59876 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA APPROVED ALABAMA REGULATIONS—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Section 335–3–8– 

.25.

Submission of TR NOX Annual Allowance Transfers.11/24/2015 8/31/2016 [Insert citation of publication].Both sections of 335–3–8–.25 are included in the approved SIP. 

* * * * * * * 

Section 335–3–8– 

.26.

Recordation of TR NOX Annual Allowance Transfers.

11/24/2015 8/31/2016 [Insert citation of publication].Both sections of 335–3–8–.26 are included in the approved SIP. 

* * * * * * * 

Section 335–3–8– 

.27.

Compliance with TR NOX Annual Emissions Limitation.11/24/2015 8/31/2016 [Insert citation of publication].Both sections of 335–3–8–.27 are included in the approved SIP. 

Section 335–3–8– 

.28.

Compliance with TR NOX Annual Assurance Provisions.11/24/2015 8/31/2016 [Insert citation of publication].

* * * * * * * 

Section 335–3–8– 

.29.

Banking .................................................. 11/24/2015 8/31/2016 [Insert citation of publication].Both sections of 335–3–8–.297 are included in the approved SIP. 

* * * * * * * 

Section 335–3–8– 

.30.

Account Error ......................................... 11/24/2015 8/31/2016 [Insert citation of publication].Both sections of 335–3–8–.30 are included in the approved SIP. 

Section 335–3–8– 

.31.

Administrator’s Action on Submissions 11/24/2015 8/31/2016 [Insert citation of publication].

* * * * * * * 

Section 335–3–8– 

.33.

General Monitoring, Recordkeeping, 

and Reporting Requirements.

11/24/2015 8/31/2016 [Insert citation of publication].Both sections of 335–3–8–.33 are included in the approved SIP. 

Section 335–3–8– 

.34.

Initial Monitoring System Certification 

and Recertification Procedures.

11/24/2015 8/31/2016 [Insert citation of publication].

Section 335–3–8– 

.35.

Monitoring System Out-of-Control Periods.11/24/2015 8/31/2016 [Insert citation of publication].

Section 335–3–8– 

.36.

Notifications Concerning Monitoring ...... 11/24/2015 8/31/2016 [Insert citation of publication].

Section 335–3–8– 

.37.

Recordkeeping and Reporting ............... 11/24/2015 8/31/2016 [Insert citation of publication].

Section 335–3–8– 

.38.

Petitions for Alternatives to Monitoring, 

Recordkeeping, or Reporting Requirements.

11/24/2015 8/31/2016 [Insert citation of publication].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–20854 Filed 8–30–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0636; FRL–9951–42– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality State Implementation Plans; 

California; San Joaquin Valley; 

Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving elements of 

the state implementation plan revisions 

(SIP) submitted by California to address 

Clean Air Act requirements for the 2006 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards in the 

San Joaquin Valley Moderate PM2.5

nonattainment area. These SIP revisions 

are the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, submitted 

March 4, 2013, the 2014 Supplement, 

submitted November 6, 2014, and the 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59877 

1 80 FR 1816 (January 13, 2015). 

2 81 FR 2993 (January 20, 2016) (final rule) and 

81 FR 42263 (June 29, 2016) (correcting 

amendment). 

3Letter dated December 29, 2014, from Richard 

W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 

with enclosures. 

4Letter dated April 1, 2016, from Deborah Jordan, 

Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, to Richard W. 

Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, and 81 FR 22194 

(April 15, 2016). 

5Letter dated November 13, 2015, from Richard 

W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 

with enclosures. 

6 81 FR 31212 (May 18, 2016). 

7The EPA took final action on the revised ozone 

and PM10 budgets at 81 FR 53294 (August 12, 2016). 

Although the 2012 PM2.5 Plan contained MVEBs for 

both 2014 and 2017, MVEBs for 2014 are no longer 

relevant for conformity analyses since that year has 

passed. 

8 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015). 

motor vehicle emission budgets for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS submitted 

November 13, 2015. The EPA is 

disapproving interpollutant trading 

ratios identified in the SIP submission 

for nonattainment new source review 

permitting purposes because the ratios 

are not supported by a sufficient 

technical demonstration. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 30, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0636. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, (415) 947– 

4192, tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Public Comments and the EPA’s 

Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Proposed Action 

On January 13, 2015, we proposed to 

approve SIP revisions submitted by 

California to address Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘the Act’’) requirements for the 

2006 primary and secondary 24-hour 

PM2.5 national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) in 

the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) PM2.5

nonattainment area.1 These SIP 

revisions are the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, 

submitted March 4, 2013, and the 

‘‘Supplemental Document, Clean Air 

Act Subpart 4: The 2012 PM2.5 Plan for 

the 2006 PM2.5 Standard, and District 

Rule 2201 (New and Modified 

Stationary Source Review)’’ (2014 

Supplement), submitted November 6, 

2014. We also proposed to approve, 

through parallel processing, the 

proposed motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS submitted on November 6, 

2014, which California submitted in 

final form on December 29, 2014, and 

the related trading mechanism for 

transportation conformity purposes. We 

refer to these submissions collectively 

herein as ‘‘the 2012 PM2.5 Plan’’ or 

simply ‘‘the Plan.’’ 

The EPA proposed to approve the 

following elements of the 2012 PM2.5

Plan as satisfying applicable CAA 

requirements: (1) The 2007 base year 

emissions inventories, (2) the 

demonstration that attainment by the 

Moderate area attainment date of 

December 31, 2015 is impracticable, (3) 

the reasonably available control 

measures/reasonably available control 

technology (RACM/RACT) 

demonstration, (4) the reasonable 

further progress (RFP) demonstration, 

(5) the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District’s 

(SJVUAPCD’s or ‘‘District’s’’) 

commitments to adopt and implement 

specific rules and measures by specific 

dates, and (6) the 2014 and 2017 MVEBs 

for direct PM2.5 and oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX). The EPA also proposed to 

determine that volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) emissions do not 

contribute significantly to ambient 

PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV but to find the 

State’s and District’s demonstration 

concerning ammonia emissions 

insufficient to rebut the regulatory 

presumption for ammonia. 

The EPA proposed to disapprove 

interpollutant trading ratios identified 

in these SIP submittals for 

nonattainment new source review 

(NNSR) permitting purposes. Finally, 

the EPA proposed to reclassify the SJV 

area, including Indian country within it, 

as a Serious nonattainment area for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, based on the EPA’s 

determination that the area could not 

practicably attain these standards by the 

applicable Moderate area attainment 

date of December 31, 2015. 

B. Final Reclassification of the SJV Area 

From Moderate to Serious for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS 

On December 22, 2015, we finalized 

our January 13, 2015 proposal to 

reclassify the SJV area from Moderate to 

Serious for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.2 As 

a result of that action, by August 21, 

2017, California is required to submit 

additional SIP revisions to satisfy the 

statutory requirements that apply to 

Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas, 

including the requirements of subpart 4 

of part D, title I of the Act. The Serious 

area plan must provide for attainment of 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area 

as expeditiously as practicable, but no 

later than December 31, 2019, in 

accordance with the requirements of 

part D of title I of the Act. 

C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

As part of our January 13, 2015 

proposed action, we proposed to 

approve the proposed 2014 and 2017 

MVEBs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) on November 

6, 2014 with a request for parallel 

processing. CARB formally submitted 

the final budgets to the EPA on 

December 29, 2014.3 On April 1, 2016, 

we found the NOX and direct PM2.5

budgets in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 

Supplement, as submitted December 29, 

2014, to be adequate for conformity 

purposes.4 On November 13, 2015, 

CARB submitted a SIP revision to 

replace several previously-submitted 

MVEBs developed using EMFAC2011 

with revised MVEBs developed using 

EMFAC2014.5

On May 18, 2016, we proposed to 

approve the revised MVEBs submitted 

on November 13, 2015, which address 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, the 

2006 PM2.5 standards, and the 1987 

coarse particulate matter (PM10) 

standard for the SJV area.6 We received 

no public comments on this proposal. 

Today, we are finalizing action only on 

the revised 2017 MVEBs addressing the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV, as 

submitted November 13, 2015.7 These 

NOX and direct PM2.5 budgets were 

revised using EMFAC2014, the most 

recent version of California’s motor 

vehicle emission factor model approved 

by the EPA for use in SIPs and 

conformity analyses.8 The revised 

budgets, presented in Table 1 below, 

were developed in consultation with the 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59878 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

9 81 FR 31212, 31218 (May 18, 2016). 

10See letter dated February 27, 2015 from Sheraz 

Gill, Director of Strategies and Incentives at 

SJVAPCD, to Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, ‘‘Re: 

Docket No. EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0636, Comments 

on Proposed Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air 

Quality Planning Purposes; California; San Joaquin 

Valley Moderate Area Plan and Reclassification as 

Serious Nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ 

and letter dated February 27, 2015 from Paul Cort 

and Adenike Adeyeye, Earthjustice, to Ms. Wienke 

Tax, Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9. 

11 81 FR 2993 (January 20, 2016). 

12 81 FR 22194 (April 15, 2016). 

13 80 FR 1816 at 1819–1820; see also ‘‘General 

Preamble for Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498, 13502 

(April 16, 1992) (‘‘General Preamble’’). 

14EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

(OTAQ), ‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of 

MOVES2010 for State Implementation Plan 

Development, Transportation Conformity, and 

Other Purposes,’’ December 2009; see also 

Memorandum from John Seitz, EPA, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards and Margo Oge, 

OTAQ, ‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 

for SIP Development and Transportation 

Conformity,’’ January 18, 2002. 

15 In Sierra Club v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 

2012), the Ninth Circuit remanded the EPA’s final 

action approving an ozone plan for the SJV on the 

ground that the EPA’s failure to consider new 

inventory data submitted by CARB long before the 

EPA’s action on the plan was arbitrary and 

capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. 

See 671 F.3d at 966 (‘‘EPA stands on shaky legal 

SJVUAPCD, the eight SJV metropolitan 

planning organizations (MPOs), the EPA 

and CARB. These budgets replace the 

NOX and direct PM2.5 budgets submitted 

on December 29, 2014. 

TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REVISED BUDGETS DEVELOPED USING

EMFAC2014 

County 

2017 

(tons per winter day) 

PM2.5 NOX

Fresno ............... 1.0 32.1 

Kern (SJV) ........ 0.8 28.8 

Kings ................. 0.2 5.9 

Madera .............. 0.2 6.0 

Merced .............. 0.3 11.0 

San Joaquin ...... 0.6 15.5 

Stanislaus ......... 0.4 12.3 

Tulare ................ 0.4 11.2 

Note: CARB calculated the revised PM2.5

budgets by taking the sum of the county-bycounty emissions results from EMFAC and 

rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest 

whole ton for NOX and to the nearest tenth of 

a ton for direct PM2.5, then reallocating to the 

individual counties based on the ratio of each 

county’s contribution to the total, and then 

rounding each county’s emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional 

rounding method. The existing adequate PM2.5

budgets submitted December 29, 2014 were 

calculated in the same manner. 

As part of our January 13, 2015 

proposed action, the EPA also proposed 

to approve, in accordance with 40 CFR 

93.124, the trading mechanism as 

described on p. C–32 in Appendix C of 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan as an enforceable 

component of the transportation 

conformity program for the SJV for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, with the condition 

that trades are limited to substituting 

excess reductions in NOX for increases 

in PM2.5. This trading mechanism was 

not revised by the November 13, 2015 

MVEB submittal.9 We are finalizing our 

proposal to approve the trading 

mechanism identified in the Plan for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

The budgets that the EPA is approving 

herein relate to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

only, and our approval of them does not 

affect the status of the previouslyapproved MVEBs for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS and related trading mechanism, 

which remain in effect for that PM2.5

NAAQS. 

II. Public Comments and the EPA’s 

Responses 

The EPA provided a 45-day period for 

the public to comment on our proposed 

rule. During this comment period, 

which ended on February 27, 2015, we 

received two sets of public comments, 

one from the SJVUAPCD and another 

from Earthjustice on behalf of the 

Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, 

Greenaction, the Association of Irritated 

Residents, the Sierra Club—Tehipite 

Chapter, and Global Community 

Monitor (Earthjustice).10 Copies of these 

comment letters can be found in the 

docket. 

In our December 22, 2015 final action 

to reclassify the SJV area as a ‘‘Serious’’ 

PM2.5 nonattainment area, we 

summarized and responded to public 

comments pertaining to the 

reclassification and its consequences 

and stated that we would, in a separate 

rulemaking, respond to comments 

pertaining to our proposed action on the 

submitted plan.11 In our April 15, 2016 

notice of adequacy, we responded to a 

public comment pertaining to the 

adequacy of the budgets.12

We summarize below and provide our 

responses to all remaining public 

comments on our proposed action on 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. 

A. Comment Regarding Emissions 

Inventories 

Comment 1: 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’’ (emphasis by commenter). 

Earthjustice argues that the EPA’s 

proposed determination that the 2012 

PM2.5 inventories ‘‘are based on the 

most current and accurate information 

available to the State and District at the 

time the Plan and its inventories were 

being developed,’’ does not satisfy the 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) that 

the inventory be accurate and current. 

While acknowledging that it is unaware 

of information calling into question the 

inventories used in the Plan, 

Earthjustice asserts that the EPA must 

take further steps to confirm that the 

inventories ‘‘are’’ (i.e., remain) current 

and accurate before it approves the 

inventories. Citing Sierra Club v. United 

States EPA, 671 F.3d 955, 968 (9th Cir. 

2012), Earthjustice states that the EPA’s 

failure to confirm that the inventories 

are current and accurate ‘‘undermines 

the rational basis for the approval.’’ 

Response 1: The EPA does not dispute 

the importance of emissions inventories. 

We evaluated the emissions inventories 

in the 2012 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 

impracticability demonstrations. Based 

on this evaluation, we have concluded 

that the Plan’s 2007 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 

that it comprehensively addresses all 

source categories in the SJV area, 

consistent with applicable CAA 

requirements and EPA guidance.13

CAA section 172(b) provides that a 

state containing a nonattainment area 

shall submit a plan or plan revision 

(including the plan items) meeting the 

applicable requirements of CAA section 

172(c) and section 110 on the schedule 

established by the EPA. Section 172(c) 

contains, inter alia, the requirement that 

nonattainment area plans include a 

‘‘comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory’’ of actual emissions from all 

sources of the relevant pollutant or 

pollutants in the 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 the 

EPA, rather than requiring that the state 

continually revise its plan as new 

emissions data become available.14 Air 

quality planning is an iterative process 

and states and the EPA must rely on the 

best available data at the time the plans 

are created. Nothing in the Sierra Club 

decision cited by the commenters (671 

F.3d 955, 9th Cir. 2012) compels the 

EPA to alter this longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA.15


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59879 

ground relying on significantly outdated data, given 

the amount of time that EMFAC2007 was available 

and authorized for use before the EPA approved the 

2004 SIP’’). The decision did not disturb the EPA’s 

longstanding policy of requiring states to use the 

most current emissions estimate models available at 

the time of SIP development. 

16EPA, Region 9, Air Division, Technical Support 

Document, ‘‘Proposed Action on the San Joaquin 

Valley 2012 PM2.5 State Implementation Plan and 

2014 Supplemental Document and Proposed 

Reclassification of the San Joaquin Valley as 

Serious Nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5

Standard,’’ December 2014 [‘‘Proposal TSD’’]. 17 Id. at p. 56. 

18 80 FR 1816, 1821 (January 13, 2015) (citing 

NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). 

19CAA section 189(e). 

20See EPA, Final Rule, ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State 

Implementation Plan Requirements,’’ July 29, 2016 

(pre-publication notice) at Section III.C.3.d, pp. 50– 

54 (discussing technical issues associated with 

sensitivity-based contribution analysis). 

B. Comments Regarding Precursors 

Comment 2: The SJVUAPCD argues 

that ammonia is not a significant 

precursor for PM2.5 and that additional 

ammonia controls are not required. The 

District asserts that the EPA’s proposal 

to reject these findings is based on 

‘‘technical assertions not supported by 

the extensive scientific research and 

modeling’’ conducted for the Plan, and 

that the technical analyses in the Plan 

demonstrate that ammonia reductions 

are ineffective for attaining the PM2.5

NAAQS. Although the District 

recognizes that ammonia is an integral 

component of ammonium nitrate, which 

contributes substantially to wintertime 

PM2.5 mass in the SJV, it argues that its 

scientific evaluations in the Plan 

provide ‘‘sufficient substantiation that 

controls on ammonia are known to be 

very insensitive to reducing ammonium 

nitrate mass concentrations.’’ The 

District also comments that the EPA did 

not provide references or support for 

statements in its technical support 

document that ‘‘a detailed evaluation of 

the modeling shows that ammonia 

controls can be effective at reducing 

ambient PM2.5 in some locations,’’ and 

that ‘‘[i]n the various studies, when 

ammonia emissions were reduced by up 

to 50 percent, ambient ammonium 

nitrate decreased by 5 to 25 percent, 

depending on the episode modeled and 

the geographic location evaluated . . . . 

These percentages for ammonia benefits 

are generally smaller than those for NOX

reductions, but these modeling results 

show that reductions in ammonia 

emissions under certain circumstances 

can effectively reduce ambient PM2.5’’ 

(internal citations omitted). The District 

argues that these statements are contrary 

to the Plan’s Weight of Evidence 

Analysis in Appendix G of the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan. 

Response 2: We disagree with the 

District’s claim that we did not provide 

support for our conclusions about 

ammonia impacts in the SJV. As stated 

on pg. 56 of the EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) for the proposed rule 

(hereafter ‘‘Proposal TSD’’),16 the EPA’s 

conclusion that ammonia controls can 

be effective at reducing ambient PM2.5 in 

some locations in the SJV is based on (1) 

sensitivity to ammonia reductions in the 

air quality modeling and Weight of 

Evidence Analysis in the 2012 PM2.5

Plan, (2) a number of peer-reviewed 

journal papers cited in the Plan showing 

ammonium nitrate reductions of up to 

25 percent when ammonia emissions 

are reduced by 50 percent, and (3) the 

severity of PM2.5 nonattainment in the 

area.17

Comment 3: The SJVUAPCD 

recognizes that ammonia is a large 

component of ammonium nitrate and 

that ammonium nitrate contributes 

substantially to wintertime PM2.5 mass, 

but asserts that this does not necessarily 

mean that reductions in ammonia 

emissions are effective in reducing 

PM2.5 concentrations in the SJV. 

Similarly, the District acknowledges 

that ammonia is found in the SJV at 

higher wintertime concentrations than 

NOX but states that ammonia’s physical 

abundance does not solely determine its 

significance as a precursor. The District 

cites language in the EPA’s Proposal 

TSD stating that the EPA reviews a 

determination to exclude a PM2.5

precursor by considering both ‘‘the 

magnitude of the precursor’s 

contribution to ambient PM2.5

concentrations’’ and ‘‘the sensitivity of 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the area 

to reductions in emissions of that 

precursor.’’ The District interprets this 

language to establish two necessary 

elements for precursor significance: (1) 

A ‘‘relatively high contribution’’ to 

overall PM2.5 mass, and (2) availability 

of control mechanisms for the precursor 

that demonstrate a ‘‘reasonable rather 

than negligible’’ reduction in PM2.5

mass. The District asserts that PM2.5

concentrations in the SJV are highly 

insensitive to ammonia controls, 

particularly when compared to 

alternative controls on NOX, which it 

claims is the limiting precursor for 

ammonia nitrate formation. While the 

District agrees with the EPA that the 

decision of whether to require 

reductions of a precursor should not be 

based solely on the control effectiveness 

of the precursor relative to other 

precursors, the District comments that 

an ‘‘additional key issue that must also 

be taken under consideration is the 

development and implementation of 

effective emission reductions strategies 

for reducing ambient PM2.5 and bringing 

the [SJV] into attainment.’’ 

Response 3: The EPA generally agrees 

with the District’s statement that both 

the contribution of a precursor to PM2.5

concentrations in the area and the area’s 

sensitivity to reductions in emissions of 

the precursor may be relevant for 

assessing the level of contribution of a 

PM2.5 precursor to ambient PM2.5 levels. 

The EPA also agrees with the District’s 

conclusion that ambient PM2.5

concentrations are more sensitive to 

NOX emission reductions than to 

ammonia emission reductions. We 

disagree, however, with the District’s 

suggestion that the effectiveness of 

reductions of a particular precursor in 

improving PM2.5 air quality relative to a 

different precursor may support a 

conclusion that a given precursor does 

not contribute significantly to ambient 

PM2.5 levels that exceed the NAAQS. 

We also disagree with the District’s 

suggestion that the ‘‘availability of 

control mechanisms for the precursor 

that demonstrate a ‘reasonable rather 

than negligible’ reduction in PM2.5

mass’’ is a necessary consideration in 

determining whether a particular PM2.5

precursor is subject to control 

evaluation under subpart 4. 

As explained in our proposed rule, 

ammonia is a precursor to the formation 

of PM2.5 and is, therefore, presumptively 

regulated under subpart 4 of part D, title 

I of the Act.18 Thus, CARB and the 

District must evaluate ammonia 

emissions for potential controls unless 

the State submits a demonstration 

adequate to rebut the regulatory 

presumption in the SJV area. The 

pertinent question in a demonstration to 

rebut the regulatory presumption for 

ammonia is whether ammonia emission 

sources ‘‘contribute significantly’’ to 

PM2.5 levels that exceed the PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV, not whether existing 

emission control measures can achieve 

a specified amount of emission 

reductions in the area or how effective 

ammonia reductions are compared to 

reductions of other PM2.5 precursors.19

More specifically, with respect to the 

sensitivity-based contribution analysis, 

the pertinent question is whether PM2.5

concentrations in the nonattainment 

area are ‘‘insensitive’’ to emissions 

reductions of the precursor.20 We note 

that the EPA may, in some cases, require 

a state to identify and evaluate potential 

control measures to reduce emissions of 

a particular PM2.5 precursor from 

existing sources as part of a sensitivitybased contribution analysis, i.e., in 

order to adequately demonstrate that 

regulation of the precursor would not 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59880 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

21See EPA, Final Rule, ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State 

Implementation Plan Requirements,’’ July 29, 2016 

(pre-publication notice) at 40 CFR 51.1009(a)(2)(ii). 

Although this regulatory text is not yet effective, it 

reflects the EPA’s interpretation of the statutory 

requirements. See also EPA, Response to Comments 

on the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 

Requirements, July 29, 2016, at p. 23 (noting that 

‘‘while a valid sensitivity-based precursor 

demonstration generally will not require an 

evaluation of available controls, the EPA may 

determine, based on the facts and circumstances of 

the area, that the state needs to conduct a control 

measure evaluation for the relevant precursor to 

adequately demonstrate that regulation of the 

precursor would not provide meaningful reductions 

in ambient air quality’’). 

22Proposal TSD at p. 57; see also 80 FR 1816, 

1825 (January 13, 2015). 

23 80 FR 1816, 1821–1822 (January 13, 2015). 

Courts have upheld this approach to the 

requirements of subpart 4 for PM10. See, e.g., Assoc. 

of Irritated Residents v. EPA, et al., 423 F.3d 989, 

997 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting discretion vested in the 

EPA to consider various factors in determining 

whether a precursor ‘‘contributes significantly’’ to 

PM10 levels). 

provide meaningful improvements in 

ambient air quality.21

Given the severity of PM2.5

nonattainment in the SJV area, the 

ambient contribution of ammonia 

emissions, the area’s demonstrated 

sensitivity to ammonia control,22 and 

our finding that the precursor 

demonstration in the Plan is insufficient 

to rebut the regulatory presumption for 

ammonia, we conclude that ammonia 

emissions contribute significantly to 

ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area and that 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan must, therefore, 

contain an evaluation of potential 

ammonia controls. 

Comment 4: Earthjustice challenges 

the EPA’s method for identifying PM2.5

precursors subject to regulation by the 

Plan. Specifically, Earthjustice objects to 

the EPA’s consideration of ‘‘both the 

magnitude of the precursor’s 

contribution to ambient PM2.5

concentrations in the nonattainment 

areas and the sensitivity of ambient 

PM2.5 concentrations in the area to 

reductions in emissions of that 

precursor.’’ Earthjustice argues that this 

language differs from CAA section 

189(e), which provides that control 

requirements shall apply to major 

stationary sources of particulate matter 

(PM) precursors unless the EPA finds 

that these sources ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly to PM–10 levels which 

exceed the standard in the area.’’ Thus, 

according to Earthjustice, ‘‘the statute 

allows for consideration only of the 

significance of the contribution’’ and 

does not allow for consideration of the 

effectiveness of controls in determining 

whether a precursor must be subject to 

control. 

Earthjustice also characterizes the 

EPA’s consideration of the sensitivity of 

ambient concentrations to precursor 

emissions reductions as a ‘‘bad’’ policy 

assessment and argues that ‘‘looking 

merely at the sensitivity ratios ignores 

the fact that pollutants like ammonia 

have been historically under-regulated 

and very well may represent the 

cheapest opportunities for emission 

reductions.’’ Earthjustice argues that 

even if much larger amounts of 

ammonia reductions would be required 

to achieve the benefits of a few tons of 

NOX reductions, ammonia controls may 

still be the ‘‘best’’ policy option because 

incremental NOX emissions, which have 

already been heavily regulated, may be 

much more expensive. Earthjustice 

claims that the EPA’s sensitivity test is 

a policy-based test but that it is not a 

rational policy test, because it does not 

consider the full regulatory context. 

According to Earthjustice, ‘‘decisions on 

how to balance controls on sources of 

ammonia versus sources of NOX are for 

the control strategy of the Plan,’’ and 

that if additional reductions beyond 

those achieved through the required 

RACM or BACM controls are necessary, 

‘‘that is where the ‘effectiveness’ of the 

controls can and should be 

considered—not in the determination of 

whether a pollutant is a precursor 

subject to control under the Act.’’ 

Earthjustice states that the EPA has 

correctly proposed to determine that 

ammonia emissions ‘‘contribute 

significantly’’ to PM2.5 nonattainment in 

the SJV given that ammonium nitrate is 

the largest component of the Valley’s 

PM2.5 levels. Thus, according to 

Earthjustice, ammonia controls are 

mandated under CAA section 189(e) 

regardless of the relative sensitivity of 

ambient concentrations to emission 

reductions. 

Response 4: We disagree with the 

commenter’s characterization of the 

legal test for determining whether or not 

a particular PM2.5 precursor must be 

subject to control evaluation. With 

respect to ammonia emissions, however, 

this issue does not affect our action on 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan because the EPA is 

not determining that ammonia emission 

sources ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly’’ to PM2.5 levels that exceed 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area. 

Instead, the EPA has concluded that the 

State’s and District’s demonstration 

concerning ammonia emissions in the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement 

is insufficient to rebut the regulatory 

presumption under subpart 4 and that 

ammonia is, therefore, a PM2.5 precursor 

subject to control evaluation for 

purposes of attaining the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV. 

As explained in our proposed rule, 

section 189(e) of the Act requires that 

the control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 also 

apply to major stationary sources of 

PM10 precursors, except where the 

Administrator determines that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM10 levels that exceed the standard 

in the area. Section 189(e) contains the 

only express exception to the control 

requirements under subpart 4 (e.g., 

requirements for RACM and RACT, best 

available control measures (BACM) and 

best available control technology 

(BACT), most stringent measures, and 

NSR) for sources of direct PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursor emissions. Although 

section 189(e) explicitly addresses only 

major stationary sources, the EPA 

interprets the Act as authorizing it also 

to determine, under appropriate 

circumstances, that regulation of 

specific PM2.5 precursors from other 

source categories in a given 

nonattainment area is not necessary. For 

example, under the EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of the control 

requirements that apply to stationary, 

area, and mobile sources of PM10

precursors area-wide under CAA section 

172(c)(1) and subpart 4 (see General 

Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13539–42), a 

state may demonstrate in a SIP 

submittal that control of a certain 

precursor pollutant is not necessary in 

light of its insignificant contribution to 

PM10 levels in the nonattainment area.23

We evaluated the SJV PM2.5 Plan in 

accordance with the presumption 

embodied within subpart 4 that all 

PM2.5 precursors must be addressed in 

the state’s evaluation of potential 

control measures, unless the state 

adequately demonstrates that emissions 

of a particular precursor do not 

‘‘contribute significantly’’ to ambient 

PM2.5 levels that exceed the PM2.5

NAAQS in the nonattainment area. Both 

the magnitude of a precursor’s 

contribution to ambient PM2.5

concentrations in the nonattainment 

area and the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5

concentrations in the area to reductions 

in emissions of that precursor may be 

relevant to an assessment of whether the 

precursor contributes significantly to 

ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the area. As explained 

in the preamble to the EPA’s July 29, 

2016 final rule to implement the PM2.5

NAAQS: 

The EPA . . . believes that a sensitivitybased contribution analysis is consistent with 

the language and intent of CAA section 

189(e). As applied to attainment plans, CAA 

section 189(e) allows states to evaluate 

whether PM2.5 precursors significantly 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59881 

24EPA, Final Rule, ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State 

Implementation Plan Requirements,’’ July 29, 2016 

(pre-publication notice) at Section III.C, p. 59. 

25CAA section 110(k)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3) and 

40 CFR 52.02(a); see also Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 

427 U.S. 246, 250 (1976); Train v. Natural Res. Def. 

Council, 421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975). 

26 80 FR 1816, 1827–1830. 

27The SJV area was designated nonattainment for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS effective December 14, 

2009. 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009) and 40 CFR 

81.305. Therefore, the statutory deadline for 

implementation of RACM in the SJV under CAA 

section 189(a)(1)(C) for this NAAQS was December 

14, 2013. 

28The EPA reclassified the SJV area as a Serious 

nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

effective February 19, 2016. 81 FR 2993 (January 20, 

2016) (final reclassification) and 81 FR 42263 (June 

29, 2016) (correcting amendment). Therefore, the 

statutory deadline for implementation of BACM in 

the SJV under CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) for this 

NAAQS is February 19, 2020. 

contribute to levels which exceed the 

standard in the area. The intent of CAA 

section 189(e) in applying control 

requirements to PM2.5 precursors is to ensure 

expeditious attainment of the standard. 

However, if conditions in a particular area 

are such that control of sources of one or 

more precursors does not reduce PM2.5

concentrations in the area, then those 

controls will not help the area attain 

(expeditiously or otherwise). Therefore, the 

EPA disagrees with commenters who argue 

that sensitivity-based contribution analyses 

are not appropriate for determining if 

precursors do not significantly contribute to 

PM2.5 levels in the area. The EPA believes 

that sensitivity-based contribution analyses 

can be useful for determining whether 

adoption of control requirements for sources 

of a particular precursor would be effective 

in reducing PM2.5 concentrations, and can be 

useful for determining whether potential 

emissions increases under the NNSR program 

would lead to insignificant air quality 

changes. For this reason, the final rule allows 

states to conduct sensitivity-based 

contribution analyses for the comprehensive, 

major stationary source, and NNSR precursor 

demonstrations.24

Based on our evaluation of the 

precursor demonstrations in the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan, we agree with Earthjustice’s 

claim that ammonia emission sources 

‘‘contribute significantly’’ to PM2.5

levels that exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the SJV and that an ammonia control 

evaluation is therefore necessary to 

satisfy the requirements of the Act for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. For the reasons 

provided in our proposed rule, however, 

we conclude that VOC emissions do not 

‘‘contribute significantly’’ to ambient 

PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV area and that a VOC 

control evaluation therefore is not 

necessary in this Plan. As the 

commenter has not raised any specific 

concern regarding our proposal on VOC 

emissions, we are not addressing these 

issues further with respect to VOCs. 

Comment 5: The District states that it 

is important to acknowledge the public 

health co-benefits of reducing NOX

emissions in the region. The District 

states that ozone production in the SJV 

is limited by NOX concentrations 

relative to VOC concentrations, and that 

NOX reductions typically involve the 

elimination, reduction, and/or control of 

hydrocarbon combustion sources, and 

produce net reductions in direct 

particulates, metals, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and hazardous air 

pollutants. The District asserts that 

reductions in secondary ammonium 

nitrate are not accompanied by these 

additional co-benefits. 

Response 5: We agree with the 

commenter that it is important to reduce 

NOX emissions for improved public 

health in the San Joaquin Valley, 

because it is a precursor to both PM2.5

and ozone. As to the air quality benefits 

of reductions in secondary ammonium 

nitrate, theoretically these air quality 

benefits could be achieved by 

reductions in either NOX emissions or 

ammonia emissions. Reductions in 

secondary ammonium nitrate through 

NOX control would achieve the cobenefits identified by the commenter. 

Given that there is no atmospheric 

chemistry connection between ammonia 

emissions and ozone production, we 

agree with the commenter that ammonia 

reductions would not achieve the same 

co-benefits with respect to ozone that 

NOX reductions achieve. Ammonia 

reductions may, however, achieve other 

air quality co-benefits depending on the 

specifics of the ammonia controls, 

which are not explored in the Plan but 

may be uncovered by additional 

analysis. In any case, this issue does not 

affect our conclusion that ammonia is a 

PM2.5 precursor subject to control 

evaluation for purposes of the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

C. Comments Regarding RACM/RACT 

and Adopted Control Strategy 

Comment 6: Earthjustice argues that 

the EPA should disapprove the Plan’s 

RACM/RACT demonstration because it 

does not include all reasonably 

available control measures. Earthjustice 

asserts that the EPA’s review of this 

demonstration in its proposed rule 

‘‘does little more than rubberstamp the 

District’s unsupported assertions’’ that 

all reasonable controls have been 

exhausted, and identifies six source 

categories for which it claims that 

existing control measures could 

reasonably be strengthened or other 

reasonable new control measures have 

yet to be adopted and implemented. 

Response 6: We disagree with these 

arguments. Section 107(a) of the CAA 

provides states with both authority and 

primary responsibility for developing 

SIPs that meet applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements for attaining, 

maintaining, and enforcing the NAAQS. 

States have discretion in formulating 

their SIPs, and the EPA is required to 

approve a SIP submission that satisfies 

the applicable requirements of the 

Act.25

As explained in our proposed rule, 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan discusses the 

District’s process for evaluating 

potential RACM/RACT in accordance 

with the EPA’s recommendations in the 

General Preamble and describes each of 

the control measures for sources of 

direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2, and ammonia 

that the Plan relies on to satisfy the 

RACM/RACT requirement for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS.26 For the reasons 

provided in our proposed rule and 

further below, we conclude that the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan provides for the 

implementation of all RACM/RACT that 

could reasonably be implemented in the 

SJV by the statutory implementation 

deadline, as required by CAA sections 

172(c) and 189(a)(1)(C). 

We note that, as of the date of our 

proposed action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

and 2014 Supplement, which published 

on January 13, 2015, it was not 

practicable for the state to adopt 

additional control measures for 

implementation by the RACM 

implementation deadline under CAA 

section 189(a)(1)(C), which was 

December 14, 2013.27 The State and 

District must, however, include in the 

Serious area plan for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, which is due August 21, 2017, 

provisions to assure that the best 

available control measures (BACM) for 

the control of PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors shall be implemented no 

later than 4 years after the date the area 

was reclassified as a Serious area, i.e., 

by February 19, 2020.28 The required 

evaluation of BACM/BACT control 

measures in the Serious area plan must 

address sources of direct PM2.5 and all 

PM2.5 precursors, except for any PM2.5

precursor(s) for which the State submits 

and the EPA approves a comprehensive 

precursor demonstration consistent with 

the requirements of subpart 4 of part D, 

title I of the Act. In accordance with the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(6), 

the Serious area plan must also include 

any additional feasible measures to 

control emissions of direct PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursors that are necessary or 

appropriate to provide for attainment of 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59882 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

29See EPA, Final Rule, ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State 

Implementation Plan Requirements,’’ July 29, 2016 

(pre-publication notice) at 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(4)(ii). 

Although this regulatory text is not yet effective, it 

reflects the EPA’s interpretation of the statutory 

requirements. 

30Available at http://www.valleyair.org/MOP/ 

docs/069610ProjectDataforPublicUNLOCKED-1-30- 

14.xlsx. 

31Available at http://www.valleyair.org/MOP/ 

docs/9610ProjectDataforPublicUNLOCKED-8-11- 

14.xlsx. 

32Available at http://www.valleyair.org/MOP/ 

docs/9610ProjectDataforPublic2015.xlsx. 

33We did not evaluate the 125 projects in the 

2014 Data Sheet categorized as ‘‘off-road’’ and as 

‘‘vehicle replacements’’ for which the Data Sheet 

identified ‘‘cost retrofit’’ instead of ‘‘cost of new 

equip vehicle’’ values. 

34We did not evaluate the 29 projects in the 2013 

Data Sheet categorized as ‘‘off-road’’ and as ‘‘vehicle 

replacements’’ for which the Data Sheet identified 

zero NOX and PM emission reductions. 

35We calculated the cost-effectiveness of NOX

controls by dividing the ‘‘Cost of New Equipment’’ 

values by the ‘‘NOX Lifetime Reduced (tons)’’ 

values for each of the identified projects to obtain 

$/ton values. 

as practicable and no later than 

December 31, 2019.29

We respond below to the specific 

comments pertaining to the six source 

categories highlighted by Earthjustice. 

Comment 6a: Standards for 

Agricultural Equipment. Earthjustice 

asserts that the District’s ‘‘replacement 

of more than 1,000 pieces of off-road 

equipment and agricultural equipment’’ 

through implementation of incentive 

programs has demonstrated the 

feasibility of emission controls on offroad agricultural equipment and argues 

that CARB has the ability to create 

binding, enforceable regulations to 

reduce NOX emissions from off-road 

agricultural equipment to hasten 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the SJV. 

Response 6a: To the extent 

Earthjustice intended to argue that the 

replacement of off-road agricultural 

equipment through incentive programs 

implemented in the SJV demonstrates 

that NOX controls for such equipment 

are both technologically and 

economically feasible, we disagree. 

Given the commenter did not specify 

the types and/or sizes of off-road 

equipment for which it believes NOX

controls are feasible, we evaluated 

several types of off-road agricultural 

equipment replacement projects funded 

through the Carl Moyer Memorial Air 

Quality Standards Attainment Program 

in the SJV in recent years to determine 

the costs and technical issues associated 

with such replacements. We used the 

SJVUAPCD’s ‘‘Annual Demonstration 

Report’’ data sheets for 2013,30 2014,31

and 2015,32 which the District 

submitted pursuant to SJVUAPCD Rule 

9610, to determine the cost effectiveness 

and technological feasibility of off-road 

agricultural equipment replacements. 

We limited our analysis to projects 

categorized as ‘‘off-road’’ and as 

‘‘vehicle replacements,’’ and that 

included data for ‘‘cost of new equip 

vehicle’’ 33 and non-zero emission 

reductions values reported for NOX and/ 

or particulate matter (PM).34 Off-road 

agricultural equipment encompasses a 

wide variety of types of equipment. The 

1807 pieces of equipment listed in the 

data sheets that we reviewed include: 

Almond shakers, almond sweepers, 

backhoes, bale wagons, balers, bulk 

carriers, combines, cotton pickers, 

forage harvesters, forklifts, harvesters, 

hay haulers, loaders, silage baggers, 

sprayers, swathers, tomato harvesters, 

tractors, tractor crawlers, and wheel 

loaders. Additionally, as seen in Tables 

2, 3, and 4 below, the data sheets 

identify a wide range of equipment 

horsepower levels and capital costs of 

replacing agricultural off-road 

equipment, from which the EPA 

calculated mean and median values and 

cost-effectiveness values for NOX

controls.35

TABLE 2—HORSEPOWER FOR OFF-ROAD AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT

Horsepower 

(HP) Project ID 

Date of 

‘‘Annual 

Demonstration 

Report’’ data 

sheet identifying project 

Minimum ...................................................................................................................................... 28 C–21377–A 2014 

Maximum ..................................................................................................................................... 653 C–21973–A 2014 

Mean ............................................................................................................................................ 128 ........................ ........................

Median ......................................................................................................................................... 105 ........................ ........................

Source: Minimum and maximum horsepower based on EPA review of SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Annual Demonstration Report’’ data sheets for 2013, 

2014, and 2015. Mean and median values calculated by EPA. 

TABLE 3—COST OF OFF-ROAD AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT

Cost of new 

equipment 

($) 

Project ID 

Date of 

‘‘Annual 

Demonstration 

Report’’ data 

sheet identifying project 

Minimum ...................................................................................................................................... 10,031.50 C–22064–A 2014 

Maximum ..................................................................................................................................... 685,736.52 C–27498–A 2015 

Mean ............................................................................................................................................ 82,182.69 ........................ ........................

Median ......................................................................................................................................... 51,212.29 ........................ ........................

Source: Minimum and maximum cost based on EPA review of SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Annual Demonstration Report’’ data sheets for 2013, 2014, and 

2015. Mean and median values calculated by EPA. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59883 

36The applicability of these rules was narrowed 

to exclude federal fleets and certain private fleets. 

See http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ 

Regulations/Fleet-Rules/fleetruleadvisoryjuly202005.pdf?sfvrsn=0. 

37 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at C–7 to C–11. 

38 Id. at C–8, C–9 (noting that ‘‘establishing new 

alternative fuel infrastructure can cost millions of 

dollars and alternative fuel SWCVs generally cost 

$25,000 more than diesel’’). 

39 Id. 

TABLE 4—COST EFFECTIVENESS OF NOX CONTROL FOR OFF-ROAD AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Project ID 

Date of 

‘‘Annual 

Demonstration 

Report’’ data 

sheet identifying project 

Minimum ...................................................................................................................................... 1,141.00 C–8160A 2013 

Maximum ..................................................................................................................................... 436,140.00 C–22654–A 2014 

Mean ............................................................................................................................................ 38,687.61 ........................ ........................

Median ......................................................................................................................................... 18,863.95 ........................ ........................

Source: EPA, ‘‘Agricultural Mobile Engine Projects—EPA cost-effectiveness calculations,’’ July 21, 2016. 

The significant costs associated with 

replacing off-road agricultural 

equipment in the SJV indicate that 

replacement of such equipment without 

funding assistance generally is not 

economically feasible at this time. In 

addition, the wide variations in the 

sizes and uses of such equipment in the 

SJV and the available control 

technologies indicate that replacement 

of off-road agricultural equipment in the 

SJV may not be technically feasible for 

many types of equipment. Accordingly, 

we disagree with Earthjustice’s 

suggestion that requirements to replace 

off-road agricultural equipment are 

required RACM in the SJV. 

Comment 6b: Fleet Rules. Earthjustice 

comments that the District can further 

reduce emissions from mobile sources 

by adopting additional ‘‘fleet’’ rules to 

regulate emissions from publicly-owned 

vehicles. Earthjustice notes that while 

the District currently maintains a fleet 

rule only for school buses, the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) has adopted rules for buses; 

light-, medium-, and heavy-duty public 

fleet vehicles; waste collection vehicles; 

airport ground transportation such as 

taxis and shuttles; and street sweepers. 

Earthjustice states that the District 

should implement similar restrictions 

on publicly-owned vehicles. 

Response 6b: We disagree with 

Earthjustice’s suggestion that adoption 

of additional ‘‘fleet’’ rules is necessary 

to satisfy the RACM/RACT requirement 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

As the commenter notes, the 

SCAQMD has adopted several rules to 

encourage public agencies and some 

private entities to shift to the use of 

lower emissions vehicles,36 including 

the following: 

Rule 1186.1 Less-Polluting Street Sweepers, 

adopted August 18, 2000; 

Rule 1191 Clean On-Road Light and 

Medium Duty Public Fleet Vehicles, 

adopted June 16, 2000; 

Rule 1192 Clean On-Road Transit Buses, 

adopted June 16, 2000; 

Rule 1193 Clean On-Road Residential and 

Commercial Refuse Collection Vehicles, 

adopted June 16, 2000. 

Rule 1194 Commercial Airport Ground 

Access Vehicles, adopted August 18, 2000; 

Rule 1195 Clean On-Road School Buses, 

adopted April 20, 2001; and 

Rule 1196 Clean On-Road Heavy-Duty 

Public Fleet Vehicles, adopted October 20, 

2000. 

As explained in Appendix C of the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan, both CARB and the 

SJVUAPCD have adopted fleet rules to 

reduce emissions from specific types of 

on-road vehicle fleets, e.g., CARB’s Fleet 

Rule for Public Agencies and Utilities, 

which addresses diesel particulate 

matter from vehicle fleets operated by 

public agencies and utilities, and 

SJVUAPCD Rule 9310 (School Bus 

Fleets), which requires replacement, 

retrofit, or repowering of older dieselfueled school buses.37 The District 

acknowledges in Appendix C of the 

Plan that the SCAQMD is implementing 

a fleet rule that requires solid waste 

collection vehicle fleets to operate 

entirely on alternative fuel beginning in 

2011 but explains that transitioning a 

fleet from diesel to alternative fuel can 

be costly and may not be economically 

feasible in the SJV.38 Additionally, 

according to the SJVUAPCD, the 

emissions benefit associated with such 

a transition is minimal given the 

stringent particulate matter 

requirements under CARB’s Fleet Rule 

for Public Agencies, and the relatively 

small difference in NOX emissions, if 

any, between diesel and alternative fuel 

vehicles.39 The commenter provides no 

information to support a claim that the 

SJVUAPCD could reasonably have 

adopted and implemented identical or 

similar rules in the SJV prior to the 

RACM/RACT implementation deadline, 

which was December 14, 2013. We note 

that none of the SCAQMD fleet rules 

identified above has been submitted for 

approved into the California SIP. 

Comment 6c: Indirect Source Review 

(ISR) Improvements. Earthjustice 

comments that the District can obtain 

additional emissions reductions by 

expanding the applicability of its ISR 

rule, which Earthjustice notes was last 

updated in 2005. Earthjustice suggests 

that the District could eliminate 

provisions that allow businesses to 

mitigate their emissions by paying fees 

(or establish a minimum emission level 

for when a business may use this 

option), add limits for PM2.5 emissions, 

and require projects to achieve greater 

emissions reductions. 

Response 6c: We disagree with the 

commenter’s suggestion that revisions to 

SJVUAPCD Rule 9510 (‘‘Indirect Source 

Review’’) are necessary to satisfy RACM 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the SJV. 

SJVUAPCD Rule 9510, as adopted 

December 15, 2005, requires applicants 

for development projects of certain sizes 

and certain transportation or transit 

projects to reduce NOX and particulate 

matter (PM) emissions from the 

development and use of such projects 

through various on-site mitigation 

measures or payment of fees to fund offsite emission reduction projects. The 

EPA approved SJVUAPCD Rule 9510 

into the California SIP at 76 FR 26609 

(May 9, 2011) but explained in that 

action that the EPA and the District 

were acting under section 110(a)(5) of 

the CAA. Under that section, the EPA is 

prohibited from requiring states to 

include ISR programs in SIPs. 

Specifically, CAA section 110(a)(5)(A)(i) 

states that any State may include in a 

State implementation plan, but the 

Administrator may not require as a 

condition of approval of such plan 

under this section, any indirect source 

review program. Section 110(a)(5)(A)(i) 

also states that the Administrator may 

approve and enforce, as part of an 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59884 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

40CAA section 110(a)(5)(A)(i). 

41 80 FR 1816, 1832 at Table 3 (January 13, 2015); 

see also 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5 (‘‘Control 

Strategy’’), Section 5.3 (‘‘New Control Measures’’), 

p. 5–21 to 5–22. 

42 80 FR 58637 (September 30, 2015). 

43EPA, Final Rule, ‘‘Approval of California Air 

Plan Revisions, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District,’’ August 15, 2016 (prepublication notice). 

44SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 (amended September 17, 

2009), sections 4.1, 5.1, and 5.2. 

45BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 2 (adopted 

December 5, 2007), available at http://

www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/BA/CURHTML/R6-2.PDF. 

46BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 2 (adopted 

December 5, 2007), sections 6–2–102, 6–2–110, 6– 

2–111, 6–2–300, and 6–2–400. 

47Email dated April 4, 2016, from Virginia Lau 

of the BAAQMD to Stanley Tong of EPA Region 9, 

regarding ‘‘Update on Bay Area charbroiler 

registration.’’ 

48BAAQMD staff noted that these inspections 

occurred during a period of economic recession, 

and that conditions may have changed since. Email 

dated April 4, 2016, from Virginia Lau of the 

BAAQMD to Stanley Tong of EPA Region 9, 

regarding ‘‘Update on Bay Area charbroiler 

registration.’’ 

49CE–CERT informed SCAQMD that charbroiler 

testing will be delayed for up to four months due 

to fire suppression system upgrades in its test 

kitchen. Email dated March 16, 2016 from Michael 

Laybourn of the SCAQMD to Stanley Tong of EPA 

Region 9, regarding ‘‘Charbroiler Testing.’’ 

50 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D at D–111 to D– 

117. 

51Action Summary Minutes, San Joaquin Unified 

Air Pollution Control District, Governing Board, 

August 20, 2009, page 7, available at http://

www.valleyair.org/Board_meetings/GB/agenda_

minutes/Minutes/2009/Minutes_GB_2009_Aug.pdf. 

applicable implementation plan, an 

indirect source review program which 

the State chooses to adopt and submit 

as part of its plan.40 Because SJVUAPCD 

Rule 9510 constitutes an ISR program, 

the EPA may not require the District to 

consider revisions to this rule, for 

RACM purposes or otherwise. 

Comment 6d: Fireplace Rule 

Improvements. Earthjustice comments 

that the District could reduce direct 

PM2.5 emissions by making SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces 

and Wood Burning Heaters) more 

stringent. Earthjustice notes that this 

rule was updated in 2014, but argues 

that this update did not make the rule 

‘‘as stringent as it reasonably could,’’ 

because it allows cleaner classes of 

wood-burning heaters to be used at 

ambient concentrations up to 65 

microgram per meter cubed (mg/m3). 

Earthjustice argues that a more 

appropriate threshold would be 

35 mg/m3, the attainment level for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and that the 

District should amend the rule to 

disallow use of these heaters when 

concentrations are expected to exceed 

this level. Earthjustice asserts that the 

District ‘‘should prioritize making the 

rule as protective as possible’’ to reduce 

direct PM2.5 emissions. 

Response 6d: We disagree with the 

commenter’s suggestion that revisions to 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 are necessary to 

satisfy RACM requirements for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

Consistent with the District’s rule 

amendment commitments in the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan,41 the SJVUAPCD amended 

Rule 4901 on September 18, 2014, and 

CARB submitted the amended rule to 

the EPA for SIP action on November 6, 

2014.42 On August 15, 2016, Acting 

Regional Administrator Alexis Strauss 

signed a notice of final rulemaking to 

approve SJVUAPCD Rule 4901, as 

amended September 18, 2014, as 

meeting applicable CAA requirements 

and implementing RACM/RACT for 

PM2.5 emissions from wood burning 

devices.43

Comment 6e: Interim Charbroiling 

Regulations. Earthjustice argues that the 

District has delayed updating its 

charbroiler rule even though the Bay 

Area Air Quality Management District 

(BAAQMD) has already implemented 

regulations on under-fired charbroilers. 

Earthjustice points out that in 2012, it 

and other organizations asked the 

District to update the rule sooner, to 

include controls similar to those in the 

Bay Area and to follow up with another 

rule update when new technologies are 

reasonably available. 

Response 6e: We disagree with the 

commenter’s suggestion that SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) 

fails to satisfy RACM requirements for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and 

that control measures for under-fired 

charbroilers are necessary to satisfy 

these requirements. 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, as amended 

September 17, 2009, applies to chaindriven charbroilers used in commercial 

meat cooking and requires a catalytic 

oxidizer or alternative controls with a 

control efficiency of at least 83 percent 

for PM10 emissions and 86 percent for 

VOC emissions. The rule exempts 

charbroilers used to cook less than 400 

pounds of meat in a calendar week, and 

other limited-use charbroilers that do 

not exceed weekly and rolling 12-month 

maximum use limits and that have not 

previously been required to comply 

with the rule’s control requirements. It 

does not regulate under-fired 

charbroilers.44

The BAAQMD is the only air district 

that we are aware of that has adopted 

regulations to reduce emissions from 

under-fired charbroilers. BAAQMD 

Regulation 6, Rule 2 (Commercial 

Cooking Equipment),45 applies to chaindriven charbroilers in restaurants that 

purchase 500 pounds or more of beef 

per week, and to under-fired 

charbroilers in restaurants that purchase 

1,000 pounds or more of beef per week. 

The rule requires these restaurants to 

control emissions using a certified 

control device and to register 

charbroilers and associated emission 

control devices with the BAAQMD. The 

rule exempts low-utilized charbroilers, 

including under-fired charbroilers used 

to grill less than 800 pounds of beef per 

week.46

According to BAAQMD planning and 

compliance staff, the control 

requirements in Regulation 6, Rule 2 for 

under-fired charbroilers have not yet 

been implemented in practice.47

BAAQMD staff noted that no underfired charbroilers in the Bay Area are 

currently registered pursuant to 

Regulation 6 Rule 2, indicating that 

restaurants in the Bay Area are 

operating below the thresholds that 

trigger the requirements. In addition, the 

BAAQMD’s most recent inspections 

found that restaurants were below these 

thresholds.48 Significantly, the 

BAAQMD has not yet certified any 

emission control devices for under-fired 

charbroilers. BAAQMD staff explained 

that they are waiting to receive and 

review final test reports from the 

University of California at Riverside, 

Center for Environmental Research and 

Technology (CE–CERT) before making 

certifications.49

The SJVUAPCD’s 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

summarizes PM control technology for 

under-fired charbroilers.50 It finds that 

catalytic oxidizers are not effective for 

under-fired charbroilers because the 

exhaust from these devices loses too 

much heat before it reaches the catalyst. 

The Plan lists High Efficiency 

Particulate-Arresting (HEPA) filtration, 

Electrostatic Precipitators (ESP), and 

Wet Scrubbers as potentially more 

effective control technology for underfired charbroilers, but notes that the 

SJVUAPCD found these technologies 

were ‘‘unproven and extremely costly’’ 

when it amended SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 

in 2009. During that amendment 

process, the District found that the 

initial costs for these controls ranged 

from $37,500 to $104,000, which results 

in a cost of approximately $58,200 per 

ton of PM2.5 reduced. The District has 

estimated the total costs of installing, 

operating, and maintaining these 

controls to be as much as 20 to 30 

percent of a restaurant’s net profits.51 As 

a result, the District decided not to 

adopt regulations for under-fired 

charbroilers as part of its rule 

amendments in 2009. We note that the 

Plan contains the District Governing 

Board’s commitment to adopt control 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59885 

52 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5 (‘‘Control 

Strategy’’), Section 5.3 (‘‘New Control Measures’’), 

p. 5–21 to 5–22, and SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

Resolution 2012–12–19 (December 20, 2012), page 

4; see also 80 FR 1816, 1832 at Table 3 (January 13, 

2015). 

53Bellisario, J., Mandel, B., Perkins, J., Ruan, Y., 

‘‘Regulating Emissions from Under-fired 

Charbroilers,’’ University of California, Berkeley, 

Goldman School of Public Policy, May 2012. 

54 Id. at p. 24. 

55 Id. at p. 24. 

56The SCAQMD, BAAQMD, SJVUAPCD, and 

EPA Region 9 are part of a workgroup to provide 

input on the CE–CERT under-fired charbroiler 

testing research. 

57See Restaurant Charbroiler Technology 

Partnership, available at http://valleyair.org/grants/ 

rctp.htm, and ‘‘Charbroilers Come Under San 

Joaquin Valley Air District’s Microscope,’’ The 

Modesto Bee, December 27, 2015, http://

www.recordnet.com/article/20160101/NEWS/ 

160109993. 

58SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 (adopted June 18, 2009), 

sections 5.8 and 6.5. 

59 Id. 

60 Id. at sections 6.1 and 6.2. 

61North Dakota Century Code, Section 38–08– 

06.4, as effective January 2016. 

62State of North Dakota, Industrial Commission 

Order No. 24665 (dated July 1, 2014). 

63The 2012 PM2.5 Plan mistakenly identifies the 

Santa Barbara rule as ‘‘Rule 4359.’’ 2012 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix D at D–71. 

64 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D at D–71. 

measures for under-fired charbroilers in 

2016.52

A study conducted by the University 

of California at Berkeley 53 arrives at a 

similar conclusion regarding the cost of 

PM controls for under-fired charbroilers. 

Using 2007 economic census data, the 

study estimates the average annual 

profit of restaurants in the SJVUAPCD 

area to be $23,000–$47,000 per 

establishment, for a profit margin of 

3.5–5.9 percent. Similarly, the study 

estimates the annual profit for average 

large restaurants (i.e., restaurants 

averaging 60 employees) to be 

approximately $110,000. The study also 

finds that the average capital cost for 

particulate matter (PM) emission 

controls such as an ESP, HEPA 

filtration, or wet scrubber can range 

from approximately $38,750 to $50,000, 

with average annualized costs for 

installation and operation of $11,000– 

$15,000. The study calculates the total 

costs associated with these controls to 

be approximately 10–14 percent of an 

average large restaurant’s profits. The 

study states that ‘‘[t]hese figures may 

appear modest . . . given that installing 

control technologies would amount to 

only a tenth of [large] restaurant profits. 

However . . . this figure is several times 

larger than the case of successful chaindriven charbroiler regulations, where 

the cost of installing catalytic oxidizers 

represented just 2.2 percent of average 

restaurant profits.’’ 54 The study notes 

that its annualized cost estimates 

parallel SJVUAPCD’s estimates, even 

though the data were drawn from 

different sources.55

We anticipate the CE–CERT research 

report will help clarify the cost 

effectiveness of various under-fired 

charbroiler emission control 

technologies, some of which are 

prototypes, which will supplement the 

earlier Berkeley study to help inform 

more effective rule development.56

Additionally, the District is currently 

undertaking efforts that may yield 

additional information relevant to 

whether additional controls for 

charbroilers would be appropriate and 

feasible in the SJV. To help study the 

technological feasibility and 

effectiveness of potential control 

technologies, the SJVUAPCD Governing 

Board approved $750,000 for its 

Restaurant Charbroiler Technology 

Partnership program to fund PM control 

technology demonstration projects for 

under-fired charbroilers at Valley 

restaurants.57 The District’s funding 

would include the full purchase cost, 

installation, operation, maintenance, 

and other costs such as modifications to 

existing system configurations and 

structural reinforcements, and will help 

evaluate control systems operations, 

maintenance, and labor costs in the 

field. Completion of these research 

efforts will allow regulatory agencies to 

evaluate overall PM reduction strategies, 

which will help in designing 

economically and technically feasible 

regulations that can achieve the 

necessary PM reductions. 

Based on these evaluations, we find 

that SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 implements 

RACM/RACT for charbroilers for 

purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the SJV. 

Comment 6f: Performance Standards 

for Flares. Earthjustice comments that 

the District could strengthen Rule 4311 

(Flares) by adopting a performancebased standard for flaring. Earthjustice 

states that the District should assess the 

strength of its rule against rules in other 

areas with high oil and gas production, 

and suggests North Dakota as an 

example. As explained by Earthjustice, 

North Dakota requires operators to meet 

targets for natural gas capture that 

increase over time from 74 percent in 

2014 to an expected 90 percent by 2020, 

and allows state regulators to restrict oil 

production if the operators do not meet 

these targets. Earthjustice says that the 

District could ‘‘borrow from’’ this 

approach by assessing the percentage of 

natural gas flared in the San Joaquin 

Valley and developing regulations to 

reduce flaring. 

Response 6f: We disagree with the 

commenter’s suggestion that revisions to 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 (Flares) are 

necessary to satisfy RACM requirements 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4311, as amended 

June 18, 2009, limits VOC, NOX, and 

sulfur oxides (SOX) emissions from 

industrial operations involving the use 

of flares. The rule includes general 

requirements for combusting waste 

gases, emission standards for groundlevel enclosed flares, and performance 

targets for petroleum refinery flares. 

Operators of refinery flares and flares 

with capacity greater than 5.0 MMBtu/ 

hour are required to submit flare 

minimization plans (FMPs) containing 

information such as detailed process 

diagrams, descriptions of upstream 

equipment, and evaluations of 

preventive measures to reduce flaring.58

The rule prohibits flaring unless it is 

done consistently with a Districtapproved FMP.59 Additionally, the rule 

includes monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements, including a 

requirement for operators to investigate 

and report flaring events.60

As the commenter notes, North 

Dakota has adopted rules governing 

flaring in the oil and gas industry, 

through provisions of the North Dakota 

Century Code and an Order issued by 

the Industrial Commission of North 

Dakota. Section 38–08–06.4 of the North 

Dakota Century Code allows oil wells to 

flare gas during the first year of 

production, and thereafter requires 

wells either to be capped or to be 

equipped with approved capture or 

control measures that, at a minimum, 

reduce flared gas by at least 60 percent, 

unless the operator can demonstrate that 

such measures are not economically 

feasible.61 Industrial Commission Order 

24665 adopts tiered gas capture goals 

that include a target of 74 percent 

capture in 2014 and an end target of 90 

percent capture in 2020.62

The SJVUAPCD’s 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

states that Rule 4311 is more stringent 

than flare rules in other California air 

districts. Appendix D of the Plan 

compares Rule 4311 to SCAQMD Rule 

1118, BAAQMD Rules 12–11 and 12–12, 

and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution 

Control District (SBCAPCD) Rule 359.63

According to the District, these rules 

contain requirements for FMPs and 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting provisions similar to those in 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4311, and emission 

standards for ground-level enclosed 

flares, but Rule 4311 applies to a wider 

range of operations and does not 

include certain exemptions present in 

the other districts’ rules.64 The District 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59886 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

65 Id. The VCAPCD does not have a specific 

flaring rule, but VACPCD Rule 54, ‘‘Sulfur 

Compounds’’ includes requirements for flaring 

events, including FMPs. The District’s ‘‘2015 Plan 

for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard’’ (‘‘2015 PM2.5 Plan’’) 

includes this rule in a table comparing Rule 4311 

to other California air district rules, and states that 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 is at least as stringent. 2015 

PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C: BACM and MSM for 

Stationary and Area Sources, at page C–79. 

66 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C: BACM and MSM 

for Stationary and Area Sources, at page C–81. 

67 In its comparison of Rule 4311 to the North 

Dakota provisions, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan states that 

Rule 4311 ‘‘requires 95% capture and treatment of 

produced gas.’’ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C: 

BACM and MSM for Stationary and Area Sources, 

at page C–82. We interpret this to mean that the rule 

achieves at least 95 percent capture in practice, as 

demonstrated at Table C–11 of the Plan. 2015 PM2.5

Plan, Appendix C: BACM and MSM for Stationary 

and Area Sources, at page C–80. See email dated 

May 20, 2016, from Sheraz Gill of the SJVUAPCD 

to Andrew Steckel of EPA Region 9, regarding 

Small flares question. 

68 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C: BACM and MSM 

for Stationary and Area Sources, at pp. C–79 to C– 

81. 

69 Id. at C–81. 

70 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C: BACM and MSM 

for Stationary and Area Sources, at page C–79. 

SJVUAPCD staff confirmed that the data in this 

table comes from the annual emissions inventory 

reports submitted by sources to the District. Email 

dated April 27, 2016, from Sheraz Gill of the 

SJVUAPCD to Andrew Steckel of EPA Region 9, 

regarding SJV flares data inquiry. 

71The Federal Register notice uses the term 

‘‘condensable PM.’’ 

72 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007). The EPA’s recent 

final rule to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS also 

requires that emission limitations for PM2.5 sources 

address condensable PM2.5. See EPA, Final Rule, 

‘‘Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 

Requirements,’’ July 29, 2016 (pre-publication 

notice) at p. 567 (requiring at 40 CFR 51.1009(c) 

that, for new or revised source emissions 

limitations on sources of direct PM2.5 emissions, 

states apply such emissions limitations either to the 

total of the filterable plus condensable fractions of 

direct PM2.5, or to filterable PM2.5 and condensable 

PM2.5 separately). 

73Certain commercial or industrial activities 

involving high temperature processes (e.g., fuel 

combustion, metal processing, and cooking 

operations) emit gaseous pollutants into the 

ambient air which rapidly condense into particle 

form. These ‘‘condensable’’ particulate matter 

emissions exist almost entirely in the 2.5 or less 

micron range and can consist of organic material, 

sulfuric acid and metals. 80 FR 15340, 15343 at n. 

7 (March 23, 2015); see also 72 FR 20586, 20651 

(April 25, 2007). 

74See, e.g., 80 FR 15340, 15412 (March 23, 2015) 

(discussing requirement to address condensable 

PM2.5 in base year emissions inventory and related 

SIP control strategies). 

75See EPA, Final Rule, ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State 

Implementation Plan Requirements,’’ July 29, 2016 

(pre-publication notice) at pp. 66–77, 90–104 and 

139–140 (discussing requirements to include 

condensable PM2.5 in base year emissions 

inventories and in RACM/RACT control 

evaluations); see also 80 FR 15340 at 15378, 15412. 

76See 2012 PM2.5 Plan at p. 4–22. 

77See ‘‘2006 Area Source Emissions Inventory 

Methodology 690—Commercial Cooking 

Operations,’’ available at http://www.valleyair.org/ 

Air_Quality_Plans/EmissionsMethods/ 

MethodForms/Current/ 

CommercialCooking2006.pdf. See also Welch, W.A. 

and Norbeck, J.M., 1998, ‘‘Development of Emission 

Test Methods and Emission Factors for Various 

Commercial Cooking Operations,’’ TO–98–14–3 and 

email dated May 20, 2016, from W. Welch of the 

SCAQMD to Stanley Tong of USEPA, RE: 

also states that the Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District (SMAQMD) and Ventura County 

Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) 

do not have specific prohibitory rules 

for flares.65

The District has addressed the North 

Dakota Century Code and the Industrial 

Commission Order in Appendix C of the 

‘‘2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard’’ 

(hereafter ‘‘2015 PM2.5 Plan’’).66 There, 

the District concludes that SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4311 is more stringent than the 

North Dakota rule. Among its findings 

in support of this conclusion, the 

District notes that Rule 4311 applies to 

a broader range of sources and achieves 

a higher percentage of gas capture.67

Appendix C of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan also 

discusses SBCAPCD Rule 359, which 

includes a performance standard for gas 

volume.68 The District concludes that 

Rule 4311 is more stringent than this 

rule, citing reasons that include Rule 

4311’s applicability to a broader range 

of sources, fewer exemptions, and 

greater percentage gas capture.69

We agree with the District’s analysis 

and conclusion that SJVUAPCD Rule 

4311 is at least as stringent as the rules 

adopted by the other California air 

districts and the requirements in place 

in North Dakota. Therefore, we disagree 

with the commenter’s assertion that a 

performance-based standard like North 

Dakota’s would be more protective than 

Rule 4311. While Rule 4311 does not set 

performance targets for reducing flared 

gas, information in the record indicates 

that it achieves emission reductions 

greater than those targets. Table C–11 of 

the 2015 PM2.5 Plan shows that the 

percentage of gas flared in the SJV in the 

years between 2009 and 2013 has never 

exceeded 5 percent.70 This analysis 

addresses the commenter’s suggestion 

that the District should assess the 

percentage of natural gas flared in the 

District, and it indicates that adoption of 

requirements like North Dakota’s would 

not reduce emissions from flaring in the 

SJV. 

Based on this assessment, we find that 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 represents RACT 

for flaring operations in the SJV, and 

that the alternatives suggested by the 

commenter would not achieve 

additional emission reductions. 

Comment 7: Earthjustice comments 

that the RACM/RACT analysis in the 

Plan does not include reasonable 

controls for condensable emissions, and 

that the EPA must therefore disapprove 

the RACM/RACT demonstration. 

Earthjustice states that 40 CFR 

51.1002(c) requires agencies to set 

controls for condensable emissions 

beginning January 1, 2011, and quotes 

the EPA’s prior statement at 72 FR 

20586, 20652 that ‘‘[w]e expect States to 

address the control of direct PM2.5

emissions, including condensables 

[sic] 71 with any new actions taken after 

January 1, 2011.’’ 

Response 7: We agree with 

Earthjustice’s statement that the 

transition period under 40 CFR 

51.1002(c) (as effective May 29, 2007) 72

allowing state and local agencies to 

submit plans that do not address 

condensable emissions ended on 

January 1, 2011. We disagree, however, 

with the claim that the EPA must 

disapprove the RACM/RACT 

demonstration in the Plan for failure to 

assess controls on condensable PM2.5

emissions. 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.1002(c), 

as effective May 29, 2007, provide that, 

after January 1, 2011, for purposes of 

establishing emissions limits to satisfy 

requirements for RFP and reasonably 

available control measures/reasonably 

available control technology (RACM/ 

RACT), states must establish such limits 

taking into consideration the 

condensable fraction of direct PM2.5

emissions. Because direct PM2.5 is 

comprised of both filterable PM2.5 and 

condensable PM2.5,73 the EPA has 

explained that both the emissions 

inventories underlying a PM2.5

attainment plan and any emission limits 

for sources of direct PM2.5 in the control 

strategy must take into consideration the 

condensable fraction of PM2.5

emissions.74 As the EPA stated in the 

July 29, 2016 final rule to implement the 

PM2.5 NAAQS, it is particularly 

important to ensure that both the 

filterable and condensable components 

of direct PM2.5 emissions are accurately 

represented in the base year emissions 

inventory underlying a RACM/RACT 

control analysis.75

Chapter 4 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

contains a brief discussion of the 

District’s approach to condensable PM2.5

emissions and states that condensable 

particulates are included in the 

District’s total emissions inventory for 

direct PM2.5.76 The base year inventory 

for direct PM2.5 emissions is provided in 

Appendix B of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 

includes condensable emissions. 

Specifically, the PM2.5 emissions 

inventory for commercial cooking 

operations incorporates emission factors 

from a source testing study that 

collected both filterable and 

condensable particulate matter (PM).77


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59887 

Development of PM Charbroiling Emission Factors 

using SC 5.1 (confirming that tests were performed 

using SCAQMD Method 5.1 which includes both 

filterable and condensable PM). 

78SJVUAPCD. ‘‘2006 Area Source Emissions 

Inventory Methodology 050—Industrial Natural Gas 

Combustion’’ at p. 3 (identifying emission factors 

are based on the EPA’s AP–42 chapters 1.4 and 3.2, 

which include filterable and condensable PM). 

79Email dated May 18, 2016, from Chay Thao of 

the SJVUAPCD to Stanley Tong of EPA Region 9, 

regarding ‘‘Gas Turbine PM source testing 

condensible’’; see also SJVUAPCD, Notice of Final 

Action, Minor Title V Permit Modification, District 

Facility #C–14 (April 26, 2012), permit condition 

21, available at https://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/air/ 

EPSS.NSF/0201370ee436adf08825653000726dc1/ 

e76e9625e609621088257a0e00535d9c/$FILE/ 

Public%20Notice%20Pkg.pdf and SJVUAPCD, 

Notice of Final Action, Revised Final Determination 

of Compliance, Project Number: N–1113502 

(January 18, 2012), permit condition 51, available 

at https://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/air/EPSS.NSF/ 

0201370ee436adf08825653000726dc1/ 

5f867ce070483067882579c300793cbe/$FILE/ 

Public%20Notice%20Package.pdf. 

80 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B at B–3. 

81 81 FR 6936 at 6951–52, Table 3 (February 9, 

2016). 

82See 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/ 

3D4DEB4D21AB4AAF882570AD005DFF69/$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:// 

www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/laboratoryprocedures/methods-procedures/stm-005- 

1.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 

83SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 (amended September 17, 

2009), section 3.6, defining PM10 ‘‘as defined in 

Rule 1020 (Definitions).’’ SJVUAPCD Rule 1020 

defines ‘‘particulate matter’’ as ‘‘any material except 

uncombined water, which exists in a finely divided 

form as a liquid or solid at standard conditions,’’ 

and defines ‘‘PM–10’’ as ‘‘particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter smaller than or equal to a 

nominal ten (10) microns as measured by the 

applicable state and federal reference test 

methods.’’ SJVUAPCD Rule 1020 (amended 

February 21, 2013), sections 3.32 and 3.36, 

approved at 79 FR 59433 (October 2, 2014). 

84Welch, W.A. and Norbeck, J.M., 1998, 

‘‘Development of Emission Test Methods and 

Emission Factors for Various Commercial Cooking 

Operations,’’ TO–98–14–3 (indicating that the 

majority of PM emitted from commercial cooking 

operations is less than 2.5 microns). 

85See SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 (amended May 19, 

2011), section 3.30, defining PM10 ‘‘as defined in 

Rule 1020 (Definitions).’’ SJVUAPCD Rule 1020 

defines ‘‘particulate matter’’ as ‘‘any material except 

uncombined water, which exists in a finely divided 

form as a liquid or solid at standard conditions,’’ 

and defines ‘‘PM10’’ as ‘‘particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter smaller than or equal to a 

nominal ten (10) microns as measured by the 

applicable state and federal reference test 

methods.’’ SJVUAPCD Rule 1020 (amended 

February 21, 2013), sections 3.32 and 3.36, 

approved at 79 FR 59433 (October 2, 2014). 

86 75 FR 80118 (December 21, 2010). 

87 80 FR 1816 at 1827–1830 (referencing 2014 

Supplement at Attachment A). 

Similarly, the SJVUAPCD’s PM2.5

emission factors for natural gas fired 

boilers, turbines and engines in the 

manufacturing and industrial category 

are based on the EPA’s AP–42 emission 

factors, which include both filterable 

and condensable PM.78 Also, PM in the 

emissions inventory from biomass 

boilers and natural gas turbines for the 

electric utilities sector is based on PM10

testing required by operating permits 

and includes both filterable and 

condensable PM.79 According to the 

emissions inventories in the 2012 PM2.5

Plan, approximately 38 percent of the 

2007 direct PM2.5 inventory for 

stationary and area sources comes from 

fugitive dust and farming, emission 

sources that generally do not produce 

condensable PM emissions. Stationary 

source combustion processes that emit 

condensable PM, such as electric 

utilities, commercial cooking operations 

and glass melting furnaces, account for 

approximately 13.5 percent of the 2007 

PM2.5 inventory for stationary and area 

sources. Residential fuel combustion, 

fires, and managed burning activities 

account for 44 percent of the stationary 

and area source inventory, and 

miscellaneous industrial processes 

make up the remainder of the nonmobile source inventory.80

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan relies on several 

SJVUAPCD rules regulating direct PM 

emissions as part of the PM2.5 control 

strategy, including Rule 4692 

(Commercial Charbroiling, amended 

September 17, 2009), Rule 4103 (Open 

Burning, amended April 15, 2010), Rule 

4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces, amended 

May 19, 2011), and Rule 4901 (Wood 

Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning 

Heaters, amended September 18, 

2014).81 Of the SJVUAPCD rules that 

control direct PM emissions, only two 

establish emission limits for PM: Rule 

4692 and Rule 4354. Both of these rules 

contain control requirements that apply 

to condensable PM and require sources 

to use test methods that measure 

condensable PM. 

Specifically, section 5.2 of SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4692 requires that each chaindriven charbroiler be equipped and 

operated with a catalytic oxidizer that 

has a control efficiency of at least 83 

percent for PM10 emissions, and section 

6.5.1 of the rule requires testing in 

accordance with the ‘‘South Coast Air 

Quality Management District’s 

Protocol,’’ which requires measurement 

of both condensable and filterable PM in 

accordance with SCAQMD Test Method 

5.1.82 SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 defines 

PM10 as defined in SJVUAPCD Rule 

1020 and states that ‘‘[f]or purposes of 

determining control efficiency, all 

particulate collected using the test 

method specified in Section 6.5 shall be 

considered PM10.’’ 83 Because section 

6.5 of SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 requires 

measurement of both condensable and 

filterable PM, both condensable and 

filterable PM are considered PM10 under 

the rule.84 Similarly, section 5.4 of 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 establishes 

emission limits for PM10, also defined as 

in SJVUAPCD Rule 1020,85 and states 

that ‘‘total PM10 includes both filterable 

PM10 and condensable PM10.’’ Section 

6.5.9 of SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 requires 

testing for condensable PM emissions 

using EPA Method 202.86 No other SIP 

control measure in the RACM/RACT 

demonstrations in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

establishes direct PM emission 

limitations. 

We therefore find that the 2012 PM2.5

Plan adequately addresses the 

condensable fraction of direct PM2.5

both in the base year emissions 

inventory and in the SIP control 

strategy. 

Comment 8: Earthjustice argues that 

the EPA must disapprove the ammonia 

RACM/RACT demonstration because 

the District has not demonstrated that it 

has adopted all reasonably available 

control measures. According to 

Earthjustice, the Plan ‘‘includes no 

analysis of how Rules 4565, 4566, and 

4570 actually control ammonia 

emissions,’’ and the District’s ammonia 

RACM/RACT demonstration ‘‘is little 

more than the District’s rationalizations 

for not adopting reasonable controls’’ 

(emphasis in comment). Earthjustice 

says that the EPA has proposed to 

excuse the Plan’s failure to analyze 

ammonia controls ‘‘because it was 

submitted too soon after the decision in 

NRDC for the District to have 

incorporated a full analysis of ammonia 

controls into the Plan.’’ Earthjustice 

asserts that this consideration ‘‘provides 

no basis for finding that the statutory 

requirements have been met.’’ 

Response 8: We disagree with 

Earthjustice’s assertion that the EPA 

must disapprove the ammonia RACM/ 

RACT demonstration in the Plan. As we 

explained in our proposed rule, the 

2014 Supplement contains a discussion 

of three SIP-approved District rules that 

regulate VOCs but also have the effect 

of reducing ammonia emissions in the 

SJV, as well as ammonia control 

measures implemented elsewhere that 

the District evaluated for technical and 

economic feasibility.87 These analyses, 

which the EPA has developed further 

below, demonstrate that SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4565, Rule 4566, and Rule 4570 

reduce ammonia emissions from 

confined animal facilities (CAFs) and 

composting operations in the SJV, 

which together account for 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59888 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

88 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B at B–17 and 2014 

Supplement at Attachment A, p. A–1 (indicating 

that ‘‘farming operations’’ account for 239.2 tpd of 

ammonia emission and that ‘‘waste disposal,’’ 

which includes composting solid waste operations, 

accounts for 20.5 tpd of ammonia emissions in 

2015, from a total 2015 ammonia inventory of 340.7 

tpd). 

89SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 (adopted March 15, 

2007), section 5.3.3 (requiring implementation of at 

least one ‘‘Class Two mitigation measure’’); see also 

2014 Supplement at Attachment A, p. A–36 to A– 

39. 

90SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 (adopted March 15, 

2007), section 5.3.3 and section 3.3 (defining 

‘‘alternative mitigation measure’’). 

91SJVUAPCD, Final Staff Report, Revised 

Proposed New Rule 4565 (Biosolids, Animal 

Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations), March 30, 

2007, at p. 9. 

92SCAQMD, ‘‘Technology Assessment for 

Proposed Rule 1133 (Emission Reductions from 

Composting and Related Operations),’’ March 22, 

2002, at p. 3–4 and 3–5 (‘‘biofilters use 

microorganism that live in the biofilm . . . to 

adsorb and biologically degrade contaminated air 

into non-harmful substances. In particular, VOC is 

oxidized to carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia 

is degraded into nitrate without creating aggravating 

pollution issues’’); see also SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 

(adopted January 10, 2003), section (c)(5) (defining 

‘‘biofiltration’’ as ‘‘a pollution control technology 

that removes and oxidizes VOC and ammonia 

through the action of bacteria and other 

microorganisms’’). 

93SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 (adopted March 15, 

2007), sections 5.5 and 5.7. 

94SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 (adopted January 10, 

2003), section (d)(1). 

95 Id. at section (d)(2). 

96 Id. at sections (d)(3) and (j)(1). 

97 Id. at section (e). 

98SCAQMD, Final Staff Report, ‘‘Proposed Rule 

1133—Composting and Related Operations: General 

Administrative Requirements; Proposed Rule 

1133.1—Chipping and Grinding Activities; 

Proposed Rule 1133.2—Emission Reductions from 

Co-Composting Operations,’’ January 10, 2003, at p. 

18 (stating that ‘‘[b]ased on the information 

collected so far on existing biofilter composting 

applications, control efficiencies of about 80% to 

90% for VOC and 70% to over 90% for ammonia 

have been achieved. . . . [demonstrating] that a 

well-designed, well-operated, and well-maintained 

biofilter is capable of achieving 80 percent control 

efficiency for VOC and ammonia’’). 

99 80 FR 1816, 1830 (January 13, 2015). 

100 Id. 

approximately 76 percent of the 

District’s estimates of total 2015 

ammonia emissions in the SJV.88 We 

find these evaluations sufficient to 

demonstrate that the District has 

adopted RACM/RACT for ammonia 

emissions for purposes of the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 (Biosolids, 

Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter 

Operations), as adopted March 15, 2007, 

requires that each operator of a 

composting/co-composting facility with 

a throughput of at least 100,000 wet tons 

per year conduct all active or curing 

composting either in aerated static 

pile(s) vented to an emission control 

device with a VOC control efficiency of 

at least 80 percent by weight, or in an 

in-vessel composting system vented to 

an emission control device with a VOC 

control efficiency of at least 80 percent 

by weight.89 Alternatively, the operator 

may implement an ‘‘alternative Class 

Two mitigation measure’’ that is 

determined by the SJVUAPCD Air 

Pollution Control Officer (APCO) and 

the EPA to achieve equivalent VOC 

emission reductions.90 According to the 

District’s staff report for SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4565, the most commonly used 

VOC emission control devices at 

composting facilities are biofilters, 

which are used at over twenty 

composting facilities in the U.S. and at 

least five composting facilities in 

California.91 Biofilters reduce both VOC 

and ammonia emissions by oxidizing 

VOC to carbon dioxide and water and 

degrading ammonia emissions into 

nitrate.92 For operators that use a 

biofilter as an emission control device, 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 contains detailed 

requirements for regularly maintaining, 

monitoring, and testing the biofilter.93

Similarly, SCAQMD Rule 1133.2, as 

adopted January 10, 2003, generally 

requires operators of ‘‘new’’ cocomposting facilities (i.e., those that 

started operations after January 10, 

2003) with design capacities of at least 

1,000 tons of throughput per year to 

conduct all active co-composting within 

the confines of an enclosure meeting 

certain conditions, to conduct all curing 

using an aeration system meeting 

certain conditions, and to vent the 

exhaust from the enclosure and aeration 

system to an emissions control system 

designed and operated with a control 

efficiency of at least 80 percent, by 

weight, for both VOC and ammonia 

emissions.94 Alternatively, an operator 

of a new co-composting facility may 

submit a compliance plan, for approval 

by the SCAQMD Executive Officer, that 

demonstrates an overall emission 

reduction of 80 percent, by weight, from 

specified baseline emission factors for 

both VOC and ammonia emissions.95

Existing co-composting facilities with 

design capacities of at least 35,000 tons 

of throughput per year must submit a 

compliance plan that demonstrates an 

overall emission reduction of 70 

percent, by weight, from specified 

baseline emission factors for both VOC 

and ammonia emissions.96 For existing 

facilities or new facilities that elect to 

submit alternative compliance plans, 

the compliance plan must specify the 

operator’s selected control method(s), 

which may include (among others) 

enclosure design or technology; aeration 

system design and operation; 

biofiltration; process controls; or best 

management practices.97 According to 

the final staff report for SCAQMD Rule 

1133.2, a well-designed, well-operated, 

and well-maintained biofilter can 

achieve 80 percent control efficiency for 

both VOC and ammonia emissions.98

Although SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 does 

not explicitly require operators of 

composting/co-composting facilities to 

achieve specified levels of ammonia 

emission reductions, as does SCAQMD 

Rule 1133.2, both rules generally require 

composting facilities to use enclosures 

and/or aeration systems vented to an 

emission control device with a VOC 

control efficiency of 70 or 80 percent. 

Given the similarity in the control 

requirements contained in these rules, 

we find the requirements of SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4565 sufficient to satisfy RACM/ 

RACT requirements for ammonia 

control for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

We also disagree with Earthjustice’s 

claim that the EPA has ‘‘proposed to 

excuse the Plan’s failure to analyze 

ammonia controls’’ because of the 

timing of its submission after the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in NRDC v. EPA, 706 

F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). In our 

proposed rule, we noted that ‘‘the 

timing of the NRDC decision in early 

2013 may have constrained the State’s 

and District’s ability to fully evaluate 

additional ammonia control measures as 

part of a RACM/RACT control strategy 

ahead of the applicable Moderate area 

attainment date (December 31, 2015)’’ 

and stated that we were taking this 

unique circumstance into account in our 

evaluation of the Plan.99 We also noted 

the absence of specific information 

regarding more stringent ammonia air 

emission control measures that may be 

technologically and economically 

feasible for implementation in the SJV 

area and recommended that the State 

and District conduct a more thorough 

evaluation of all available ammonia 

control measures as part of its 

development of a Serious area plan for 

the area.100 The commenter argues 

generally that the Plan includes no 

analysis of how the District’s rules 

control ammonia emissions but 

provides no specific information to 

show that more stringent control 

measures are technologically and 

economically feasible for 

implementation in the SJV area. 

As explained in our proposed rule, 

sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) of the 

Act require that attainment plans for 

Moderate nonattainment areas provide 

for the implementation of RACM and 

RACT for existing sources of PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursors in the nonattainment 

area as expeditiously as practicable but 

no later than 4 years after designation. 

In longstanding guidance, the EPA has 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59889 

101 80 FR 1816, 1826 (January 13, 2015) (citing 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for 

the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 

1992) (General Preamble) at 13540, 13560). 

102See 55 FR 38326 (September 18, 1990) 

(revoking prior EPA guidance to the extent it 

suggested or stated that areas with severe pollution 

problems must implement every conceivable 

control measure including those that would cause 

severe socioeconomic disruption to satisfy RACM). 

103 2014 Supplement at Attachment A (ammonia 

controls). 

104SJVUAPCD Rule 4566 (adopted August 18, 

2011), section 5.2.1. 

105 Id. at section 5.2.2. 

106 Id. at section 5.2.3. 

107SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 (adopted July 8, 2011), 

section (d)(2). 

108SCAQMD, Final Staff Report, ‘‘Proposed 

Amended Rule 1133.1—Chipping and Grinding 

Activities; Proposed Rule 1133.3—Emission 

Reductions from Greenwaste Composting 

Operations,’’ July 2011, at p. 3 (‘‘[g]ood composting 

practices, which balance the carbon-to-nitrogen 

(C:N) ratio and provide adequate aeration and 

moisture, will minimize VOC, ammonia and GHG 

emissions’’). 

109SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 (adopted July 8, 2011), 

section (d)(2)(E). 

110 Id. at section (d)(3). 

111CARB, ‘‘ARB Emissions Inventory 

Methodology for Composting Facilities’’ (posted 

2015) at Table III–3 (‘‘Control Techniques for 

Composting Operations’’), available at http://

www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/Composting%20

Emissions%20Inventory%20Methodology%20

Final%20Combined.pdf. 

interpreted the RACM requirement to 

include any potential control measure 

for a point, area, on-road or non-road 

emission source that is technologically 

and economically feasible and is not 

‘‘absurd, unenforceable, or 

impracticable.’’ 101 The Act does not 

require adoption of every conceivable 

control measure to satisfy the RACM 

requirement in a Moderate PM2.5

nonattainment area.102 Consistent with 

the EPA’s recommended process for 

determining RACM/RACT for a given 

area, the District compiled a list of 

potential control measures for ammonia 

emission sources in the SJV; evaluated 

the identified control measures for 

‘‘reasonableness,’’ considering 

technological and economic feasibility 

and potentially adverse impacts; and 

identified the SIP-approved control 

measures in the Plan that it was relying 

on to implement RACM for ammonia 

emission sources.103 Although the Plan 

does not contain every conceivable 

control measure for ammonia emissions, 

we find the control evaluations in the 

Plan sufficient to demonstrate that it 

provides for the implementation of all 

RACM/RACT for ammonia sources that 

could reasonably be implemented by the 

statutory implementation deadline 

under CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We discuss 

Earthjustice’s specific comments about 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4566 in Response 9 

below, and its specific comments about 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 in Response 10 

below. 

Comment 9: Earthjustice disputes the 

District’s finding that its composting 

rule, Rule 4566, is at least as stringent 

as SCAQMD Rule 1133.3, and argues 

that the District failed to consider some 

of the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 

1133.3 in the table that it used to 

compare the two rules. Earthjustice 

notes that SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 

requires implementation of a mitigation 

measure that demonstrates emissions 

reductions, by weight, of at least 40 

percent for VOC and at least 20 percent 

for ammonia, and that SJVUAPCD Rule 

4566 requires a mitigation measure that 

demonstrates emissions reductions of 

VOC of at least 19 percent, and does not 

regulate ammonia. While noting that 

‘‘VOC emissions reductions may result 

in some ammonia emissions 

reductions,’’ Earthjustice asserts that 

because Rule 4566 does not regulate 

ammonia, the District cannot rely on the 

rule to result in a certain amount of 

ammonia emissions. 

Response 9: Although SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4566 does not explicitly regulate 

ammonia emissions, we disagree with 

Earthjustice’s suggestion that the 

District cannot rely on this rule as part 

of its RACM/RACT control strategy for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4566, as adopted 

August 18, 2011, requires smaller 

composting operations to implement at 

least three turns during active-phase 

composting and one of several 

mitigation measures listed in Table 1 of 

the rule, such as application of water or 

a finished compost cover, or in the 

alternative to implement an alternative 

mitigation measure approved by the 

APCO and the EPA that demonstrates at 

least 19 percent reduction, by weight, in 

VOC emissions.104 For larger 

composting operations (i.e., those with 

a total throughput between 200,000 and 

750,000 wet tons per year of organic 

material), Rule 4566 requires operators 

to apply both watering and a finished 

compost cover in addition to 

implementation of at least three turns 

during active-phase composting, or in 

the alternative to implement an 

alternative mitigation measure approved 

by the APCO and the EPA that 

demonstrates at least 60 percent 

reduction, by weight, in VOC 

emissions.105 For the largest composting 

operations (i.e., those with a total 

throughput of at least 750,000 wet tons 

per year of organic material), Rule 4566 

requires operators to implement an 

alternative mitigation measure approved 

by the APCO and the EPA that 

demonstrates at least 80 percent 

reduction, by weight, in VOC 

emissions.106

SCAQMD Rule 1133.3, as adopted 

July 8, 2011, establishes similar 

requirements for greenwaste composting 

operations to periodically turn and 

water active compost piles and to apply 

finished compost covers.107 According 

to the SCAQMD’s staff report for Rule 

1133.3, these types of ‘‘good composting 

practices’’ minimize both VOC and 

ammonia emissions by balancing the 

carbon-to-nitrogen ratio and providing 

adequate aeration and moisture in the 

compost.108 As Earthjustice correctly 

notes, SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 also allows 

operators of such operations to 

implement an alternate mitigation 

measure approved by the SCAQMD 

Executive Officer, CARB, and the EPA 

that demonstrates VOC emission 

reductions by at least 40 percent by 

weight and ammonia emission 

reductions by at least 20 percent by 

weight.109 For composting operations 

involving greater than 5,000 tons per 

year of foodwaste throughput, SCAQMD 

Rule 1133.3 establishes requirements to 

conduct the active phase composting 

using an emission control device 

designed and operated with an overall 

system control efficiency of at least 80 

percent, by weight, each for VOC and 

ammonia emissions, or to implement an 

alternate mitigation measure approved 

by the SCAQMD Executive Officer, 

CARB, and the EPA that achieves 

equivalent reductions in both VOCs and 

ammonia.110

According to CARB, the water 

management requirements in 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4566 and SCAQMD 

Rule 1133.3 achieve an ammonia 

control efficiency of 19 percent, while 

use of certain kinds of aerated static 

piles (ASP) vented to a biofilter achieves 

an ammonia control efficiency ranging 

from 20 to 99 percent.111 In the absence 

of specific information about more 

stringent ammonia control requirements 

for composting operations that the 

District could reasonably have 

implemented by the statutory 

implementation deadline for RACM/ 

RACT in this area (December 14, 2013), 

we find the requirements of SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4566 adequate to satisfy RACM/ 

RACT requirements for composting 

operations for purposes of the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

Comment 10: Earthjustice comments 

that the District did not adequately 

review Rule 4570 (Confined Animal 

Facilities) when it compared it to 

similar rules in other California districts 

and the state of Idaho. According to 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59890 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

112See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended 

October 21, 2010). 

113 ‘‘Ammonia Emissions and Animal 

Agriculture,’’ Susan W. Gay and Katharine F. 

Knowlton, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia 

Tech, 2009 (noting that ‘‘[a]mmonia is a common 

by-product of animal waste due to the often 

inefficient conversion of feed nitrogen into animal 

product. Livestock and poultry are often fed highprotein feed, which contains surplus nitrogen, to 

ensure that the animals’ nutritional requirements 

are met. Nitrogen that is not metabolized into 

animal protein (i.e., milk, meat, or eggs) is excreted 

in the urine and feces of livestock and poultry 

where further microbial action releases ammonia 

into the air during manure decomposition’’). 

114W. Kroodsma, J.W.H. Huis In ’t Veld & R. 

Scholtens, 1993, ‘‘Ammonia emissions and its 

reduction from cubicle houses by flushing,’’ 

Livestock Production Science 35: 293–302. 

115Ndegwa, P.M., A.N. Hristov, J. Arogo, and R.E. 

Sheffield, ‘‘A review of ammonia emission 

mitigation techniques for concentrated animal 

feeding operations,’’ J. Bioengineering Systems, ed. 

100, 2008, p. 463–464. 

116SJVUAPCD, Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 

(October 21, 2010), at p. 9. 

117SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended October 21, 

2010) at Section 5.6.1 and Table 4.1.D.2. Milking 

generally occurs at least twice a day at a typical 

dairy CAF. See Walter L. Hurley, Lactation Biology 

Web site, ANSC 438, University of Illinois, 

available at http://ansci.illinois.edu/static/ansc438/ 

Lactation/milkingfrequency.html. 

118Memorandum dated June 15, 2016, from Andy 

Steckel to Kerry Drake, EPA Region 9, ‘‘Summary 

of our 6/10/16 Discussion with Kevin Abernathy, 

Milk Producers Council’’ and W. Kroodsma, et al., 

1993, ‘‘Ammonia emissions and its reduction from 

cubicle houses by flushing,’’ Livestock Production 

Science 35: 293–302, at p. 300 (noting that 

‘‘[f]lushing has a significant emission reducing 

effect [because] . . . the urea concentration on slats, 

concrete floors and in the top layer of the slurry is 

lowered by dilution’’); see also SJVUAPCD, Final 

Staff Report: Rule 4570 (October 21, 2010), at p. 10 

(noting that ‘‘[l]iquid systems are common in large 

dairies due to their lower labor costs and ease of 

use with automatic flushing systems’’). 

119Memorandum dated June 15, 2016, from Andy 

Steckel to Kerry Drake, EPA Region 9, ‘‘Summary 

of our 6/10/16 Discussion with Kevin Abernathy, 

Milk Producers Council’’; see also email dated June 

9, 2016, from Samir Sheikh of the SJVUAPCD to 

Kerry Drake of EPA Region 9, regarding ‘‘Manure 

Land Application.’’ 

120 ‘‘Alternative Mitigation Measure’’ is defined in 

Rule 4570 as ‘‘a mitigation measure that is 

determined by the APCO, CARB, and EPA to 

achieve reductions that are equal to or exceed the 

reductions that would be achieved by other 

mitigation measures listed in this rule that owners/ 

operators could choose to comply with rule 

requirements.’’ SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended 

October 21, 2010), Section 3.4. 

121SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended October 21, 

2010), Section 5.6.1 at Table 4.1.F. 

122See Idaho Administrative Code 58.01.01, 

section 760, and SCAQMD Rule 1127 (adopted 

August 6, 2004), paragraph (a). Other CAF rules in 

California include SCAQMD Rule 223, BAAQMD 

Rule 2–10, SMAQMD Rule 496, VCAPCD Rule 23, 

Imperial County APCD (ICAPCD) Rule 217, and 

Butte County AQMD Rule 450. Each of these rules 

also regulates CAFs but does not establish specific 

requirements for ammonia control. For example, 

SCAQMD Rule 223 (adopted June 2, 2006) 

identifies ammonia as a precursor to particulates, 

but its requirements are very similar to SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4570 as originally adopted June 15, 2006. 

Similarly, ICAPCD Rule 217 states that its purpose 

is to limit emissions of VOC and ammonia, but the 

mitigation requirements are generally equivalent to 

those in SJVUAPCD Rule 4570. 

123 Idaho Administrative Code 58.01.01, section 

764, paragraph 01 (‘‘Dairy farm best management 

practices’’) (requiring dairies to ‘‘employ BMPs for 

the control of ammonia to total twenty-seven (27) 

points’’). 

Earthjustice, SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 and 

Idaho’s rule ‘‘employ drastically 

different methods to reduce emissions 

from dairies,’’ and the District has not 

fully explored aspects of the Idaho rule 

that could strengthen SJVUAPCD Rule 

4570. In particular, Earthjustice asserts 

that the District misconstrued a 

statement by the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality (Idaho DEQ) that 

described the Idaho rule as employing 

an ‘‘arbitrary’’ point system. According 

to Earthjustice, the maximum number of 

points in the system’s rating scale was 

‘‘arbitrary’’ in the sense that another 

number could have been selected, but 

the Idaho DEQ ‘‘thoroughly analyzed 

the control measures and their 

associated ammonia emission 

reductions,’’ and allocated points based 

on these reductions. Because the District 

has not done a similar evaluation of the 

measures in SJVUAPCD Rule 4570, 

Earthjustice asserts, it has not fully 

compared the stringency of the rule 

against the Idaho rule. 

Earthjustice asserts that the District’s 

comparison of the stringency of 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 and other 

California air district rules is 

insufficient because the District 

considered only the number of 

mitigation measures required by each 

district. Earthjustice states that the 

District should consider instead the 

ammonia emissions reductions achieved 

under each rule. Further, Earthjustice 

states, if the District finds that other air 

districts’ mitigation measures are more 

effective in reducing emissions, it 

should incorporate those measures into 

its rule. 

Response 10: We agree that the 

District appears to have misconstrued 

the Idaho DEQ’s statement about the 

point system in Idaho Rule 58.01.01, 

sections 760–764 (Rules for the Control 

of Ammonia from Dairy Farms) 

(hereafter ‘‘Idaho CAF Rule’’) and that 

the District should have considered the 

ammonia emission reductions achieved 

under the rules that it evaluated, rather 

than simply addressing the number of 

mitigation measures required in each 

rule. For the reasons provided below, 

however, we find SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 

adequate to satisfy RACM/RACT 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the SJV. 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4570, as amended 

October 21, 2010, requires that CAFs of 

certain sizes for dairy cows, other cattle, 

swine, poultry, and layer hens 

implement measures to reduce VOC 

emissions during feed operations, 

manure management and other CAF 

processes.112 Both VOCs and ammonia 

are emitted during these activities at 

CAFs. Given the large proportion of 

ammonia emissions that come from cow 

manure produced at CAFs,113 we focus 

our evaluation below on measures to 

reduce ammonia from the production 

and handling of cow manure at dairy 

CAFs. 

Ammonia emissions from CAF 

manure processes may be reduced by 

flushing lanes in freestall barns 114 and 

limiting manure exposure to air through 

land incorporation.115 According to the 

SJVUAPCD, freestall barns are the 

largest source of manure at SJV 

dairies.116 Rule 4570 contains 

mandatory requirements for all dairy 

CAFs subject to the rule that house 

animals in freestalls to frequently clean 

the housing flush lanes—specifically, to 

‘‘flush or scrape freestall flush lanes at 

least three (3) times per day’’ or to 

‘‘flush, scrape, or vacuum freestall flush 

lanes’’ immediately before, after, or 

during each milking.117 In practice, 

most CAFs in the SJV comply with the 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 manure 

management requirements by flushing 

manure to dilute the urea in urine, 

which reduces ammonia emissions,118

and by incorporating solid manure into 

crop land within 72 hours of land 

application.119

In addition, SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 

requires each owner/operator of a large 

dairy CAF that handles or stores solid 

manure or separated solids outside the 

animal housing to remove dry manure 

or separated solids from the facility or 

cover it with a weatherproof covering 

from October through May, within 72 

hours of collecting it, or to implement 

an ‘‘alternative mitigation measure’’ 120

approved by CARB and the EPA.121

SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 provides, in 

Table 4.1.H, specific requirements for 

applying manure to agricultural lands 

on the facility including the option to 

incorporate all solid manure within 72 

hours. 

We are aware of only two rules 

implemented in other areas that 

explicitly regulate ammonia emissions 

from dairy facilities—the Idaho CAF 

Rule and SCAQMD Rule 1127 (Emission 

Reductions from Livestock Waste).122

The Idaho CAF Rule assigns points to 

each ammonia mitigation measure listed 

in the rule and requires dairy farm 

operators to implement measures that 

collectively achieve at least 27 

points.123 The rule only applies, 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59891 

124 Id. at section 761 (‘‘General applicability’’). 

125SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended October 21, 

2010), Table 2 and Section 5.6. 

126 80 FR 1816, 1829–30 (January 13, 2015) 

(noting, for example, that the Idaho CAF Rule 

identifies certain mitigation measures that are not 

included in SJVUAPCD Rule 4570, while Rule 4570 

contains more stringent applicability thresholds 

and provisions for testing and records retention). 

127Email dated June 25, 2015 from Sheraz Gill of 

the SJVUAPCD to Andrew Steckel of EPA Region 

9, regarding ‘‘Requested Information’’ and 

attachment, ‘‘Evaluation of Covers Lagoons Manure 

Piles for NH3.pdf.’’ 

128 Idaho Administrative Code 58.01.01, at section 

764–01 (‘‘BMPs’’). 

129SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended October 21, 

2010) at Section 5.6.1 and Table 4.1.D.2. Milking 

generally occurs at least twice a day at a typical 

dairy CAF. Walter L. Hurley, Lactation Biology Web 

site, ANSC 438, University of Illinois at http://

ansci.illinois.edu/static/ansc438/Lactation/ 

milkingfrequency.html. 

130SCAQMD Rule 1127 does require dairies to 

remove manure accumulated in corrals at least 4 

times per year and to remove manure stockpiles 

within 3 months of the last corral clearing day, and 

no more than 3 months after the date that previous 

stockpiles were last completely cleared. SCAQMD 

Rule 1127 (adopted August 6, 2004), sections (d)(4) 

and (d)(5). 

131SCAQMD Rule 223, Appendix A, Table 1.C 

(requiring owners/operations at large dairy CAFs 

that house animals in freestall barns to implement 

at least 2 of 9 listed mitigation measures, including 

measures to regularly flush, scrape or vacuum 

freestalls). 

132 Id. at section (e). 

133CAA section 110(k)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3) 

and 40 CFR 52.02(a); see also Union Elec. Co. v. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 250 (1976); Train v. Natural Res. 

Def. Council, 421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975). 

however, to dairy farms containing 

between 1,638 and 5,063 cows, 

depending on the type of dairy 

facility.124 SJVUAPCD Rule 4570, on the 

other hand, applies to dairy CAFs 

containing at least 500 milking cows 

and also applies to other types of CAFs, 

including beef cattle feedlots, other 

cattle facilities, poultry facilities, and 

swine facilities.125 As we stated in our 

proposed rule, because the structure of 

the Idaho CAF Rule differs substantially 

from the structure of SJVUAPCD Rule 

4570, it is difficult to compare the 

requirements in these two rules 

directly.126

Additionally, according to 

information submitted by the 

SJVUAPCD, the option in the Idaho CAF 

Rule to cover synthetic lagoons (one of 

the key mitigation measures in the rule) 

would not be effective in the SJV and 

could increase ammonia emissions at 

CAFs in the SJV.127 Furthermore, the 

Idaho CAF Rule states that ‘‘[p]oints 

may be obtained through third party 

export with sufficient documentation’’ 

and that ‘‘[a]s new information becomes 

available or upon request, the Director 

may determine a practice not listed in 

the table constitutes a BMP and assign 

a point value.’’ 128 These ambiguously 

phrased provisions allow CAF owners/ 

operators to comply with the rule by 

implementing measures entirely 

different from those listed in the rule 

that may or may not be effective in 

reducing ammonia emissions. The 

commenter has provided no information 

to support a conclusion that the 

requirements of the Idaho CAF Rule will 

actually achieve ammonia emission 

reductions, nor any information to 

indicate that the requirements of this 

rule are more stringent than those in 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4570. 

SCAQMD Rule 1127, as adopted 

August 6, 2004, applies only to livestock 

waste (i.e., manure management) at 

dairy farms and related operations. 

Unlike SJVUAPCD Rule 4570, which 

explicitly requires that dairy CAFs 

regularly flush, scrape, or vacuum 

freestall flush lanes,129 SCAQMD Rule 

1127 contains no analogous requirement 

to regularly clean flush lanes in freestall 

barns.130 SCAQMD Rule 223, as adopted 

June 2, 2006, contains menu-based 

options for flushing, scraping, or 

vacuuming freestall barns but does not 

specifically mandate such measures.131

Additionally, SCAQMD Rule 1127 

requires that a dairy operator disposing 

of manure within the South Coast area 

remove or contract to remove the 

manure to a manure processing 

operation approved in accordance with 

specific requirements and/or to 

agricultural land within the SCAQMD 

approved by local ordinance and/or the 

regional water quality board for the 

spreading of manure.132 Rule 1127 does 

not require that manure be incorporated 

into agricultural land within any 

specific timeframe to reduce ammonia 

emissions. 

Thus, neither SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 

nor SCAQMD Rule 1127 strictly 

requires dairy CAF operators to 

promptly remove and dispose of 

collected manure to minimize ammonia 

emissions. The commenter has failed to 

identify any measure implemented in 

the South Coast or elsewhere that is 

more stringent than the requirements of 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 for this particular 

component of the manure handling 

process. 

On balance, we find that SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4570 is more stringent than the 

Idaho CAF Rule and SCAQMD Rule 

1127 given SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 

establishes specific requirements for the 

frequency of flushing manure from 

freestall barns, which are a significant 

source of manure and ammonia 

emissions at dairy CAFs in SJV, while 

the Idaho CAF Rule and SCAQMD Rule 

1127 contain no analogous 

requirements. In the absence of specific 

information about more stringent 

ammonia control requirements for CAFs 

that the District could reasonably have 

implemented by the statutory 

implementation deadline for RACM/ 

RACT in this area (December 14, 2013), 

we find the requirements of SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4570 adequate to satisfy RACM/ 

RACT requirements for CAFs for 

purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the SJV. 

Comment 11: Earthjustice argues that 

the RACM/RACT demonstration fails to 

comply with CAA section 189(a)(1)(C), 

which requires a plan to include 

provisions to assure that RACM is 

implemented no later than four years 

after a moderate nonattainment 

designation. Earthjustice asserts that 

this section required the District to 

implement RACM for the 2006 PM2.5

standards by December 14, 2013. 

According to Earthjustice, because the 

District has not implemented controls 

identified by Earthjustice as RACM/ 

RACT and has delayed additional 

charbroiling and residential furnace 

controls, the EPA must disapprove the 

demonstration and place the District on 

a clock to ensure that the missing 

measures are adopted expeditiously. 

Response 11: We disagree. Section 

107(a) of the CAA provides states with 

both the authority and primary 

responsibility to develop SIPs that meet 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements for attaining, maintaining, 

and enforcing the NAAQS. States have 

discretion in formulating their SIPs, and 

the EPA is required to approve a SIP 

submission that satisfies the applicable 

requirements of the Act.133

As the commenter notes, CAA section 

189(a)(1)(C) requires that each 

attainment plan for a Moderate PM2.5

nonattainment area include provisions 

to assure that RACM for the control of 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are 

implemented no later than four years 

after the area’s designation as 

nonattainment. For the SJV area, the 

deadline for implementation of RACM 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA 

section 189(a)(1)(C) was December 14, 

2013. For the reasons provided in our 

proposed rule and further explained 

above in Response 6 through Response 

10, we conclude that the 2012 PM2.5

Plan and 2014 Supplement provide for 

the implementation of all RACM/RACT 

that could reasonably be implemented 

in the SJV by the statutory 

implementation deadline, as required by 

CAA sections 172(c) and 189(a)(1)(C). 

Additionally, we disagree with the 

commenter’s assertion that revisions to 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood Burning 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59892 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

134See Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 

F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015). 

135See letter dated August 14, 2015, from Richard 

W. Corey, Executive Officer, California Air 

Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, with attachments. 

136CAA section 182(e)(5). 137See, e.g., 62 FR 1150, 1187 (Jan. 8, 1997) 

(approving ozone attainment demonstration for the 

South Coast Air Basin); 65 FR 18903 (Apr. 10, 2000) 

(approving revisions to ozone attainment 

demonstration for the South Coast Air Basin); 63 FR 

41326 (Aug. 3, 1998) (promulgating federal 

implementation plan for PM–10 for Phoenix); 69 FR 

30005 (May 26, 2004) (approving PM–10 attainment 

demonstration for San Joaquin Valley); 48 FR 51472 

(approving ozone attainment demonstration for 

New Jersey). 

138See, e.g., City of Seabrook v. EPA, 659 F.2d 

1349 (5th Cir. 1981); Connecticut Fund for the 

Environment v. EPA, 672 F.2d 998 (2d Cir.), cert. 

denied 459 U.S. 1035 (1982); BCCA Appeal Group 

v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003), reh’g denied, 

2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 215 (5th Cir., January 8, 

2004); Environmental Defense v. EPA, 369 F.3d 193, 

209 (2d Cir. 2004); and Committee for a Better Arvin 

v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (upholding 

EPA approval of CARB and SJVUAPCD 

commitments as enforceable SIP measures 

consistent with requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A)). 

Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters’’) 

are necessary to satisfy RACM 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the SJV. See Response 6.d. Similarly, 

we disagree with the commenter’s 

assertion that SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 

(Commercial Charbroiling) fails to 

satisfy RACM requirements for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. See Response 

6.e. 

Comment 12: Earthjustice argues that 

much of the Plan’s control strategy is 

unenforceable and that this is 

inconsistent with CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), which requires SIPs to 

‘‘include enforceable emissions 

limitations and other control measures.’’ 

Specifically, Earthjustice argues that 

three control strategies challenged in 

recent litigation are not enforceable: (1) 

Mobile sources measures that are not 

included in the SIP; (2) open-ended 

tonnage commitments; and (3) voluntary 

incentive programs. 

Comment 12a: Mobile source 

‘‘waiver’’ measures. Earthjustice notes 

that a significant portion of the 

emissions reductions in the Plan come 

from state mobile source measures for 

which the EPA has issued a waiver 

under CAA section 209. Earthjustice 

argues that because these measures are 

not included in the SIP, they are not 

enforceable by either the EPA or 

citizens, and therefore do not meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A). 

Earthjustice also criticizes the EPA’s 

general policy of not including these 

‘‘waiver measures’’ in the SIP. 

Earthjustice argues that requiring the 

EPA to approve waiver measures into 

the SIP is not inconsistent with 

Congress’ intent to provide California 

with ‘‘the broadest possible discretion’’ 

to develop mobile source measures, and 

that there is no conflict between CAA 

sections 110 and 209 that would prevent 

the EPA from adding these measures to 

the SIP. Additionally, Earthjustice 

argues that Congress has not ratified the 

EPA’s policy of excluding waiver 

measures from SIPs, asserting that the 

EPA had not affirmatively expressed its 

policy until recently and that the agency 

has contradicted this policy in previous 

statements. 

Response 12a: The EPA has 

historically allowed California to take 

credit for measures for which the state 

has obtained a waiver of federal 

preemption under CAA section 209 

(‘‘waiver’’ measures) even though the 

waiver measures themselves (i.e., 

CARB’s regulations) had not been 

adopted and approved as part of the 

California SIP. However, a recent 

decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals held that the EPA’s 

longstanding practice in this regard was 

at odds with the CAA requirement that 

state and local emissions limits relied 

upon to meet the NAAQS be enforceable 

by the EPA or private citizens through 

adoption and approval of such limits in 

the SIP.134

In response to the court’s decision, 

CARB has adopted the necessary waiver 

measures as revisions to the California 

SIP and submitted them to the EPA for 

approval.135 The EPA proposed to 

approve the waiver measures into the 

California SIP at 80 FR 69915 

(November 12, 2015) and took final 

action to approve these measures into 

the SIP at 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016). 

Accordingly, these waiver measures are 

now enforceable by the EPA or private 

citizens under the CAA, consistent with 

the enforceability requirement in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(A). 

Comment 12b: Open-ended 

commitments. Earthjustice asserts that 

the District’s commitment to reduce 

direct PM2.5 by 1.9 tons per day (tpd) by 

2019 is not enforceable. According to 

Earthjustice, although the District has 

committed to proposing certain 

measures to its board, it has not 

specified when it will implement those 

measures or committed to achieving 

reductions as a result of the measures. 

Earthjustice characterizes these 

measures as ‘‘goals’’ that have been 

found by courts to be unenforceable, 

citing Bayview Hunters Point 

Community Advocates v. Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission, 366 F.3d 

692 (9th Cir. 2004). According to 

Earthjustice, it will be ‘‘virtually 

impossible’’ for either citizens or the 

EPA to determine whether the District 

has in fact met its 2019 reduction target, 

citing the EPA’s statement at 57 FR at 

13,568 that ‘‘[a] regulatory limit is not 

enforceable if, for example, it is 

impractical to determine compliance 

with the published limit.’’ Additionally, 

citing CAA section 182(e)(5), 

Earthjustice asserts that the CAA allows 

‘‘open-ended commitments’’ only in 

limited circumstances and that there is 

no parallel provision for creating such a 

‘‘black box’’ in PM2.5 plans. 

Response 12b: We disagree with the 

commenter’s claim that the District’s 

commitments in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan are 

not enforceable. We also disagree with 

the commenter’s suggestion that the 

long-term strategy provision for ozone 

attainment plans in CAA section 

182(e)(5) is the only statutory provision 

that allows for approval of attainment 

plans that rely on state commitments, 

and that commitments such as those 

identified in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan are not 

permissible in PM2.5 attainment plans. 

Section 182(e)(5) of the CAA 

authorizes the EPA to approve 

provisions of an attainment plan for an 

extreme ozone nonattainment area that 

anticipate development of new control 

techniques or improvement of existing 

control technologies, and to approve an 

attainment demonstration based on such 

provisions, if, inter alia, the State has 

submitted enforceable commitments to 

submit adopted contingency measures 

meeting certain criteria no later than 

three years before proposed 

implementation of the new technology 

measures.136 Contrary to the 

commenter’s suggestion, section 

182(e)(5) is not the only provision in the 

CAA that allows for approval of 

attainment plans that rely on 

enforceable commitments. Sections 

110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) of the CAA 

require that SIPs include enforceable 

emission limitations and such other 

control measures, means or techniques, 

as well as schedules and timetables for 

compliance, as may be necessary or 

appropriate to provide for attainment of 

the NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. For over 20 years, the 

EPA has consistently maintained its 

interpretation of these provisions as 

allowing for approval, under certain 

circumstances, of a SIP that contains an 

enforceable commitment to adopt 

additional controls as part of a 

comprehensive control strategy for 

attaining the NAAQS.137 The EPA’s 

interpretation of the Act as allowing for 

approval of limited enforceable 

commitments has been upheld by 

several courts of appeals.138

As explained in our proposed rule, we 

generally consider three factors in 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59893 

139 80 FR 1816, 1833 (January 13, 2015). 

140We did not evaluate the District’s 

commitments to amend Rule 4692 and Rule 4901 

in 2016 or to achieve an aggregate reduction of 1.9 

tpd of direct PM2.5 by 2019 in accordance with our 

three-factor test because these commitments 

address actions to be undertaken after the Moderate 

area attainment date (December 31, 2015) and, 

therefore, are not part of the control strategy for this 

impracticability demonstration. Additionally, we 

did not evaluate the District’s commitment to adopt 

Rule 9610 in 2013 in accordance with our threefactor test because this rule is not a control measure 

and therefore is not eligible for SIP emission 

reduction credit. See Response 12c, infra. 

141The District’s commitment to adopt Rule 4905 

in 2014 does not qualify as a RACM because it is 

a measure implemented after the RACM 

implementation deadline (December 14, 2013). It is, 

however, an additional measure implemented 

before the Moderate area attainment date (December 

31, 2015) and therefore may be treated as part of 

the Moderate area control strategy for the area 

under CAA section 172(c)(6). 

142See Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 

F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (upholding EPA approval 

of CARB and SJVUAPCD commitments as 

enforceable SIP measures consistent with 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)). 

143SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 

2012–12–19, ‘‘In the Matter of: Adopting the San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 2012 PM2.5 Plan.’’ 

144 ‘‘MMBtu’’ means million British Thermal 

Units. 

determining whether to approve the use 

of an enforceable commitment to meet 

a CAA requirement: (1) Does the 

commitment address a limited portion 

of the CAA-required program; (2) is the 

state capable of fulfilling its 

commitment; and (3) is the commitment 

for a reasonable and appropriate period 

of time. We stated in our proposed rule 

that we were not evaluating the 

commitments in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan in 

accordance with this three-factor test 

because the Plan did not rely on any of 

these commitments to satisfy CAA 

requirements.139 In response to these 

comments, however, we have evaluated 

the commitments in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

to amend SJVUAPCD Rule 4308 in 2013 

and to adopt Rule 4905 in 2014 in 

accordance with our three-factor test, 

because these commitments were part of 

the control strategy to be implemented 

prior to the Moderate area attainment 

date (December 31, 2015) for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area.140 We 

find that these commitments satisfy the 

EPA’s three-factor test as follows: (1) 

The commitments address a limited 

portion of the CAA-required program 

because the Plan relies on them only to 

supplement the RACM and RFP control 

strategies in the impracticability 

demonstration and does not rely on 

either commitment for necessary 

emission reductions; (2) the state has 

fulfilled both commitments, as 

explained further below in this 

response; and (3) each commitment was 

for a reasonable and appropriate period 

of time—i.e., to be fulfilled by 2013 and 

2014, ahead of the December 31, 2015 

Moderate area attainment date. 

Accordingly, we are approving the 

District’s commitment to amend Rule 

4308 as a RACM and approving the 

District’s commitment to adopt Rule 

4905 in 2014 as an additional 

reasonable measure under CAA section 

172(c)(6).141

We also find that the commitments 

are enforceable and therefore 

appropriate for approval under CAA 

section 110.142 Specifically, SJVUAPCD 

Governing Board Resolution 2012–12– 

19 states: 

The District Governing Board commits to 

adopt and implement the rules and measures 

in the Plan by the dates specified in Chapter 

5 to achieve the emissions reductions shown 

in Chapter 5, and to submit these rules and 

measures to ARB within 30 days of adoption 

for transmittal to EPA as a revision to the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). If the total 

emission reductions from the adopted rules 

are less than those committed to in the Plan, 

the District Governing Board commits to 

adopt, submit, and implement substitute 

rules 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.143

Chapter 5 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

identifies, in Table 5–3, the ‘‘regulatory 

control measure commitments’’ and 

related amendment dates, compliance 

dates, and amounts of emission 

reductions shown in Table 5. 

TABLE 5—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, 2012 PM2.5 PLAN, SPECIFIC RULE

ADOPTION/AMENDMENT COMMITMENTS

Rule number Rule title Amendment 

date 

Compliance 

date 

Emission reductions 

4308 ........................................ Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 0.075 to 

<2 MMBtu/hr 144.

2013 2015 TBD. 

4692 ........................................ Commercial Charbroiling ........................................................ 2016 2017 0.4 tpd PM2.5. 

4901 ........................................ Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters .......... 2016 2016/2017 1.5 tpd of

PM2.5. 

4905 ........................................ Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Residential Central Furnaces 2014 2015 TBD. 

9610 ........................................ SIP Creditability of Incentives ................................................ 2013 2013 TBD. 

Source: 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, Table 5–3 (‘‘Regulatory Control Measure Commitments’’). 

Thus, the District Governing Board’s 

commitment specifies the actions the 

Board committed to undertake, the dates 

by which it would take such actions, 

and the emission reductions (if any) that 

it would achieve through these actions. 

We find these commitments specific 

enough to be enforced by the EPA or by 

citizens under the CAA and are, 

therefore, approving them into the 

California SIP. 

We note that the SJVUAPCD has made 

substantial progress on satisfying the 

commitments identified in the Plan, as 

follows: 

Rule 4308. The District amended 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4308 on November 14, 

2013, and CARB submitted it to the EPA 

for SIP action on May 13, 2014. The 

EPA approved amended SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4308 at 80 FR 7813 (February 12, 

2015). 

Rule 4905. The District adopted Rule 

4905 on January 22, 2015, and CARB 

submitted the rule to the EPA for SIP 

action on April 7, 2015. The EPA 

approved Rule 4905 at 81 FR 17390 

(March 29, 2016). 

Rule 9610. The District adopted Rule 

9610 on June 20, 2013, and CARB 

submitted the rule to the EPA for SIP 

action on June 26, 2013. The EPA 

finalized a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of Rule 9610 at 80 FR 19020 

(April 9, 2015). 

Rule 4901. The District amended Rule 

4901 on September 18, 2014, and CARB 

submitted the rule to the EPA for SIP 

action on November 6, 2014. On August 

15, 2016, Acting Regional Administrator 

Alexis Strauss signed a notice of final 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59894 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

145EPA, Final Rule, ‘‘Approval of California Air 

Plan Revisions, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District,’’ August 15, 2016 (prepublication notice). 146 79 FR 28650, 28652 and n. 5 (May 19, 2014). 

147 Id. 

148 Id. 

149 80 FR 19020 (April 9, 2015) (concluding that 

Rule 9610 largely satisfies CAA requirements but 

contains several deficiencies warranting limited 

disapproval). 

150 80 FR 1816 at 1827 (Table 2), 1832 (Table 3). 

151 80 FR 1816, 1831 (emphasis added). 

152 80 FR 19020, 19022 (April 9, 2015). 

153 Id. at 19026. 

154 Id. 

155The EPA has recommended presumptive 

limits on the amounts of emission reductions from 

certain voluntary and other nontraditional measures 

that may be credited in a SIP. Specifically, for 

voluntary mobile source emission reduction 

programs (VMEPs), the EPA has identified a 

presumptive limit of three percent (3%) of the total 

projected future year emission reductions required 

to attain the appropriate NAAQS, and for any 

particular SIP submittal to demonstrate attainment 

or maintenance of the NAAQS or progress toward 

attainment (e.g., RFP), 3% of the specific statutory 

requirement. See, e.g., ‘‘Guidance on Incorporating 

Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction 

Programs in State Implementation Plans (SIPs),’’ 

EPA, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), October 24, 

1997, at 5 and ‘‘Improving Air Quality with 

Economic Incentive Programs,’’ EPA, OAR, January 

2001, at 158. For voluntary stationary and area 

source measures, the EPA has identified a 

presumptive limit of 6% of the total amount of 

emission reductions required for RFP, attainment, 

or maintenance demonstration purposes. See, e.g., 

‘‘Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures 

in a State Implementation Plan,’’ EPA, OAR, 

September 2004 (‘‘2004 Emerging and Voluntary 

Measures Guidance’’) at 9 and ‘‘Incorporating 

Bundled Measures in a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP),’’ August 2005 (‘‘2005 Bundled Measures 

rulemaking to approve SJVUAPCD Rule 

4901.145

Comment 12c: Voluntary incentive 

programs. Earthjustice states that the 

EPA’s suggestion that Rule 9610 (State 

Implementation Plan Credit for 

Emission Reductions Generated 

Through Incentive Programs) may 

provide emission reductions to help 

satisfy the District’s tonnage 

commitment is particularly confusing. 

Earthjustice understands the EPA’s 

proposed approval of Rule 9610 and 

related technical support document to 

say that an incentive program’s 

compliance with the rule’s SIPcreditability definitions does not mean 

that the incentive program is, in fact, 

SIP-creditable. Thus, Earthjustice states, 

commenters ‘‘do not understand how 

Rule 9610 itself will provide any 

creditable emission reductions.’’ 

More fundamentally, Earthjustice 

asserts, the emissions reductions that 

may be achieved through the District’s 

incentive programs cannot be credited 

in a SIP unless they are treated under 

the EPA’s voluntary emissions 

reductions policy. Earthjustice states 

that ‘‘[t]he requirement to reduce 

emissions in exchange for incentive 

funding is not enshrined in any sort of 

control measure that is included in the 

[SIP] and enforceable by EPA or 

citizens’’ and that, as with ‘‘waiver 

measures,’’ approval of a strategy built 

upon these reductions would (again) 

violate Clean Air Act section 

110(a)(2)(A).’’ 

Response 12c: We agree with 

Earthjustice’s statement that SJVUAPCD 

Rule 9610 itself is not a SIP-creditable 

control measure and that the District 

therefore cannot rely on this rule to 

satisfy any SIP emission reduction 

commitments. 

SJVUAPCD Rule 9610, as adopted 

June 20, 2013, establishes a regulatory 

framework for the District’s 

quantification of emission reductions 

achieved through incentive programs 

and provides opportunities for the EPA, 

CARB, and the public to review and 

comment on the District’s evaluations 

on an annual basis. As we stated in our 

May 19, 2014 proposal to approve Rule 

9610, the rule ‘‘does not establish any 

emission limitation, control measure, or 

other requirement that applies directly 

to an emission source’’ and therefore ‘‘is 

not intended to implement the 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) standard or any other control 

standard under the Act.’’ 146 Instead, 

Rule 9610 ‘‘establishes an 

administrative mechanism designed to 

ensure that each SIP submittal in which 

the District relies upon emission 

reductions achieved through 

implementation of incentive programs 

in the SJV will adequately address the 

requirements of the Act.’’ 147 The 

requirements and procedures in Rule 

9610 apply only to the District and lay 

the groundwork for the District’s 

incorporation of incentive programs into 

air quality plans going forward.148 The 

EPA finalized a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of Rule 9610 on 

April 9, 2015, thereby making its 

requirements and procedures 

enforceable by the EPA or citizens 

against the District.149

As part of our proposed action on the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan, we listed SJVUAPCD 

Rule 9610 among the District’s rule 

amendment commitments 150 and 

explained that the District had 

committed to adopt, submit, and 

implement Rule 9610 to ‘‘provide a 

process for quantifying emissions 

reductions from the use of incentive 

funds.’’ 151 To the extent our proposed 

rule suggested that SJVUAPCD Rule 

9610 may itself be a SIP-creditable 

control measure, we hereby clarify that 

this rule does not achieve any SIPcreditable emission reductions and 

therefore cannot be credited for any SIP 

purpose. 

Additionally, to the extent 

Earthjustice intended to assert that 

emissions reductions achieved through 

a state or local incentive program cannot 

be credited in a SIP except through a 

SIP submission that satisfies the 

requirement of the Act as interpreted in 

EPA guidance, we agree. As we 

explained in our final action on 

SJVUAPCD Rule 9610: 

We expect the District to address the 

applicable requirements of the CAA in each 

individual SIP submittal that relies on 

incentive programs, and our 

recommendations in both the proposal and 

today’s final rule are intended to provide the 

District with general guidance on how these 

requirements, as interpreted in EPA 

guidance, apply to future SIP submittals 

developed pursuant to Rule 9610 and the 

requirements of the Act. . . . EPA will 

review each SIP submittal developed 

pursuant to Rule 9610 (including the 

necessary evaluation of the applicable 

incentive program guidelines) on a case-bycase basis, following notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, to determine whether the 

applicable requirements of the Act are met 

[internal citations omitted]. Nothing in 

today’s action prohibits EPA from 

disapproving a SIP relying on incentivebased emission reductions that fails to satisfy 

the requirements of the CAA.152

With respect to Earthjustice’s 

statement that ‘‘[t]he requirement to 

reduce emissions in exchange for 

incentive funding is not enshrined in 

any sort of control measure that is 

included in the [SIP] and enforceable by 

EPA or citizens,’’ we note that under 

longstanding EPA guidance, SIP credit 

may be allowed for a voluntary or other 

nontraditional measure only where the 

State submits enforceable mechanisms 

to ensure that the emission reductions 

necessary to meet applicable CAA 

requirements are achieved—e.g., an 

enforceable commitment to monitor and 

report on emission reductions achieved 

and to rectify any shortfall in a timely 

manner.153 Thus, if California intends to 

satisfy a SIP requirement through 

reliance on an incentive program that 

the EPA and citizens may not directly 

enforce against participating sources, 

the State/District must take 

responsibility for assuring that SIP 

emission reduction requirements are 

met through an enforceable 

commitment, which the EPA and 

citizens may enforce against the State/ 

District upon the EPA’s approval of the 

commitment into the SIP.154 Approval 

of a control strategy built upon emission 

reductions achieved through incentive 

programs may satisfy CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) only if these enforceability 

requirements are met.155


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59895 

Guidance’’), at 8. The EPA has also long stated, 

however, that states may justify higher amounts of 

SIP emission reduction credit for voluntary 

programs on a case-by-case basis, and that the EPA 

may approve measures for SIP credit in excess of 

the presumptive limits ‘‘where a clear and 

convincing justification is made by the State as to 

why a higher limit should apply in [its] case.’’ 2004 

Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance at 9; 

see also 2005 Bundled Measures Guidance at 8, n. 

6 and ‘‘Diesel Retrofits: Quantifying and Using 

Their Emission Benefits in SIPs and Conformity,’’ 

EPA, OTAQ, February 2014, at 12. 

156EPA, Final Rule, ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State 

Implementation Plan Requirements,’’ July 29, 2016 

(pre-publication notice) at pp. 178–179. 

157 Id. 

158 80 FR 1816, 1835 (January 13, 2015) (citing 

2012 PM2.5 Plan, section 9.3). 

159As explained in Response 12b, supra, we are 

approving the District’s commitment in the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan to adopt Rule 4905 in 2014 as an 

additional reasonable measure under CAA section 

172(c)(6) because it is a control measure 

implemented after the RACM implementation 

deadline (December 14, 2013) but before the 

Moderate area attainment date (December 31, 2015). 

160 Id. at 1835, 1836. 

161EPA, Final Rule, ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State 

Implementation Plan Requirements,’’ July 29, 2016 

(pre-publication notice) at p. 179. 

D. Comments on RFP, RFP Contingency 

Measures, and Quantitative Milestones 

Comment 13: Earthjustice disagrees 

with the EPA’s proposal to approve the 

RFP demonstration in the Plan, quoting 

the statutory definition of ‘‘reasonable 

further progress’’ in CAA section 171(1) 

and asserting that the EPA’s approach to 

RFP ‘‘divorces the RFP targets from 

attainment altogether by claiming that 

the RFP requirement of CAA section 

172(c)(2) can be met by assuring 

implementation of RACM/RACT.’’ 

Earthjustice asserts that RFP is a 

requirement separate and independent 

from RACM/RACT and that the EPA’s 

approach undermines Congress’ intent 

for RFP and milestones to serve as 

enforceable targets that will trigger 

consequences when RACM/RACT 

controls are not implemented on a 

particular schedule. 

Earthjustice also states that the Plan’s 

RACM/RACT demonstration cannot 

support the RFP targets approved by the 

EPA because it is incomplete, 

particularly for ammonia. According to 

Earthjustice, the ammonia RACM/RACT 

demonstration sets no RACM/RACT 

requirements and therefore makes it 

impossible to assess whether the Plan 

will achieve RFP. Further, Earthjustice 

says, because the Plan allows ammonia 

emissions to increase after 2012, it does 

not provide ‘‘annual incremental 

reductions’’ (emphasis in comment) as 

required by CAA section 171. 

Earthjustice states that the EPA must 

disapprove the RFP demonstration 

because it has no basis for concluding 

that the Plan will provide such annual 

incremental reductions in emissions of 

the relevant air pollutant as are required 

for the purpose of ensuring attainment 

by the applicable date. 

Response 13: We disagree with the 

commenter’s assertion that the EPA’s 

approach to RFP in this action is 

inconsistent with the statutory RFP 

requirements. 

Section 172(c)(2) of the Act requires 

that plan provisions for all PM2.5

nonattainment areas require RFP, which 

is defined in section 171(1) as such 

annual incremental reductions in 

emissions of the relevant air pollutant as 

are required by part D, title I of the Act 

or may reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

NAAQS by the applicable date. In the 

EPA’s July 29, 2016 final rule to 

implement the PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA 

explained that for areas that cannot 

demonstrate attainment by the statutory 

deadline for Moderate areas in CAA 

section 188(c)(1), the state must 

demonstrate either generally linear or 

stepwise emissions reductions toward 

the full amount of reductions that will 

be achieved by that deadline, i.e., the 

amount that reflects implementation of 

all of the control measures identified as 

RACM and RACT and additional 

reasonable measures for the entire 

period of the applicable attainment 

plan.156 The EPA explained that 

generally linear progress toward this full 

amount would meet the RFP 

requirement, while slower progress 

would require further justification.157

As we explained in our proposed rule, 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan shows that 

emissions of direct PM2.5, NOX and SOX

will decline from the 2007 base year 

through 2015 and states that emissions 

will remain below the levels needed to 

show ‘‘generally linear progress’’ from 

2007 to 2019, the year that the Plan 

projects to be the earliest practicable 

attainment date.158 The Plan also 

demonstrates that all RACM/RACT and 

additional reasonable measures for 

sources of direct PM2.5, NOX, SOX and 

ammonia are being implemented as 

expeditiously as practicable 159 and 

identifies projected emission levels for 

each of these pollutants in 2014 and 

2017 that reflect full implementation of 

the State’s and District’s Moderate area 

control strategy for the area.160 In an 

area that cannot practicably attain the 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable 

Moderate area attainment date, we 

believe it is reasonable to find that full 

implementation of a control strategy 

that satisfies the Moderate area control 

requirements (i.e., RACM/RACT and 

additional reasonable measures) 

represents reasonable further progress 

toward attainment. 

We also disagree with the 

commenter’s claim that the Plan’s 

RACM/RACT demonstration for 

ammonia cannot support the RFP targets 

approved by the EPA because it is 

incomplete and lacks any RACM/RACT 

requirements. For the reasons provided 

above in Response 6 through Response 

10, we find the RACM/RACT 

demonstration in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

consistent with the statutory 

requirement for RACM/RACT in CAA 

section 189(a)(1)(C). 

Finally, we disagree with 

Earthjustice’s claim that the Plan fails to 

satisfy the RFP requirement because it 

allows ammonia emissions to increase 

after 2012 and, therefore, does not 

provide annual incremental reductions 

as required by CAA section 171. As the 

EPA explained in the preamble to the 

July 29, 2016 final rule to implement the 

PM2.5 NAAQS, states may in certain 

circumstances develop approvable RFP 

plans in which emissions of one or more 

PM2.5 precursors subject to control 

evaluation are not decreasing. The EPA 

explained that in this scenario: 

. . . The state must demonstrate that the 

emissions reductions of direct PM2.5

combined with the aggregate emissions 

reductions of PM2.5 plan precursors support 

expeditious attainment of the applicable 

PM2.5 NAAQS. To accomplish this, the EPA 

expects that a state could use the relative air 

quality impacts of the different PM2.5 plan 

precursors identified in the attainment 

modeling to demonstrate that the emissions 

reductions of direct PM2.5 and aggregate 

PM2.5 plan precursors constitute an 

acceptable RFP plan. For example, the state 

could demonstrate that even if one or more 

PM2.5 plan precursor is not decreasing, the 

emissions reductions of direct PM2.5 and the 

remaining PM2.5 plan precursors are the 

dominant factors in reducing ambient PM2.5

levels and are therefore adequate to support 

expeditious attainment. In providing this 

flexibility, the EPA recognizes that control 

measures for certain pollutants may be more 

effective at reducing PM2.5 concentrations 

than others, and that states may be able to 

implement some measures more quickly than 

others while still achieving reasonable 

overall progress toward attainment.161

Consistent with these 

recommendations, the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

demonstrates that despite the increase 

in ammonia emissions after 2012, the 

reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5, 

NOX and SOX are the dominant factors 

in reducing ambient PM2.5 levels and are 

therefore adequate to support 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59896 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

162 80 FR 1816, 1835–1836 (January 13, 2015). 

163 81 FR 2993 (January 20, 2016) (final rule) and 

81 FR 42263 (June 29, 2016) (correcting 

amendment). 

164 Id. 

165See EPA, Final Rule, ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State 

Implementation Plan Requirements,’’ July 29, 2016 

(pre-publication notice) at 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4). 

Although this regulatory text is not yet effective, it 

reflects the EPA’s interpretation of the statutory 

requirements. 

166EPA, Final Rule, ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State 

Implementation Plan Requirements,’’ July 29, 2016 

(pre-publication notice) at p. 203 (referencing 79 FR 

31566 (June 2, 2014) (final rule establishing subpart 

4 moderate area classifications and deadline for 

related SIP submissions)); see also 80 FR 1816, 1835 

(January 13, 2015). 

167See EPA, Final Rule, ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State 

Implementation Plan Requirements,’’ July 29, 2016 

(pre-publication notice) at 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4). 

Although this regulatory text is not yet effective, it 

reflects the EPA’s interpretation of the statutory 

requirements. 

168 80 FR 1816, 1837 (January 13, 2015). 

169 81 FR 2993, 3000 (January 20, 2016) and 40 

CFR 52.247(e). 

expeditious attainment.162 Because the 

Plan provides for generally linear 

reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors in the aggregate, 

we find that it provides for such annual 

incremental reductions in emissions of 

the relevant air pollutant as are required 

by part D, title I of the Act or may 

reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

NAAQS by the applicable date. 

As a result of our December 22, 2015 

action reclassifying the SJV area as a 

Serious nonattainment area for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the area is now subject 

to Serious area planning requirements 

under subpart 4 and must reevaluate 

and strengthen its SIP control strategy as 

necessary to meet the Serious area 

requirement for BACM and BACT, 

among other requirements.163 The State 

must also demonstrate attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than December 31, 2019, and provide a 

revised RFP demonstration, both taking 

into consideration the implementation 

of the Serious Area control strategy.164

Today, we are approving certain 

elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan only for 

the limited purpose of satisfying the 

statutory control requirements that 

apply to Moderate areas demonstrating 

that attainment by the Moderate Area 

attainment date under subpart 4 is 

impracticable. 

Comment 14: Earthjustice asserts that 

the EPA does not have authority to defer 

action on quantitative milestones and 

RFP contingency measures. Earthjustice 

notes that the EPA has deemed the 

District’s SIP revision complete and 

asserts that the EPA is under a 

mandatory duty as a result to take one 

of the actions enumerated in CAA 

section 110(k). Earthjustice contends 

that disapproval of the quantitative 

milestones and RFP contingency 

measures is the only reasonable option. 

According to Earthjustice, deferring 

action on these parts effectively waives 

the statutory consequences for failing to 

submit a complete plan, including 

sanctions, and leaves the District with 

‘‘no actual plan for attaining the PM2.5

standards.’’ Earthjustice says that 

interim milestones and RFP targets will 

be needed to ensure progress before the 

District’s next attainment plan is 

adopted. 

Response 14: These comments are 

outside the scope of this action. We did 

not propose any action concerning 

quantitative milestones or RFP 

contingency measures in the Plan and, 

therefore, are not finalizing any action 

with respect to these requirements at 

this time. 

For all areas designated 

nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS effective December 14, 2009, 

including the SJV area, the EPA has 

established December 31, 2014 as the 

starting point for the first 3-year period 

for quantitative milestones under CAA 

section 189(c).165 This is because 

December 31, 2014, was the due date for 

states to submit additional SIP elements 

necessary to satisfy the subpart 4 

Moderate area requirements for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 standards.166

Establishing December 31, 2014 as the 

starting point for the first 3-year period 

under CAA section 189(c) for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS is in keeping with the 

EPA’s historical approach to 

quantitative milestone dates (i.e., using 

the due date for the Moderate area plan 

submission as the starting point for the 

first 3-year milestone period). Thus, for 

the SJV PM2.5 Serious nonattainment 

area, the state must submit quantitative 

milestones to be achieved by December 

31, 2017 (the first milestone date) and 

every 3 years thereafter until the 

milestone date that falls within 3 years 

after the Serious area attainment date.167

With respect to RFP contingency 

measures, we explained in our proposed 

rule that once the SJV area is 

reclassified as a Serious area, the State 

would be obligated to demonstrate that 

the SIP provides for the implementation 

of BACM and BACT and for attainment 

as expeditiously as practicable, and no 

later than 2019.168 We also noted that as 

part of this demonstration, the State 

would need to revise its RFP 

demonstration to establish new RFP 

targets, quantitative milestones, and 

RFP contingency measures for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. As a consequence of our 

January 20, 2016 final action 

reclassifying the SJV area as a Serious 

area for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

California is subject to an August 21, 

2017 deadline to submit these Serious 

area plan elements.169

Following the State’s submission of a 

Serious area plan to provide for 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the SJV area, the EPA intends to review 

the submitted plan for compliance with 

these requirements for quantitative 

milestones and RFP contingency 

measures. 

E. Comments Regarding Interpollutant 

Trading Ratios for NNSR 

Comment 15: The SJVUAPCD 

disagrees with the EPA’s proposal to 

disapprove the District’s NNSR 

interpollutant trading (IPT) ratios to 

offset PM2.5 emission increases with 

NOX and SOX emissions reductions. The 

District asserts that its use of a single 

IPT ratio for each pollutant based on the 

average of different calculated ratios 

across the District is simpler and more 

equitable than the EPA’s suggestion that 

ratios should either differ across the 

regions of the SJV or be set based on a 

maximum calculated value for any point 

in the SJV. The District believes the 

EPA’s suggested geographically-based 

ratios would be unfair, since the ratio 

used for a particular source could 

depend on which side of the road it is 

located on. 

The SJVUAPCD further asserts that 

the District’s reliance on the use of a 

basin-wide average for each pollutant is 

consistent with the EPA’s NNSR 

regulations at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 

S, as well as prior EPA approvals of 

NNSR programs that mitigate emission 

increases across an air basin. The 

District also states that it models local 

impacts of increased PM2.5 emissions for 

every facility subject to NNSR and will 

not issue a permit to a facility if the 

modeled impacts indicate a significant 

health risk or a significant increase in 

PM2.5 emissions. The SJVUAPCD 

concludes that its NNSR modeling 

analysis and proposed IPT ratios 

prevent localized impacts and 

appropriately offset regional impacts, 

and that the EPA should therefore 

approve the ratios. 

Response 15: We disagree with the 

District’s assertion that the EPA should 

approve the NNSR IPT ratios in the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan. Our primary concern 

regarding the District’s approach to 

interpollutant trading for NSR purposes 

is that the Plan provided only a ratio 

calculation, without a rationale to 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59897 

170Memorandum dated July 21, 2011, from Gina 

McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, to Regional Air 

Division Directors, Regions 1–10, Subject: Revised 

Policy to Address Reconsideration of Interpollutant 

Trading Provisions for Fine Particles (PM2.5) (‘‘IPT 

memo’’). 

171We note, however, that such a level of 

reduction does not match the scale of reductions 

involved in a typical NNSR offsetting transaction. 

support the use of this ratio for NNSR 

purposes. Under section IV.G.5 of 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix S, interpollutant 

trades to meet NNSR offset requirements 

for emissions of direct PM2.5 or PM2.5

precursors may be allowed if such 

offsets comply with an interprecursor 

trading hierarchy and ratio approved by 

the Administrator. As stated in our 

proposal, the EPA issued a 2011 

guidance memorandum on 

interpollutant trading stating that ‘‘any 

ratio involving PM2.5 precursors 

submitted to the EPA for approval for 

use in a state’s interpollutant offset 

program for PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

must be accompanied by a technical 

demonstration that shows the net air 

quality benefits of such ratio for the 

PM2.5 nonattainment area in which it 

will be applied.’’ 170 Therefore, a PM2.5

NNSR SIP submittal containing 

interpollutant trading ratios for use in 

NNSR offsetting must describe a method 

for calculating ratios and provide a 

rationale demonstrating that the method 

is consistent with the purpose of NNSR 

offsets. 

The EPA disagrees with the District’s 

claim that the use of a single trading 

ratio, even the maximum ratio over an 

area, is necessarily more equitable or 

less complex than using multiple ratios. 

While the use of a single interpollutant 

trading ratio for all locations in a 

nonattainment area may be simpler than 

separate ratios for different geographic 

zones, the District has provided no 

rationale concerning the net air quality 

benefits of such an approach. The 

impact of emissions of a given pollutant 

varies by the chemical environment the 

emissions occur in, and that chemical 

environment varies by location. The 

ratio of impacts between emissions of 

NOX and SOX precursors will also 

necessarily vary by geographic location. 

The importance of that impact for total 

concentration is another consideration; 

emissions from a remote, relatively 

clean area used to offset emissions in a 

highly polluted area may not meet the 

requirement in Condition 3 of 40 CFR 

part 51, Appendix S, section IV.A, 

which states that offsets from existing 

sources in the area of the proposed 

source are required such that there will 

be reasonable progress toward 

attainment of the applicable NAAQS. 

The use of a ratio that is an average over 

a broad geographic area, or any ratio less 

than the maximum ratio for such an 

area, could allow for a new source 

whose location-specific modeling gives 

the maximum ratio to obtain a permit 

without offsetting its full impact and, 

thus, potentially interfere with progress 

toward attainment. 

The District suggests that the use of 

the maximum ratio poses an equity 

problem for a source whose locationspecific ratio is lower, as such a source 

would have to offset more than it 

should. However, the use of an average 

ratio across the entire nonattainment 

area poses a different equity problem: A 

source whose location-specific ratio is 

the maximum would be offsetting less 

than it should while other sources 

would have to offset more. Use of 

different ratios tailored to specific 

geographic zones would be one way to 

help address these issues. Although the 

District correctly notes that a source 

located to one side of a zone boundary 

may have a different ratio than one 

located just to the other side of the 

boundary, creating potential inequities, 

we believe such an approach is 

generally more appropriate and 

equitable as sources in each zone would 

offset approximately their fair share. In 

any case, the EPA will review each 

technical demonstration accompanying 

an NNSR SIP submission to determine 

whether the state’s requested 

interpollutant trading ratio(s) will 

achieve a net air quality benefit in the 

PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

Comment 16: The SJVUAPCD 

disagrees with the EPA’s proposal to 

disapprove the District’s interpollutant 

trading ratio sensitivity calculation 

based on a 50 percent reduction in 

stationary source emissions. The District 

comments that the EPA has provided 

only limited guidance on the 

development of interpollutant trading 

ratios and has failed to propose a 

mechanism to determine the sensitivity 

of PM2.5 formation to NOX and SOX

emission decreases for NNSR, even 

though, according to the District, federal 

law requires the EPA to do so. The 

District asserts that its method is 

consistent with the EPA’s existing 

guidance on NNSR IPT ratios and with 

state techniques that the EPA has 

approved for attainment demonstration 

purposes. The District contends that the 

EPA’s disapproval of its approach 

creates new standards not reflected in 

previous guidance, and that the EPA 

should establish new standards only 

through the proper regulatory approval 

process. The District states that the EPA 

should therefore approve its 50 percent 

reduction sensitivity approach. 

Response 16: Although it may be 

reasonable to use modeling of 50 

percent reductions in calculating 

interpollutant trading ratios,171

consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 

part 51, Appendix S and EPA guidance, 

the state must provide a rationale for the 

reduction used and demonstrate its 

appropriateness for NSR offsetting 

purposes. As we stated in our proposed 

rule, the Plan provides no rationale for 

the appropriateness of a 50 percent 

reduction. Generally, the emission 

reductions model should have a direct 

connection to the emission reductions 

expected in IPT trades for NSR 

offsetting. 

Comment 17: The District disagrees 

with the EPA’s general comment that 

the Plan fails to provide an overall 

rationale for the District’s methodology 

that is grounded in the statutory 

purpose of NSR offsets, and also with 

the EPA’s specific concern that the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan does not show that its offsets 

provide a ‘‘net air quality benefit in the 

affected area,’’ as required by 40 CFR 

part 51, Appendix S, section IV.A. The 

District asserts that Appendix H of the 

Plan demonstrates that the Plan’s 

interpollutant trading ratios are 

consistent with the federal NNSR 

requirements and that the use of credits 

would not interfere with attainment 

efforts. The District states that the 

proposed trading ratios substitute only 

one precursor pollutant to the current 

offsetting requirements that the EPA has 

already found ‘‘to comply with the CAA 

and EPA’s NSR implementation 

regulations,’’ and that this substitution 

uses a predetermined ratio 

demonstrated to be equal in ability to 

offset PM2.5. For this reason, the District 

argues that the ratios have already been 

demonstrated to provide an air quality 

benefit to the area and should be 

approved. 

Response 17: The EPA disagrees with 

the District’s claim that the Plan 

demonstrates that its proposed 

interpollutant offsets would not 

interfere with attainment efforts, and 

that its ratio represents equivalent PM2.5

offsetting impacts. As we explained 

above in Response 15 concerning 

location-specific ratios, depending on 

the locations of the new or modified 

sources and the offsetting sources, 

offsets based on interpollutant trades 

could interfere with progress toward 

attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

District used modeling of emission 

reductions occurring over a large 

geographic area and calculated ratios of 

the effects at multiple monitor locations, 

without providing a rationale for the 

procedure used. The modeling reflects 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59898 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

172 80 FR 1816, 1838 (January 13, 2015). 173See 80 FR 1816, 1841 (January 13, 2015) 

(noting the EPA’s prior approval of MVEBs for the 

1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan at 76 FR 69896, November 9, 2011). 

174 76 FR 69896, 69919 (November 9, 2011). 

175EPA, Region 9, Air Division, ‘‘Technical 

Support Document and Responses to Comments, 

Final Rule on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5

State Implementation Plan,’’ September 30, 2011, at 

pp. 46 and 165. 

176The maximum ratio for the 1st Street location 

in Fresno was actually 5:2, based on emission 

reduction sensitivities for NOX and for direct PM 

in the State’s Weight of Evidence Analysis, 

Appendix G to the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Table 7, p. G– 

65. 

177The Bakersfield ratio is based on values in 

‘‘Table 7. Modeled PM2.5 air quality benefit per ton 

of valley wide precursor emission reductions’’, 

2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix G, p. 65. 

178 80 FR 1816, 1840 (January 13, 2015). 

179 Id. 

180Letter dated April 1, 2016, from Deborah 

Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA, to Richard W. 

Corey, Executive Officer, California Air Resources 

Board, and 81 FR 22194 (April 15, 2016). 

181 81 FR 31212, 31218 (May 18, 2016). 

the average response of geographically 

distributed emission reductions but 

does not show the effect of any 

particular offset for a new source, and 

it is unclear how it is related to the 

aggregate effect of many such trades. 

Because the 2012 PM2.5 Plan does not 

address the locations of either the PM2.5

precursor emission increases and offsets 

or the ambient PM2.5 effects, we find the 

technical analyses in the Plan 

insufficient to demonstrate that the 

District’s proposed offset ratio will 

assure reasonable progress toward 

attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

SJV. 

F. Comments on Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets 

Comment 18: Earthjustice agrees with 

the EPA’s proposal to disapprove the 

interpollutant trading ratios for NSR but 

argues that the EPA should also 

disapprove the District’s 8:1 ratio for 

offsetting mobile source emission 

increases of PM2.5 for conformity 

purposes. Earthjustice claims that the 

EPA did not evaluate the methodology 

supporting this ratio and instead 

approved it on the basis that it was more 

stringent than regional modeling 

determinations. According to 

Earthjustice, given the EPA concluded 

that the regional modeling was arbitrary 

and lacked any rationale for its 

methodology, the mere fact that the 

conformity ratios are ‘‘more stringent’’ 

does not provide the EPA with any 

rational basis for approving an 8:1 ratio 

for conformity purposes. 

Response 18: The EPA disagrees with 

Earthjustice’s claim that the 8:1 

NOX:direct PM2.5 ratio for transportation 

conformity has no rational basis. As an 

initial matter, we note that the EPA did 

not state that the regional modeling was 

arbitrary, but rather that the Plan had 

not provided a rationale for its 

particular approach to using modeled 

sensitivity ratios to derive IPT ratios for 

NSR offsetting purposes.172 The EPA 

made these statements in the context of 

NNSR permitting requirements, not 

trading mechanisms for transportation 

conformity purposes. 

The District’s methodology for 

estimating the IPT ratio for conformity 

purposes is essentially an update (based 

on newer modeling) of the approach 

that the EPA previously approved for 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV.173 The District’s 

approach in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan was to 

model the ambient PM2.5 effect of 

areawide NOX emissions reductions and 

of areawide direct PM2.5 reductions, and 

to express the ratio of these modeled 

sensitivities as an interpollutant trading 

ratio. Variable factors in this method 

included the extent of the area over 

which emission reductions were 

applied and the location(s) at which the 

resulting ambient PM2.5 effect was 

evaluated. As part of the EPA’s 

November 2011 action partially 

approving the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV, the EPA 

stated that this methodology ‘‘is 

adequate for purposes of assessing the 

effect of area-wide emissions changes, 

such as are used in RFP, contingency 

measures, and conformity budgets.’’ 174

In the TSD supporting that action, we 

stated that ‘‘[t]he method modeled 

‘across the board’ emission changes over 

the entire modeling domain; emissions 

considered in transportation conformity 

are also domain-wide.’’ 175

As part of our proposed action on the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan, we stated that the 

areawide methodology used in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan gave a range of IPT ratios 

from 2.8 to 4.7, depending on the 

ambient location chosen.176 Using the 

same method would entail using the IPT 

ratio evaluated at the California Street, 

Bakersfield design value site, 4:3. The 

8:1 ratio used in the Plan is larger than 

both the Bakersfield ratio and any ratio 

using variants of the previouslyapproved approach, and is thus a more 

stringent (and conservatively high) 

trading mechanism to use for estimating 

the NOX reductions needed to offset 

PM2.5 increases.177 We are approving 

the 8:1 trading ratio for transportation 

conformity purposes because it is 

significantly more stringent than any of 

the other ratios calculated in the Plan 

for different locations in the SJV, all of 

which were calculated using a 

methodology that the EPA previously 

approved for transportation conformity 

purposes in the SJV. 

Comment 19: Earthjustice comments 

that the EPA’s conformity regulations 

require MVEB to be consistent with the 

requirements for RFP. Earthjustice 

argues that because the RFP 

demonstration is not approvable, the 

EPA also should not approve the 

MVEBs. 

Response 19: We disagree with 

Earthjustice’s claim that the EPA should 

disapprove the MVEBs in the Plan. 

As we explained above in Response 

13, we are approving the RFP 

demonstration in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

based on our conclusion that it provides 

for generally linear reductions in 

emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors in the aggregate and, 

therefore, provides for such annual 

incremental reductions in emissions of 

the relevant air pollutant as are required 

by part D, title I of the Act or may 

reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date. 

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan contains 2014 

and 2017 MVEBs for emissions of direct 

PM2.5 and NOX. We proposed to 

approve these budgets based on a 

conclusion that they are consistent with 

applicable requirements for RFP, are 

clearly identified and precisely 

quantified, and meet all other applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

including the adequacy criteria in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4).178 Additionally, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), 

we proposed to find that on-road 

emissions of VOCs, SO2 and ammonia 

are not significant contributors to the 

PM2.5 nonattainment problem in the SJV 

area, and accordingly, that 

transportation conformity requirements 

do not apply for these pollutants in this 

area.179 In April 2016, the EPA found 

the direct PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs in the 

Plan, as submitted December 29, 2014, 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes.180 On November 13, 2015, the 

State submitted revised direct PM2.5 and 

NOX budgets based on EMFAC2014 for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA 

proposed to approve these revised 

budgets based on our conclusion that 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan continues to meet 

applicable requirements for RFP in 2017 

when the EMFAC2011-based budgets 

are replaced with the new EMFAC2014- 

based budgets and that these budgets are 

clearly identified, precisely quantified, 

and meet all of the other criteria in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4).181

The commenter has not identified any 

information that compels us to 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59899 

182Although the 2012 PM2.5 Plan contained 

MVEBs for both 2014 and 2017, MVEBs for 2014 

are no longer relevant for conformity analyses since 

that year has passed. 

183 81 FR 2993, 3000 (January 20, 2016) and 40 

CFR 52.245(e). 

184See letter dated November 13, 2015, from 

Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 

with enclosures. 

reconsider our conclusion that the 

MVEBs in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan are 

consistent with applicable requirements 

for reasonable further progress. 

Therefore, we are approving the 2017 

MVEBs for direct PM2.5 and NOX, as 

submitted November 13, 2015.182

We note that, because the provisions 

of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, apply only 

with respect to emissions of NOX and 

direct PM2.5 for purposes of the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area, the 

commenter’s arguments about ammonia 

emissions are not germane to our action 

on these MVEBs. 

G. Other Comments 

Comment 20: Earthjustice asserts that 

the EPA has no basis for deferring action 

on the NSR component of the Plan and 

that deferral will put the EPA in 

violation of the statutory deadlines 

under CAA section 110(k)(2). 

Earthjustice states that the District’s 

NSR program does not meet all subpart 

4 requirements because it does not 

regulate ammonia, which according to 

Earthjustice is required under CAA 

section 189(e). 

Response 20: These comments are 

outside the scope of this action. We did 

not propose any action on the portions 

of the 2014 Supplement that address 

NNSR requirements for PM2.5 in the SJV 

and, therefore, are not finalizing any 

action with respect to these Plan 

elements at this time. The EPA intends 

to act on these components of the Plan 

through a separate rulemaking. 

We note that as a consequence of the 

EPA’s January 20, 2016 final action 

reclassifying the SJV area as a Serious 

nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, California is subject to a 

February 21, 2017 deadline to submit 

NNSR rule revisions for the SJV that 

satisfy the requirements of sections 

189(b)(3) and 189(e) and all other 

applicable requirements of the CAA for 

implementation of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS.183 These SIP revisions must 

appropriately address the NNSR 

requirements for direct PM2.5 and all 

PM2.5 precursors, including ammonia. 

III. Final Action 

The EPA is taking final action to 

approve elements of the following SIP 

revisions submitted by California to 

address Clean Air Act requirements for 

implementation of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV: The 2012 PM2.5

Plan, submitted March 4, 2013; the 2014 

Supplement, submitted November 6, 

2014; and the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for direct PM2.5 and NOX, as 

submitted November 13, 2015. 

Specifically, under CAA section 

110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to 

approve the following elements of the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement: 

1. The 2007 base year emissions 

inventories as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 172(c)(3); 

2. the demonstration that attainment 

by the Moderate area attainment date of 

December 31, 2015 is impracticable as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii); 

3. the reasonably available control 

measures/reasonably available control 

technology demonstration as meeting 

the requirements of CAA sections 

172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C); 

4. the reasonable further progress 

demonstration as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2); 

and 

5. SJVUAPCD’s commitments to adopt 

and implement specific rules and 

measures by the dates specified in 

Chapter 5 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to 

achieve the emissions reductions shown 

therein, and to submit these rules and 

measures to CARB within 30 days of 

adoption for transmittal to the EPA as a 

revision to the SIP, or if the total 

emission reductions from the adopted 

rules are less than those committed to 

in the Plan, to adopt, submit, and 

implement substitute rules 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, as stated on p. 4 of 

SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 

12–12–19, dated December 20, 2012, ‘‘In 

the Matter of Adopting the San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 2012 PM2.5 Plan.’’ 

In addition, the EPA is approving the 

2017 NOX and PM2.5 motor vehicle 

emissions budgets submitted November 

13, 2015,184 as shown in Table 1 above, 

because they are derived from an 

approvable RFP demonstration and 

meet the applicable requirements of 

CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, 

subpart A. We are also approving, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 93.124, the 

trading mechanism described on p. C– 

32 in Appendix C of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

as an enforceable component of the 

transportation conformity program for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV, with 

the condition that the trades are limited 

to substituting excess reductions in NOX

for increases in PM2.5. The budgets that 

the EPA is approving herein relate to the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS only, and our 

approval of them does not affect the 

status of the previously-approved 

MVEBs for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and 

related trading mechanism, which 

remain in effect for that PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The EPA is disapproving the PM2.5

interpollutant trading ratios provided in 

Appendix H of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for 

NNSR permitting purposes. Under 

section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a SIP submittal that 

addresses a requirement of part D, title 

I of the Act or is required in response 

to a finding of substantial inadequacy as 

described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP 

Call) starts a sanctions clock. The NNSR 

interpollutant trading ratios provided in 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan were not submitted 

to meet either of these requirements. 

Therefore, our final action to disapprove 

this component of the Plan does not 

trigger a sanctions clock. Disapproval of 

a SIP element also triggers the 

requirement under CAA section 110(c) 

for the EPA to promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than 

two years from the date of the 

disapproval unless the State corrects the 

deficiency, and the Administrator 

approves the plan or plan revision, 

before the Administrator promulgates 

such FIP. Disapproval of these NNSR 

interpollutant trading ratios, however, 

does not create any deficiency in the 

Plan, and therefore does not trigger the 

obligation on the EPA to promulgate a 

FIP under section 110(c). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

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

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59900 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because the SIP is not 

approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

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

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

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 31, 2016. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Ammonia, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 16, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9. 

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF IMPLMENTATION 

PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(476)(ii)(A)(2), 

(c)(478), and (c)(479) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan—in part. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(476) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(2) Attachment A to Resolution 15–50, 

‘‘Updates to the Transportation 

Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin 

Valley 2007 PM10, 2007 Ozone and 2012 

PM2.5 SIPs,’’ Table A–2 (Updated 

Transportation Conformity Budgets for 

the 2012 PM2.5 Plan (Tons per winter 

day). 

* * * * * 

(478) The following plan was 

submitted on March 4, 2013, by the 

Governor’s Designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) ‘‘2012 PM2.5 Plan’’ (dated 

December 20, 2012), adopted December 

20, 2012, except for the motor vehicle 

emission budgets used for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

(2) SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

Resolution No. 12–12–19, dated 

December 20, 2012, ‘‘In the Matter of 

Adopting the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

2012 PM2.5 Plan.’’ 

(3) SJVUAPCD’s commitments to 

adopt and implement specific rules and 

measures by the dates specified in 

Chapter 5 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to 

achieve the emissions reductions shown 

therein, and to submit these rules and 

measures to CARB within 30 days of 

adoption for transmittal to EPA as a 

revision to the SIP, or if the total 

emission reductions from the adopted 

rules are less than those committed to 

in the Plan, to adopt, submit, and 

implement substitute rules 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, as stated on p. 4 of 

SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 

12–12–19, dated December 20, 2012. 

(B) California Air Resources Board. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59901 

(1) CARB Resolution 13–2, dated 

January 24, 2013, ‘‘San Joaquin Valley 

PM2.5 State Implementation Plan.’’ 

(479) The following plan was 

submitted on November 6, 2014, by the 

Governor’s Designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) ‘‘Supplemental Document, Clean 

Air Act Subpart 4: The 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

for the 2006 PM2.5 Standard and District 

Rule 2201 (New and Modified 

Stationary Source Review)’’ (dated 

September 18, 2014), adopted 

September 18, 2014. 

(2) SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

Resolution No. 14–09–01, dated 

September 18, 2014, ‘‘In the Matter of: 

Authorizing Submittal of 

‘‘Supplemental Document for the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan’’ to EPA.’’ 

(B) California Air Resources Board. 

(1) CARB Resolution 14–37, dated 

October 24, 2014, ‘‘Supplemental 

Document for the San Joaquin Valley 

24-Hour PM2.5 State Implementation 

Plan.’’ 

[FR Doc. 2016–20413 Filed 8–30–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 412 

[CMS–1647–CN] 

RIN 0938–AS78 

Medicare Program; Inpatient 

Rehabilitation Facility Prospective 

Payment System for Federal Fiscal 

Year 2017; Correction 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects 

typographical errors in the final rule 

that appeared in the August 5, 2016 

Federal Register entitled, ‘‘Medicare 

Program; Inpatient Rehabilitation 

Facility Prospective Payment System for 

Federal Fiscal Year 2017’’. 

DATES: The final rule published August 

5, 2016 (81 FR 52056 through 52141) is 

corrected as of August 30, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christine Grose, (410) 786- 1362. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In FR Doc. 2016–18196 (81 FR 52056 

through 52141), the final rule entitled, 

‘‘Medicare Program; Inpatient 

Rehabilitation Facility Prospective 

Payment System for Federal Fiscal Year 

2017’’ (hereinafter referred as the FY 

2017 IRF PPS final rule), there were 

typographical errors that are identified 

and corrected in this correcting 

document. The correction is applicable 

as of August 30, 2016. 

II. Summary of Errors in the Preamble 

On page 52118 of the FY 2017 IRF 

PPS final rule, we inadvertently 

included a reference to Table 10 instead 

of Table 18. 

On page 52118 of the FY 2017 IRF 

PPS final rule, we inadvertently 

included a reference to Table 10 instead 

of Table 11. 

On page 52118 of the FY 2017 IRF 

PPS final rule, we inadvertently 

included a reference to Table 10 instead 

of Table 16. 

On page 52118 of the FY 2017 IRF 

PPS final rule, we inadvertently 

included a reference to Table 10 instead 

of Table 17. 

On page 52118 of the FY 2017 IRF 

PPS final rule, in the footnote to Table 

10, we inadvertently included a 

reference to Table 10 instead of Table 

17. 

On page 52118 of the FY 2017 IRF 

PPS final rule, in the footnote to Table 

10, we inadvertently included a 

reference to Table 10 instead of Table 

16. 

On page 52119 of the FY 2017 IRF 

PPS final rule, in the footnote to Table 

11, we inadvertently included a 

reference to Table 11 instead of Table 

10. 

On page 52119 of the FY 2017 IRF 

PPS final rule, in the footnote to Table 

13, we inadvertently included a 

reference to Table 12 instead of Table 

10. 

On page 52120 of the FY 2017 IRF 

PPS final rule, in the footnote to Table 

14, in two instances, we inadvertently 

included a reference to Table 14 instead 

of Table 10. 

On page 52120 of the FY 2017 IRF 

PPS final rule, in the footnote to Table 

15, in two instances, we inadvertently 

included a reference to Table 15 instead 

of Table 10. 

On page 52121 of the FY 2017 IRF 

PPS final rule, in the footnote to Table 

16, we inadvertently included a 

reference to Table 16 instead of Table 

10. 

III. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking 

and Delay in Effective Date 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 

the agency is required to publish a 

notice of the proposed rule in the 

Federal Register and provide a period 

for public comment before the 

provisions of a rule take effect. 

Similarly, section 1871(b)(1) of the Act 

requires the Secretary to provide for 

notice of the proposed rule in the 

Federal Register and provide a period of 

not less than 60 days for public 

comment. In addition, section 553(d) of 

the APA and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) of 

the Act mandate a 30-day delay in 

effective date after issuance or 

publication of a rule. Sections 553(b)(B) 

and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for 

exceptions from the APA notice and 

comment and delay in effective date 

requirements; in cases in which these 

exceptions apply, sections 1871(b)(2)(C) 

and 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provide 

exceptions from the notice and 60-day 

comment period and delay in effective 

date requirements of the Act, as well. 

Section 553(b)(B) of the APA and 

section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act 

authorize an agency to dispense with 

normal notice and comment rulemaking 

procedures for good cause if the agency 

makes a finding that the notice and 

comment process is impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest; and includes a statement of the 

finding and the reasons for it in the rule. 

In addition, section 553(d)(3) of the 

APA and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the 

Act allow the agency to avoid the 30- 

day delay in effective date where such 

delay is contrary to the public interest 

and the agency includes in the rule a 

statement of the finding and the reasons 

for it. 

In our view, this correcting document 

does not constitute a rulemaking that 

would be subject to these requirements. 

This document merely corrects 

typographical errors in the preamble of 

the FY 2017 IRF PPS final rule. The 

corrections contained in this document 

are consistent with, and do not make 

substantive changes to, the policies and 

payment methodologies that were 

adopted subject to notice and comment 

procedures in the FY 2017 IRF PPS final 

rule. As a result, the correction made 

through this correcting document is 

intended to resolve inadvertent 

typographical errors. 

Even if this were a rulemaking to 

which the notice and comment and 

delayed effective date requirements 

applied, we find that there is good cause 

to waive such requirements. 

Undertaking further notice and 

comment procedures to incorporate the 

corrections in this document into the FY 

2017 IRF PPS final rule or delaying the 

effective date of the corrections would 

be contrary to the public interest 

because it is in the public interest to 

ensure that the rule accurately reflects 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES