measures are not 

spelled out.’’ Id. at 1457.46 In 

concluding that the transportation and 

stationary source contingency 

provisions were enforceable, the court 

stated: ‘‘Thus, while this Court is not 

empowered to enforce the Plan’s overall 

objectives [footnote omitted; attainment 

of the NAAQS]—or NAAQS—directly, it 

can and indeed, must, enforce specific 

strategies committed to in the Plan.’’ Id. 

at 1454. 

Earthjustice’s reliance on CBE II is 

misplaced. It also involves in part the 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 69917 

contingency measures in the 1982 Bay 

Area Plan. In CBE II, defendants argued 

that RFP and the NAAQS are coincident 

because, had the plan’s projections been 

accurate, then achieving RFP would 

have resulted in attainment of the 

NAAQS. The court rejected this 

argument, stating that: 

the Court would be enforcing the 

contingency plan, an express strategy for 

attaining NAAQS. Although enforcement of 

this strategy might possibly result in 

attainment, it is distinct from simply 

ordering that NAAQS be achieved without 

anchoring that order on any specified 

strategy. Plainly, the fact that a specified 

strategy might be successful and lead to 

attainment does not render that strategy 

unenforceable. 

(Emphasis in original). CBE II at 980. 

CARB’s and the District’s 

commitments here are analogous to the 

terms of the contingency measures in 

the CBE cases. CARB and the District 

commit to adopt measures, which are 

not specifically identified, to achieve a 

specific tonnage of emissions 

reductions. Thus, the commitment to a 

specific tonnage reduction is 

comparable to a commitment to achieve 

RFP. Similarly, a commitment to 

achieve a specific amount of emissions 

reductions through adoption and 

implementation of unidentified 

measures is comparable to the 

commitments to adopt unspecified 

TCMs and stationary source measures. 

The key is that commitment must be 

clear in terms of what is required, e.g., 

a specified amount of emissions 

reductions or the achievement of a 

specified amount of progress (i.e., RFP). 

ARB’s and the District’s commitments 

are thus clearly a specific enforceable 

strategy rather than an unenforceable 

aspirational goal. 

Earthjustice’s reliance on El Comite is 

also misplaced. The plaintiffs in the 

district court attempted to enforce a 

provision of the 1994 California 1-hour 

ozone SIP known as the Pesticide 

Element. The Pesticide Element relied 

on an inventory of pesticide VOC 

emissions to provide the basis to 

determine whether additional regulatory 

measures would be needed to meet the 

SIP’s pesticides emissions target. To this 

end, the Pesticide Element provided 

that ‘‘ARB will develop a baseline 

inventory of estimated 1990 pesticidal 

VOC emissions based on 1991 pesticide 

use data * * *.’’ El Comite Para El 

Bienestar de Earlimart v. Helliker, 416 

F. Supp. 2d 912, 925 (E.D. Cal. 2006). 

CARB subsequently employed a 

different methodology that it deemed 

more accurate to calculate the baseline 

inventory. The plaintiffs sought to 

enforce the commitment to use the 

original methodology, claiming that the 

calculation of the baseline inventory 

constitutes an ‘‘emission standard or 

limitation.’’ The district court disagreed: 

By its own terms, the baseline identifies 

emission sources and then quantifies the 

amount of emissions attributed to those 

sources. As defendants argue, once the 

sources of air pollution are identified, control 

strategies can then be formulated to control 

emissions entering the air from those sources. 

From all the above, I must conclude that the 

baseline is not an emission ‘‘standard’’ or 

‘‘limitation’’ within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 

7604 (f)(1)–(4). 

Id. at 928. In its opinion, the court 

distinguished Bayview and CBE I, 

pointing out that in those cases ‘‘the 

measures at issue were designed to 

reduce emissions.’’ Id. 

On appeal, the plaintiffs shifted their 

argument to claim that the baseline 

inventory and the calculation 

methodology were necessary elements 

of the overall enforceable commitment 

to reduce emissions in nonattainment 

areas. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the 

district court’s conclusion that the 

baseline inventory was not an emission 

standard or limitation and rejected 

plaintiffs’ arguments attempting ‘‘to 

transform the baseline inventory into an 

enforceable emission standard or 

limitation by bootstrapping it to the 

commitment to decide to adopt 

regulations, if necessary.’’ Id. at 1073. 

While Earthjustice cites the Ninth 

Circuit’s El Comite opinion, its utility in 

analyzing the CARB and District 

commitments here is limited to that 

court’s agreement with the district 

court’s conclusion that neither the 

baseline nor the methodology qualifies 

as an independently enforceable aspect 

of the SIP. Rather, it is the district 

court’s opinion, in distinguishing the 

commitments in CBE and Bayview, that 

provides insight into the situation at 

issue in our action. As the court 

recognized, a baseline inventory or the 

methodology used to calculate it, is not 

a measure to reduce emissions. It 

instead ‘‘identifies emissions sources 

and then quantifies the amount of 

emissions attributed to those sources.’’ 

In contrast, as stated previously, in the 

2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 

2011) and SJV 2007 PM2.5 Plan, ARB 

and the District commits to adopt and 

implement measures sufficient to 

achieve specified emissions reductions 

by a date certain. As described above, a 

number of courts have found 

commitments substantially similar to 

ARB’s here to be enforceable under CAA 

section 304(a). 

Comment: Earthjustice comments that 

before EPA can approve the 

commitments in the PM2.5 plan it must 

explain how the promise to reduce 

emissions by some amount is a 

‘‘standard or limitation’’ enforceable 

under section 113 or 304 of the Act. 

Moreover, citing CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), Earthjustice asserts that 

EPA must explain how enforcement of 

these commitments, which arguably 

could not even be considered until after 

the attainment deadline has come and 

gone, is adequate to assure the 

requirements of the Act (including 

timely attainment) are met. Earthjustice 

contends that the strategy of relying on 

these open-ended commitments is a 

recipe for failure and is not a reasonable 

substitute for the detailed, enforceable 

plan envisioned and required by the 

Act. 

Response: We disagree. As discussed 

above, EPA believes that CARB’s and 

the District’s commitments to adopt and 

implement control measures to achieve 

the specified aggregate tonnage by 2014 

are enforceable as an emission standard 

or limitation under CAA section 304. 

The fact that the State may meet its SIP 

obligation by adopting measures that are 

not specifically identified in the SIP, or 

through one of several available 

techniques, does not render the 

requirement to achieve the aggregate 

emissions reductions unenforceable. 

State and local control measures are 

subject to rulemaking procedures and 

public participation requirements, 

through which EPA and the public may 

track the State/District’s progress in 

achieving the requisite emissions 

reductions in the years leading up to 

2014 and before the attainment date of 

April 5, 2015. Should the State/District 

fail to adopt measures that achieve the 

requisite amounts of emissions 

reductions by the beginning of 2014 (see 

40 CFR 51.1007(b)), EPA and citizens 

may enforce these commitments under 

CAA sections 113 and 304(a), 

respectively. 

F. Comments on the Proposed Action on 

the Attainment Demonstration and 

Attainment Date Extension 

Comment: Earthjustice comments that 

EPA cannot grant an extension of the 

attainment date to April 5, 2015 because 

the flaws Earthjustice alleges are in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan’s attainment modeling 

and RACM/RACT analysis meant that 

the demonstration required to grant a 

5-year extension have not been met. 

Earthjustice asserts that the alleged 

flaws include the exemptions for 

significant sources of emissions from 

the charbroiling, glass melting and open 

burning rules; the delay in the 

implementation of certain control 

requirements (glass melting and 

agricultural equipment), and the 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69918 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

exclusion of controls for VOC and 

condensable PM2.5 emissions in the Plan 

Response: We have evaluated 

Earthjustice’s comments on the RACM/ 

RACT analysis, VOC as an attainment 

plan precursor, and condensable 

particulate and have determined that 

none change our conclusion that the SJV 

2008 PM2.5 Plan provides for RACM as 

required by CAA section 172(c)(1). 

Under the PM2.5 implementation rule, 

states that request an extension of the 

attainment date under CAA section 

172(a)(2) must provide sufficient 

information to show that attainment by 

April 5, 2010 is impracticable due to the 

severity of the nonattainment problem 

in the area and the lack of available and 

feasible control measures to provide for 

faster attainment. 40 CFR 51.1004(b). 

States must also demonstrate that all 

RACM and RACT for the area are being 

implemented to bring about attainment 

of the standard by the most expeditious 

alternative date practicable for the area. 

72 FR 20586 at 20601. As discussed in 

our 2011 proposal, we believe that 

California has met the relevant tests for 

granting an extension of the attainment 

date under CAA section 172(a)(2). See 

76 FR 41388, 41341. 

Comment: Earthjustice comments that 

EPA should not approve the attainment 

demonstration, because of its ‘‘heavy’’ 

reliance on State commitments to adopt 

last-minute control measures and 

because the emissions reductions and 

the attainment targets are not valid 

given the problems in the inventory and 

the modeling analysis. Furthermore, the 

defective modeling results in inaccurate 

attainment target levels. 

Response: The SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP 

does not rely heavily on State 

commitment to ‘‘adopt last-minute 

controls.’’ As noted previously, the bulk 

of the emissions reductions needed for 

attainment are from measures adopted 

prior to 2007. 76 FR 41338, 41354. 

Moreover, one of EPA’s criteria for 

approving attainment demonstrations 

that rely on commitments is that the 

commitments represent a limited 

portion of the reductions needed for 

attainment. As we have shown, CARB’s 

and the District’s remaining 

commitments account for only 4.5 

percent (12.9 tpd) of the NOX and 13.2 

percent (3.0 tpd) of the PM2.5 reductions 

needed for attainment. Id. In 

comparison, already achieved 

reductions are 271 tpd of NOX and 19.7 

tpd of PM2.5. See 76 FR 41338, 41354 

(Table 8) (numbers are the sum of lines 

B and C). Finally, we have determined 

that the SJV PM2.5 Plan provides for a 

generally linear reduction in emissions 

demonstrating reasonable further 

progress as required by CAA 172(c)(2). 

G. Comments on the Proposed Actions 

on the Reasonable Further Progress 

Demonstration 

Comment: Earthjustice comments that 

EPA should disapprove the RFP 

demonstration because it fails to address 

VOC and to show generally linear 

progress in reducing emissions. It also 

argues that because of the alleged 

defects in the inventory and the alleged 

failure of the modeling analysis to 

identify the target level of emissions 

reductions, it is impossible to assess 

progress. It further argues that the RFP 

demonstration must also be updated to 

reflect corrections to the inventory. 

Response: For the reasons discussed 

in the 2011 proposal and response to 

comments on the precursor issue above, 

EPA has found that insufficient data 

exist to reverse the presumption in the 

PM2.5 implementation rule that VOC is 

not a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor 

for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

standards in the SJV. See 76 FR 41350 

and 2011 Proposal TSD, p. 50. Because 

VOC is not considered an attainment 

plan precursor, it need not be addressed 

in the RFP demonstration. See 40 CFR 

51. 1009(c). 

For the reasons discussed in the 2011 

proposal and response to comments on 

the air quality modeling above in 

section II.B., EPA has found that the air 

quality modeling in the SJV 2007 PM2.5

SIP is adequate to support the 

attainment demonstration and thus to 

establish the target level of emissions. 

See 76 FR 41338, 41348 and 2011 

Proposal TSD, section II.B. As discussed 

in the 2011 proposal, EPA evaluated the 

effect of the changes in the base year 

inventory on the RFP demonstration 

and determined that it did not revise 

our conclusion that the Plan provided 

for RFP. See 76 FR 41338, 41357 (ftn. 

32) and 2011 Proposal TSD, p. 122. 

H. Comments on the Proposed Actions 

on the Contingency Measures 

Comment: Earthjustice states that 

EPA’s analysis of the contingency 

measures in the 2008 Plan is generally 

sound. Earthjustice, however, contends 

that our analysis relies on an RFP 

analysis that in turn relies on invalid 

NOX to PM2.5 interpollutant equivalency 

ratios. It further argues that because 

these ratios are invalid, the assessment 

of the excess reductions in the RFP 

demonstration is also invalid and the 

shortfall targets must be recalculated 

using valid methods and results. 

Response: EPA’s calculation of the 

excess reductions in the RFP 

demonstration is done on a per 

pollutant basis and does not assume any 

interpollutant trading. See 76 FR 41339, 

41359 (Table 10) and 2011 Proposal 

TSD, p. 130. In the 2011 Progress 

Report, CARB states that these 

reductions are equal to at least oneyear’s worth of RFP when considered on 

a PM2.5 equivalency basis (see 2011 

Progress Report, p. 2); however, to make 

this statement, the State relies in part on 

an interpollutant trading ratio of 1 ton 

of SOX reductions to 1 ton of PM2.5

reductions. As discussed in section 

II.B.4. of the 2011 Proposal TSD, EPA 

found that there was insufficient 

technical support for this ratio and EPA 

did not allow its use in the RFP 

demonstration or for any other purpose. 

Id. at 42358 and p. 129. 

Comment: In its comments on the 

2010 proposal, Earthjustice notes that 

the District proposes to rely on 

emissions reductions achieved by the 

ozone nonattainment fee and other 

incentive programs. It argues that the 

District does not have criteria for how 

these monies will be spent and does not 

provide a mechanism for ensuring that 

any claimed emissions reductions are 

enforceable and that any future reliance 

on funding programs to reduce 

emissions must demonstrate that the 

emissions reductions meet statutory 

creditability requirements including an 

explanation of how these agreements 

between the District and the subsidized 

source can be enforced by EPA or the 

public. 

Response: We are not approving 

reductions from the District’s incentive 

grant programs as part of the 2008 PM2.5

SIP’s contingency measures provisions; 

therefore, comments related to them are 

not germane to this action. In both its 

2010 and 2011 proposals EPA proposed 

to disapprove the Plan’s contingency 

measures provisions and is 

disapproving those provisions in today’s 

action. See 75 FR 74518, 74539 and 76 

FR 41338, 41358. Those provisions 

include the District’s ozone 

nonattainment fee program and other 

incentive programs as potential 

contingency measures. 

In both proposals, we noted that 

while neither the CAA nor EPA policy 

bar the use of emissions reductions from 

incentive programs to meet all or part of 

an area’s contingency measure 

obligation, the incentive programs must 

assure that the reductions are surplus, 

quantifiable, enforceable, and 

permanent in accordance with EPA’s 

guidance. See ‘‘Improving Air Quality 

with Economic Incentive Programs,’’ 

EPA–452/R–01–001 (January 2001). We 

also noted that the 2008 PM2.5 Plan does 

not identify the incentive grant 

programs expected to generate the 

emissions reductions. The Plan also 

does not identify the quantity of these 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 69919 

47See CARB, ‘‘Public Meeting to Consider 

Approval of Revisions to the State’s On-Road Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Inventory, Technical Support 

Document,’’ May 2000, section 7.3 ‘‘Retention 

Rates’’ which can be found at http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/doctable_test.htm. 

emissions reductions that the District 

intended to use to meet the contingency 

measure requirement. Therefore, we are 

unable to determine if they are SIP 

creditable or sufficient to provide in 

combination with other measures the 

roughly one-year’s worth of RFP 

needed. For these reasons, we 

determined that programs did not 

currently meet the CAA requirements 

for contingency measures. See 75 FR 

74518, 74538 and 76 FR 41338, 41358. 

Comment: While AIR agrees with 

EPA’s proposed disapproval of the 

contingency measures, it argues against 

the use of waiver measures and on-road 

fleet turnover as contingency measures 

because waiver measures are not in the 

SIP and there are no control measures 

that require fleet turnover. It further 

argues that reductions from fleet 

turnover are derived from assumptions 

based on voluntary future activity that 

fail to meet the Act’s requirements for 

enforceable measures. Finally, it asserts 

that EPA has made no finding that such 

fleet turnover reductions have actually 

occurred. 

Response: As discussed previously, 

we believe that reductions from CAA 

209 waiver measures can be used to 

meet CAA requirements including the 

contingency measure requirement even 

though they are not in the SIP. 

The measures relied on in part for 

contingency measure emissions 

reductions are the State and federal onand off-road new engines standards. 

Fleet turnover is the mechanism by 

which these new engine standards are 

implemented, and it is how these 

standards actually result in emissions 

reductions in an area. CARB calculates 

reductions from its mobile sources, 

including base year and future projected 

year, using its EMFAC2007 and 

OFFROAD models. These models 

included assumptions regarding fleet 

turnover based on historical records.47

Recent updates to the truck, bus, and 

offroad equipment inventories included 

review and adjustments of fleet turnover 

rates which are also based on available 

records. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, 

section F. 

Comment: SJVUACPD commented 

that EPA’s current requirement that 

contingency measures provide for oneyear’s worth of emissions reductions is 

not practical for areas like the SJV and 

that EPA should work towards realistic 

and specific solutions for future 

implementation rules. It also stated that 

it would continue to work with EPA to 

incorporate reductions from the 

District’s incentive programs into the 

SIP so that they may be used satisfy the 

contingency measures requirement. 

Response: EPA recognizes the 

difficulty of identifying contingency 

measures and appreciates the District’s 

concerns. We will continue to work 

with the District to identify potential 

contingency measures including 

incentive programs that produce 

reductions that are surplus, quantifiable, 

enforceable, and permanent in 

accordance with EPA guidance. 

I. Comments on the Proposed Actions 

on the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

and Trading Mechanism 

Comment: Earthjustice comments that 

EPA cannot approve the revised motor 

vehicle emissions budgets because they 

are derived from attainment and RFP 

demonstrations that Earthjustice asserts 

are not approvable because they are 

based on invalid modeling. It also 

claims the issues with the modeling also 

affect the conformity analysis because it 

depends on interpollutant equivalency 

ratio between NOX and PM2.5 that is 

derived from the modeling. Earthjustice 

notes that CARB derived this ratio by 

conducting a sensitivity analysis with 

the model which according to 

Earthjustice, EPA acknowledged was 

not a legitimate basis for determining 

interpollutant equivalency ratios, citing 

the 2011 Proposal TSD at p. 47. 

Earthjustice further claims that these 

‘‘defective ratios’’ were used to 

demonstrate RFP and conformity. 

Response: We agree that EPA would 

not be able to approve budgets that are 

derived from unapprovable or 

disapproved attainment or RFP 

demonstrations. However, we are 

approving these demonstrations in the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan and, because they 

are derived from those demonstrations 

and otherwise meet all applicable 

requirements for transportation 

conformity budgets, EPA’s is also 

approving the budgets. For the reasons 

discussed above in our response to 

comments on the air quality modeling, 

we do not agree with Earthjustice that 

the modeling is invalid. 

CARB included a trading mechanism 

to be used in transportation conformity 

analyses that use the proposed budgets 

as allowed for under 40 CFR 93.124. 

This trading mechanism allows future 

decreases in NOX emissions from onroad mobile sources to offset any onroad increases in PM2.5, using a NOX: 

PM2.5 ratio of 9:1. As proposed by CARB 

and proposed for approval by EPA, the 

trading mechanism would only be used, 

if needed, for conformity analyses for 

years after 2014. Also, to ensure that the 

trading mechanism does not impact the 

ability of the SJV to meet the NOX

budget, the NOX emissions reductions 

available to supplement the PM2.5

budget would only be those remaining 

after the 2014 NOX budget has been met. 

See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix D, 

p. 2 and 76 FR 41338, 41361. We found 

that the method CARB used to derive 

the 9:1 NOX to PM2.5 ratio, which was 

based on the SIP’s photochemical 

modeling, is adequate for purposes of 

assessing the effect of area-wide 

emissions changes, such as are used in 

RFP, contingency measures, and 

conformity budgets. See 76 FR 41338, 

41349 and 2011 Proposal TSD, p. 46. 

EPA did find that the method used by 

CARB and the District (a modified 

rollback approach) to derive the 1:1 SOX

to PM2.5 is inadequate for determining 

interpollutant equivalency ratios and 

stated that this issue would be better 

explored with a photochemical model. 

See 76 FR 41338, 41349 and 2011 

Proposal TSD, p. 47. It is this latter 

discussion that Earthjustice incorrectly 

cites as its basis for claiming that EPA 

rejected the interpollutant trading ratio 

used in establishing the trading 

mechanism for transportation 

conformity analyses. The 2008 PM2.5 SIP 

does not establish motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for SO2 and therefore 

does not establish an SO2: PM2.5 trading 

mechanism for transportation 

conformity purposes. 

Comment: Earthjustice claims that a 

transportation agency cannot rely on 

budgets derived from what it considers 

to be the unapprovable SJV 2008 PM2.5

SIP without violating CAA section 

176(c)(1) because they would not be 

able to assure that their actions would 

not interfere with timely attainment or 

reasonable further progress. 

Response: As documented in the TSD 

and our 2011 proposed rule, EPA has 

found that the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP 

demonstrates reasonable further 

progress and expeditious attainment of 

the 1997 PM2.5 standards consistent 

with the requirements of the CAA and 

EPA’s implementing regulations. We 

have also concluded that the budgets in 

this SIP are consistent with these 

demonstrations and are both adequate 

and approvable. Therefore, the SJV 

MPOs must use these budgets in their 

transportation conformity 

determinations. 

J. Comments on Other Topics Not 

Covered Previously 

Comment: AIR claims that EPA fails 

to list the 2009 State Strategy Status 

Report (pages 11–23) among the 

documents which it proposes to include 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69920 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

48As discussed previously, CARB provided 

emissions reductions estimates for the in-use 

agricultural equipment measure only for 2017, 

which is three years after the 2014 attainment year 

for PM2.5. 

49AIR notes that Table F–8 in EPA’s 2011 

Proposal TSD lists the agricultural equipment rule 

as a defined measure in the 2011 Progress Report. 

This was an error and has been corrected in the 

final TSD. 

50For a description of CARB’s source monitoring 

and enforcement programs including its procedures 

for handling violations, See http://www.arb.ca.gov/ 

enf/enf.htm. 

as part of the SIP, citing 76 FR 41338, 

41361, and that this is an error given 

CARB’s intent in the 2009 State Strategy 

Status Report (citing p. 11). AIR requests 

that EPA clarify its intent to approve a 

CARB commitment for staff to propose 

a rule to regulate in-use mobile 

agricultural equipment. AIR notes that 

this commitment was part of the 2007 

State Strategy (citing CARB Resolution 

07–28, Attachment B, p. 7), included in 

the 2009 State Strategy Status Report, 

and was a component of EPA’s previous 

proposed approval of the 2007 State 

Strategy (citing 75 FR 74518, 74541 

(November 30, 2011)), but is not 

included in the updated rulemaking 

schedule in 2011 Progress Report. 

Response: EPA lists the 2009 State 

Strategy Status Report as one of five 

submittals that comprise the 2007 PM2.5

SIP for the SJV. See 76 FR 41338, 41340. 

We also state in section VI. (EPA’s 

proposed Actions and Potential 

Consequences) that we were proposing 

to approve the SJV portions of CARB’s 

2007 State Strategy as revised in 2009 

and 2011 addressing CAA and EPA 

regulations for attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. We 

specifically proposed to approve 

CARB’s commitments to propose certain 

defined measures as listed in Table B– 

1 on page 1 of Appendix B of the 2011 

Progress Report submittal based on 

CARB’s own characterization of that 

submittal as its updates to its 

rulemaking schedule for the PM2.5

measures in the 2007 State Strategy. See 

2011 Progress Report, p. 8, Table 1. 

On June 20, 2011 CARB provided 

public notice of proposed revisions to 

the ozone portions of the 2007 State 

Strategy including revisions to the 

rulemaking schedule for in-use 

agricultural equipment. See CARB, 

Notice of Public Hearing to Consider a 

Status Report on the State Strategy for 

California’s 2007 State Implementation 

Plan and Consider Approval of 

Proposed Revisions for the 8-Hour 

Ozone and Minor Technical Revisions 

to the PM2.5 SIP Transportation 

Conformity Budgets,’’ June 20, 2011. As 

stated in the proposed revisions, CARB 

does not consider the in-use agricultural 

measures to be part of its PM2.5 control 

strategy and therefore did not include 

updates to the schedule for that measure 

in its PM2.5 SIP revision.48 2011 Ozone 

SIP Revisions, p. 3. These revisions 

were adopted by the Board on July 21, 

2011, submitted to EPA on July 29, 2011 

and proposed for approval by EPA on 

September 16, 2011 at 76 FR 57846. 

This proposed approval includes the 

revised schedule for the in-use 

agricultural equipment measure. See 76 

FR at 57846, 57853.49

Comment: AIR requests clarification 

from EPA on whether the omission of 

the proposed commitment in the 2011 

Progress Report is an administrative 

error, or whether CARB intentionally 

removed that commitment from the 

2007 State Strategy. AIR notes that 

based on CARB’s Web site, it appears 

that the omission was in error, because 

CARB continues to represent to the 

public that it is working on the in-use 

agricultural equipment rule. AIR asserts 

that to the extent that CARB 

intentionally removed the commitment, 

such action violates 40 CFR 51.102 

because CARB did not provide adequate 

notice to the public of this fundamental 

change to CARB’s strategy and that the 

public should not be expected to search 

through ‘‘voluminous SIP-related 

material, searching out stealth 

amendments by omission.’’ 

Response: As required by 40 CFR 

51.102, CARB posted the draft 2011 

Progress Report including the proposed 

revisions to the rulemaking schedule in 

the 2007 State Strategy 30 days prior to 

the public hearing and requested public 

comments. See CARB, Notice of Public 

Hearing to Consider the Approval of a 

Progress Report and Proposed State 

Implementation Plan Revisions for 

PM2.5, March 29, 2011. Questions and 

comments on the State’s proposed 

revisions to its rulemaking schedule, 

including changes to the in-use 

agricultural equipment measure, should 

be directed to CARB during the State’s 

public comment periods or at the public 

hearings. 

Comment: AIR comments that the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 State 

Strategy fail to demonstrate a 

monitoring program for CARB mobile 

source measures and the pesticide 

regulation, stating EPA regulations 

specifically require each plan to make 

this demonstration, citing 40 CFR 

51.111. It provides as an example, 

CARB’s anti-idling rules. 

Response: EPA’s regulation at 40 CFR 

51.111 requires each plan include a 

description of enforcement methods 

including, but not limited to, 

procedures for monitoring compliance 

with each of the selected control 

measures and procedures for handling 

violations. These requirements apply to 

the control measures that are in the SIP. 

For the reasons discussed previously, 

we do not believe that California’s 

mobile source measures that receive 

waivers under CAA section 209 need to 

be submitted for inclusion into the SIP; 

therefore, California need not include a 

description of the enforcement and or 

monitoring program for these measures 

in its SIP.50 As noted previously, 

CARB’s anti-idling regulations are 

pending a section 209 waiver decision. 

Should any of these provisions need to 

be submitted for SIP approval, we will 

evaluate their monitoring procedures at 

the time we take action to incorporate 

them into the SIP. As we have also 

noted previously, the pesticide 

regulation is not part of the 2008 PM2.5

SIP’s control strategy; therefore, the lack 

of any monitoring procedures is not 

material to our approval of this SIP. 

As a practical matter, to be effective, 

monitoring procedures (which includes 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements and testing procedures) 

must be tailored to the specific emission 

limitation for which they are to be used. 

For example, the procedures for 

monitoring NOX emissions from utility 

boilers are very different from the 

procedures for monitoring the VOC 

content of paints. Compare, for example, 

Rule 4601 (Boilers > 5 million BTU per 

hour), sections 5.4 ‘‘Monitoring 

Requirements’’ and 6.0 ‘‘Administrative 

Requirements’’ requiring continuous 

emissions monitoring and annual source 

testing using specific test procedures to 

Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), 

section 6.0 ‘‘Administrative 

Requirements’’ specifying label 

requirements, requiring maintenance of 

annual sales records, and specifying test 

methods for determining the VOC 

content of coatings. Because of the need 

to tailor monitoring procedures to the 

emission limit, EPA evaluates a 

prohibitory rule’s monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and testing procedures at 

the time it reviews the rule for 

incorporation into the SIP. We note that 

we are not approving any rules or 

regulations as part of this specific action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP. 

III. Approval Status of the Control 

Strategy Measures and Final Actions on 

the Attainment Demonstration and 

Enforceable Commitments 

A. Approval Status of Control Strategy 

Measures 

As part of its control strategy for 

attaining the PM2.5 standards in the SJV, 

the District made specific commitments 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 69921 

51The Truck Rule and the Drayage Truck Rule 

were included in a SIP submittal dated September 

21, 2011. We have included the September 21, 2011 

SIP submittal in the docket for this rulemaking. 

52See letter from James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated September 21, 

2011, submitting the Truck and Drayage Truck rules 

SIP revision to EPA. CARB indicates that the 

Drayage Truck Rule will be submitted to OAL no 

later than September 23, 2011, and the Truck Rule 

will be submitted to OAL no later than October 29, 

2011. Under California law, OAL must taken action 

within 30 working days. 

to adopt thirteen measures on the 

schedule identified in the Plan. See 

2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 6–2 (revised June 

17, 2010). The District has now 

completed its actions on all measures 

except for revisions to Rule 4905 

(Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type 

Residential Central Furnaces) which is 

not scheduled for adoption until 2014. 

See Table 1 below. As Table 1 shows, 

EPA has approved all of the adopted 

rules with the exception of three, none 

of which is credited with emissions 

reductions in the demonstrations. 

TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2008 PM2.5 PLAN SPECIFIC RULE COMMITMENTS

District rule Adoption date Current SIP approval status 

4103—Open Burning ........................................................ April 2010 ........................... Final approval signed: September 30, 2011. 

4320—Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, 

Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/ 

hr).

October 2008 ..................... Approved. 

75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010). 

4307—Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters 

(2 to 5 MMBtu/hr).

October 2008 ..................... Approved. 

76 FR 5276 (January 31, 2011). 

4308—Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters 

(0.075 to < 2 MM Btu/hr).

December 2009 .................. Approved. 

76 FR 16696 (March 25, 2011). 

4703—Stationary Gas Turbines ....................................... September 2007 ................. Approved. 

74 FR 53888 (October 21, 2009). 

4702—Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines ......... August 2011 ....................... Submittal pending. 

4354—Glass Melting Furnaces ........................................ October 2008 ..................... Approved. 

76 FR 37044 (June 24, 2011). 

4902—Residential Water Heaters .................................... March 2009 ........................ Approved. 

75 FR 24408 (May 5, 2010). 

4905—Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type Residential Central 

Furnaces.

Adoption scheduled for 

2014.

Most current revision of rule approved: October 20, 

2005 at 72 FR 29886 (May 30, 2007). 

4901—Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning 

Heaters.

October 2008 ..................... Approved. 

74 FR 57907 (November 10, 2009). 

4692—Commercial Charbroiling ....................................... September 2009 ................. Final approval signed: September 30, 2011. 

4311—Flares .................................................................... June 2009 .......................... Proposed for approval 76 FR 52623 August 23, 2011). 

9410—Employer Based Trip Reduction Program ............ December 2009 .................. Action pending. Emissions reductions from this rule revision are not currently included in the attainment or 

RFP demonstration. 

As part of its control strategy for 

attaining the PM2.5 standards in the SJV, 

CARB committed to propose certain 

measures on the schedule identified in 

the 2007 State Strategy. These 

commitments, which were updated in 

the 2011 Progress Report, and their 

current approval status are shown in 

Table 2. Of the measures listed in the 

2007 State Strategy’s updated 

rulemaking schedule, we note that only 

reductions from the ‘‘SmogCheck 

Improvement,’’ ‘‘Cleaner In-Use Heavy 

Duty Trucks,’’ and ‘‘Cleaner In-Use OffRoad Engines’’ measures are currently 

credited with reductions in the 

attainment demonstration. See 76 FR 

41338, 41346 (Table 6). 

Generally speaking, EPA will approve 

a State plan that takes emissions 

reduction credit for a control measure 

only where EPA has approved the 

measure as part of the SIP, or in the case 

of certain on-road and nonroad 

measures, where EPA has issued the 

related waiver of preemption or 

authorization under CAA section 209(b) 

or section 209(e). In our July 2011 

proposed rule, in calculating and 

proposing to approve the State’s 

aggregate emissions reductions 

commitment in connection with our 

proposed approval of the attainment 

demonstration, we assumed that full 

final approval, waiver, or authorization 

of a number of CARB rules would occur 

prior to our final action on the San 

Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan. See 76 FR 

41338, 41346 (table 6). Two specific 

CARB rules on which the attainment 

demonstration relies include the Truck 

Rule and the Drayage Truck Rule (that 

collectively are included in a State 

measure referred to as ‘‘Cleaner In-Use 

Heavy Duty Trucks’’). We proposed 

approval of both rules at 76 FR 40652 

(July 11, 2011), but will be unable to 

take final action on the rules until after 

taking final action on the SJV 2008 

PM2.5 SIP because, while CARB has 

adopted the rules, the rules cannot take 

effect until approved by the California 

Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and 

such approval will not happen before 

EPA’s final action must be taken on the 

plan. 

We are nonetheless allowing the 

plan’s attainment demonstration, and 

our final approval of it, to rely on the 

emissions reductions from the two 

CARB rules cited above for the 

following reasons: 

• Both rules have been adopted by 

CARB and submitted to EPA as a 

revision to the California SIP,51 and the 

adopted versions are essentially the 

same as those for which EPA proposed 

approval; 

• The comments that we have 

received on our proposed approval of 

the two CARB rules (Truck Rule and 

Drayage Truck Rule) contend that the 

rules are costly and may not be 

economically or technologically 

feasible, but such considerations cannot 

form the basis for EPA disapproval of a 

rule submitted by a state as part of the 

SIP [see Union Electric Company v. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 265 (1976)]; 

• The remaining administrative 

process, which involves review of the 

final adopted rules by California’s Office 

of Administrative Law (OAL) is 

essentially procedural in nature, and 

should be completed over the near 

term; 52

• CARB intends to submit the final, 

effective rules to EPA as soon as OAL 

completes its review and approves the 

rules. 

Therefore, we are confident that the 

final action on the rules will be 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69922 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

53California Assembly Bill 2289, passed in 2010, 

requires the Bureau of Automotive Repair to direct 

older vehicles to high performing auto technicians 

and test stations for inspection and certification 

effective 2013. Reductions shown for the 

SmogCheck program in the 2011 Progress Report do 

not include reductions from AB 2289 

improvements. CARB Progress Report supplement, 

attachment 5. 

completed in the near-term and that, as 

a result, continued reliance by the SJV 

2008 PM2.5 SIP, and our final approval 

of it, on the emissions reductions 

associated with the rules is reasonable 

and appropriate. If, however, California 

does not submit the adopted and fully 

effective rules to EPA as a SIP revision 

prior to the effective date of today’s 

action, we will take appropriate 

remedial action to ensure that our action 

on the plan is fully supportable or to 

reconsider that action. 

TABLE 2—2007 STATE STRATEGY DEFINED MEASURES SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERATION AND CURRENT STATUS

State measures Expected 

action year Implementation Current status 

Smog Check Improvements ......... 2007–2009 .......... 2008–2010, 2013 Elements approved 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010).53

Expanded Vehicle Retirement (AB 

118).

2007 .................... 2009 .................... Adopted by CARB, June 2009; by BAR, September 2010. 

Modification to Reformulated Gasoline Program.2007 .................... 2010 .................... Approved, 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010). 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty 

Trucks.

2007, 2008, 2010 2011–2015 .......... Proposed for approval 76 FR 40642 (July 11, 2011). 

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Locomotives.2008 .................... 2012 .................... Prop 1B bond funds awarded to upgrade line-haul locomotive engines not already accounted for by enforceable agreements with 

the railroads. Those cleaner line-hauls will begin operation by 

2012. 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Engines 2007, 2010 .......... 2009 .................... Waiver action pending. 

New Emissions Standards for 

Recreational Boats.

2013 .................... To be determined Partial adoption, July 2008. Additional action expected 2013. 

Source: 2011 Progress Report, Table 1. Additional information from http://www.ca.arb.gov. Only defined measures with direct PM2.5 or NOX reductions in the SJV are shown here. 

B. Enforceable Emissions Reductions 

Commitments 

CARB’s emissions reductions 

commitment is to achieve the ‘‘total 

emissions reductions necessary to attain 

Federal standards’’ through ‘‘the 

implementation of control measures; the 

expenditure of local, State, or federal 

incentive funds; or through other 

enforceable measures.’’ See CARB 

Resolution 07–28, Attachment B at pp. 

3–6; 2009 State Strategy Status Report, 

p. 20; and 2011 Progress Report, p. 6. 

The updates and improvements to the 

inventories as presented in CARB’s 2011 

Progress Report altered the calculation 

of the reductions needed for attainment 

of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in SJV by 

reducing the total reductions needed 

from District and State control strategy 

measures to 9 tpd for PM2.5, 26.1 tpd for 

NOX, and 0.8 tpd for SO2. See Table 3 

below and 76 FR at 41354, Table 7. 

We are approving the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

taking into account CARB’s revisions to 

the control strategy based on the 

revisions to its projected baseline 

inventories and its enforceable 

emissions reductions commitment. 

Specifically, we are interpreting CARB’s 

emissions reductions commitment, 

together with the adjustments to the 

2014 baseline inventories provided in 

CARB’s 2011 SIP revision and the 

District’s commitments, as adjusting 

CARB’s total emissions reductions 

commitment such that CARB is now 

obligated to achieve 2.3 tpd of PM2.5

reductions and 17.1 tpd of NOX

reductions by 2014 through enforceable 

control measures to provide for 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

SJV. SJVUAPCD’s commitments as 

submitted in 2008 are to achieve 9 tpd 

NOX, 6.7 tpd direct PM2.5, and 0.9 tpd 

SOX by 2014. See Table 3 below. The 

commitment numbers in this table do 

not include reductions from measures 

already adopted by CARB and the 

District to meet their commitments. 

TABLE 3—SJVUAPCD AND CARB 2014 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS COMMITMENTS

[Tons per average annual day in 2014] 

Direct PM2.5 NOX SO2

A—Adjusted 2014 baseline emissions level 1 ............................................................................. 72.3 317.3 25.4 

B—2014 attainment target level 2 ................................................................................................ 63.3 291.2 24.6 

C—Reductions needed from control strategy measures (A ¥ B) .............................................. 9.0 26.1 0.8 

D—District commitments 3 ........................................................................................................... 6.7 9.0 0.9 

E—CARB commitments (C ¥ D) ................................................................................................ 2.3 17.1 ........................

1From TSD, Table G–1. 

2 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 9–3. 3 2008 PM2.5 Plan, pp. 6–11 to 6–12. 

The level of emissions reductions 

remaining as commitments after 

adjusting the baseline to reflect updates 

and improvements to the inventories 

and crediting reductions from SIPapproved or otherwise SIP-creditable 

measures is shown in Table 4. These 

levels remain unchanged from our 2011 

proposal as does our conclusion that the 

attainment demonstration in the SJV 

2008 PM2.5 SIP which relies in part on 

these enforceable commitments is 

approvable. See 76 FR 41338, 41354 

(Table 8) and 41356. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 69923 

54EPA has approved Rule 9510 into the California 

SIP but disallowed the use of emissions reductions 

from the rule for any SIP purpose including transportation conformity. See 75 FR 28509 (May 

21, 2010) and 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011). 

TABLE 4—REDUCTIONS NEEDED FOR ATTAINMENT REMAINING AS COMMITMENTS BASED ON SIP-CREDITABLE MEASURES

[Tons per average annual day in 2014] 

Direct PM2.5 NOX SOX

A—Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy measures and other adjustments to the baseline to attain ................................................................................................ 22.7 284.2 1.8 

B—Reductions from baseline measures and adjustments to baseline ...................................... 13.7 258.1 1.0 

C—Total reductions from approved measures ........................................................................... 6.0 13.2 3.6 

D—Total reductions remaining as commitments (A ¥ B ¥ C) ................................................. 3.0 12.9 0.0 

E—Percent of total reductions needed remaining as commitments ........................................... 13.2 4.5 0.0 

IV. Approval of the Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets and Trading 

Mechanism for Transportation 

Conformity 

We noted in our July 2011 proposal 

that CARB had posted draft technical 

revisions to the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP’s 

motor vehicle emissions budgets on 

June 20, 2011 (see 76 FR 41338, at 

41360 and http://www.arb.ca.gov/ 

planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm) to 

correct data entry errors in the budget 

calculations and to remove the 

emissions reductions attributable to 

SJVUAPCD’s Rule 9510 ‘‘Indirect 

Source Review.’’ 54 In our July 2011 

proposal, we proposed to approve these 

draft budgets contingent on our 

receiving the SIP submittal from CARB 

containing these budgets before our 

final action on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP. 

The budgets were submitted by CARB as 

a SIP revision on July 29, 2011 (see 

letter, James Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 

dated July 29, 2011, with Attachments). 

We summarize the budgets we are 

approving today in Table 5 below. We 

posted the draft version of these budgets 

on our Web site for adequacy on July 14, 

2011 for a 30-day comment period 

which ended on August 15, 2011 (see 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm). 

We received no comments on our 

adequacy posting and have completed 

our adequacy review (see TSD, section 

II.J.). 

EPA is also approving the trading 

mechanism in the State’s submittal for 

use in transportation conformity 

analyses by the SJV MPOs as allowed 

for under 40 CFR 93.124. The trading 

applies only to: • Analysis years after the 2014 

attainment year. • On-road mobile emission sources. • Trades using vehicle NOX emission 

reductions in excess of those needed to 

meet the NOX budget. • Trades in one direction from NOX

to direct PM2.5. • A trading ratio of 9 tpd NOX to 1 

tpd PM2.5. Clear documentation of the 

calculations used in the trade would be 

included in the conformity analysis. See 

2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix A, 

p. A–6. 

Now that the approval of the budgets 

is finalized, the SJV MPOs and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation are 

required to use the revised budgets in 

transportation conformity 

determinations. Due to the formatting of 

the budgets (combining emissions 

changes, recession impacts and 

reductions from control measures), 

CARB will need to provide the MPOs 

with emissions reductions associated 

with the control measures incorporated 

into the budgets for the appropriate 

analysis years so that they can include 

these reductions in future conformity 

determinations per 40 CFR 93.122. In 

addition, for these conformity 

determinations, the motor vehicle 

emissions from implementation of the 

transportation plan should be projected 

and compared to the budgets at the 

same level of accuracy as the budgets in 

the plan, for example emissions should 

be rounded to the nearest tenth (e.g. 0.1 

tpd). 

TABLE 5—PM2.5 MVEB FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

[Tons per average annual day] 

County 

2012 2014 

PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX

Fresno .............................................................................................................. 1.5 35.7 1.1 31.4 

Kern (SJV) ....................................................................................................... 1.9 48.9 1.2 43.8 

Kings ................................................................................................................ 0.4 10.5 0.3 9.3 

Madera ............................................................................................................. 0.4 9.2 0.3 8.1 

Merced ............................................................................................................. 0.8 19.7 0.6 17.4 

San Joaquin ..................................................................................................... 1.1 24.5 0.9 21.6 

Stanislaus ........................................................................................................ 0.7 16.7 0.6 14.6 

Tulare ............................................................................................................... 0.7 15.7 0.5 13.8 

V. Final Actions and Resulting Clean 

Air Act Consequences 

A. EPA’s Final Actions 

For the reasons discussed in our July 

13, 2011 proposal, EPA approves, with 

the exception of the contingency 

measures provisions, California’s SIP for 

attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

San Joaquin Valley and grants the 

State’s request for an extension of the 

attainment date to April 5, 2015. The 

California PM2.5 attainment SIP for the 

San Joaquin Valley is composed of the 

SJVUAPCD’s 2008 PM2.5 Plan as revised 

in 2010 and 2011 and the SJV-specific 

portions of CARB’s 2007 State Strategy 

as revised in 2009 and 2011 that address 

CAA and EPA regulations for attainment 

of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

Specifically, EPA approves under 

CAA section 110(k)(3) the following 

elements of the SJV PM2.5 attainment 

SIP: 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69924 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1. The 2005 base year emissions 

inventories as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 

51.1008; 

2. The reasonably available control 

measures/reasonably available control 

technology demonstration as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1010; 

3. The reasonable further progress 

demonstration as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) 

and 40 CFR 51.1009; 

4. The attainment demonstration and 

associated air quality modeling as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 172(c)(1) and (6) and 40 CFR 

51.1007; 

5. The 2012 RFP year and 2014 

attainment year motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (as submitted on July 29, 2011) 

and CARB’s trading mechanism to be 

used in transportation conformity 

analyses as allowed under 40 CFR 

93.124; 

6. SJVUAPCD’s commitments to the 

adoption and implementation schedule 

for specific control measures listed in 

Table 6–2 (amended June 15, 2010) of 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan to the extent that 

these commitments have not yet been 

fulfilled, and to achieve specific 

aggregate emissions reductions of direct 

PM2.5, NOX and SOX by year, as listed 

in Table 6–3 of the PM2.5 Plan; and 

7. CARB’s commitments to propose 

certain defined measures, as listed in 

Table B–1 on page 1 of Appendix B of 

the 2011 Progress Report to the extent 

that these commitments have not yet 

been fulfilled and to achieve aggregate 

emissions reductions of 17.1 tpd NOX

and 2.3 tpd direct PM2.5 by 2014 

sufficient to provide for attainment of 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as described in 

CARB Resolution 07–28, Attachment B 

at pp. 3–6, the 2009 State Strategy 

Status Report, p. 21. and given in Table 

3 above. 

In addition, EPA concurs with the 

State’s determination under 40 CFR 

51.1002(c) that SOX and NOX are and 

VOC and ammonia are not attainment 

plan precursors for the attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

EPA also grants, pursuant to CAA 

section 172(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 

51.1004(a), California’s request to 

extend the attainment date for the San 

Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment 

area to April 5, 2015. 

Finally, EPA disapproves under CAA 

section 110(k)(3) the contingency 

measures provisions of the SJV PM2.5

attainment SIP as failing to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) 

and 40 CFR 51.1012. 

B. CAA Consequences of the Final 

Disapproval of the Contingency Measure 

Provisions 

EPA is committed to working with the 

District and CARB to resolve the 

remaining issues that make the current 

PM2.5 attainment SIP for the SJV not 

fully approvable under the CAA and the 

PM2.5 implementation rule. 

Under the CAA, a final disapproval of 

a required CAA element, such as the 

contingency measures provisions in 

section 172(c)(9), triggers sanction 

clocks under CAA section 179(b) that 

run from the effective date of the final 

action. The first sanction, the offset 

sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2), will 

apply in the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment 

area 18 months from January 9, 2012 

The second sanction, highway funding 

sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1), will 

apply in the area six months after the 

offset sanction is imposed. Neither 

sanction will be imposed under the 

CAA if California submits and we 

approve prior to the implementation of 

the sanctions, SIP revisions that correct 

the deficiencies identified in our 

proposed action. In addition to the 

sanctions, CAA section 110(c)(1) 

provides that EPA must promulgate a 

federal implementation plan addressing 

the deficient elements in the PM2.5 SIP 

for the SJV nonattainment area, two 

years after January 9, 2012, the effective 

date of this rule if we have not approved 

a SIP revision correcting the 

deficiencies within the two years. 

Because we are approving the RFP 

and attainment demonstrations and the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets, we are 

issuing a protective finding under 40 

CFR 93.120(a)(3) to the disapproval of 

the contingency measures. Without a 

protective finding, the final disapproval 

would result in a conformity freeze, 

under which only projects in the first 

four years of the most recent conforming 

Regional Transportation Plan and 

Transportation Improvement Programs 

can proceed. During a freeze, no new 

RTPs, TIPs or RTP/TIP amendments can 

be found to conform. See 40 CFR 

93.120(a)(2). Under this protective 

finding, however, the final disapproval 

of the contingency measures does not 

result in a transportation conformity 

freeze in the San Joaquin PM2.5

nonattainment area. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals and 

partial approvals/partial disapprovals 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act do not create any 

new requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because this 

partial approval/partial disapproval 

action does not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 69925 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the partial 

approval/partial disapproval action 

promulgated does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action approves pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

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.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (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.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove state choices, based on the 

criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves certain State requirements for 

inclusion into the SIP under CAA 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D and 

disapproves others, and will not in-andof itself create any new requirements. 

Accordingly, it does not provide EPA 

with the discretionary authority to 

address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable 

and legally permissible methods, under 

Executive Order 12898. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

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). This rule 

will be effective on January 9, 2012. 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69926 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

appropriate circuit by January 9, 2012. 

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 

Air pollution control, Incorporation 

by reference, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Sulfur oxides. 

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

Dated: September 30, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 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 paragraph (c)(356)(ii)(B), adding 

and reserving paragraph (c)(391), and 

adding paragraphs(c)(392), (c)(393), 

(c)(394), (c)(395), and (c)(396). 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(356) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(B) State of California Air Resources 

Board. 

(1) Proposed State Strategy for 

California’s 2007 State Implementation 

Plan, adopted on September 27, 2007. 

(2) CARB Resolution No. 07–28 with 

Attachments A and B, September 27, 

2007. Commitment to achieve the total 

emissions reductions necessary to attain 

the Federal standards in the SJV air 

basin, which represent 2.3 tons per day 

(tpd) of direct PM2.5 and 17.1 tpd of 

nitrogen oxides by 2014 for purposes of 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, as described in 

Resolution No. 07–28 at Attachment B, 

pp. 3–6, and modified by CARB 

Resolution No. 09–34 (April 24, 2009) 

adopting ‘‘Status Report on the State 

Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and 

Proposed Revisions to the SIP Reflecting 

Implementation of the 2007 State 

Strategy’’ and by CARB Resolution No. 

11–24 (April 28, 2011) adopting the 

‘‘Progress Report on Implementation of 

PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) 

for the South Coast and San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP 

Revisions.’’ 

(3) Executive Order S–07–002, 

Relating to Approval of the State 

Strategy for California’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

Federal 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5

Standards, November 16, 2007. 

(391) [Reserved] 

(392) A plan was submitted on June 

30, 2008 by the Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional Material. 

(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) 2008 PM2.5 Plan, adopted on April 

30, 2008. 

(2) SJVUAPCD Governing Board, In 

the Matter of: Adopting the San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Resolution No. 

08–04–10, April 30, 2008. Commitments 

to achieve emissions reductions 

(including emissions reductions of 8.97 

tpd of NOX, 6.7 tpd of direct PM2.5, and 

0.92 tpd of SOx by 2014) as described 

in Table 6–3a (p. 6–11), Table 6–3b (p. 

6–12), and Table 6–3c (p. 6–12) 

respectively of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 

commitments to adopt and submit 

control measures as described in Table 

6–2 (p. 6–9) of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, as 

amended June 17, 2010. 

(B) State of California Air Resources 

Board. 

(1) CARB Resolution No. 08–28 with 

Attachment A, May 22, 2008. 

(393) An amended plan was 

submitted on August 12, 2009 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional Material. 

(A) State of California Air Resources 

Board. 

(1) Status Report on the State Strategy 

for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and 

Proposed Revisions to the SIP Reflecting 

Implementation of the 2007 State 

Strategy, pages 11–17, April 24, 2009. 

(2) CARB Resolution No. 09–34, April 

24, 2009. 

(394) An amended plan was 

submitted on September 15, 2010 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional Material. 

(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) 2008 PM2.5 Plan Amendment to 

Extend the Rule 4905 Amendment 

Schedule, June 17, 2010. 

(2) SJVUAPCD Governing Board, In 

the Matter of: Proposed Amendments to 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan to Extend the Rule 

Amendment Schedule for Rule 4905 

(Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type 

Residential Central Furnaces), 

Resolution 10–06–18, June 17, 2010. 

(B) State of California Air Resources 

Board. 

(1) Executive Order S–10–003, 

Relating to Approval of Amendments to 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan to Extend the Rule 

Amendment Schedule for Rule 4905 

(Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type 

Residential Central Furnaces), 

September 15, 2010. 

(395) An amended plan was 

submitted on May 18, 2011 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional Material. 

(A) State of California Air Resources 

Board. 

(1) Progress Report on 

Implementation of PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plans (SIP) for the 

South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air 

Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions, 

Release Date: March 29, 2011. 

(2) CARB Resolution No. 11–24, April 

28, 2011. Commitment to propose 

measures as described in Appendix B of 

the Progress Report on the 

Implementation of PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plans (SIP) for the 

South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air 

Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions. 

(3) Executive Order S–11–010, 

‘‘Approval of Revisions to the Fine 

Particulate Matter State Implementation 

Plans for the South Coast Air Quality 

Management Plans for the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District and 

the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District,’’ May 18, 2011. 

(396) An amended plan was 

submitted on July 29, 2011 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional Material. 

(A) State of California Air Resources 

Board. 

(1) 8-Hour Ozone State 

Implementation Plan Revisions and 

Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plan Transportation 

Conformity Budgets for the South Coast 

and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, 

Appendix A, page A–6, (dated June 20, 

2011), adopted July 21, 2011. 

(2) CARB Resolution No. 11–22, July 

21, 2011. 

(3) Executive Order S–11–016, 

‘‘Approval of Revisions to the 8-Hour 

Ozone State Implementation Plans for 

the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District and the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District,’’ July 29, 2011. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27232 Filed 11–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3