# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 76 Fed. Reg. 69896 2011

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Tue Aug 25 16:37:44 2015

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516; FRL-9482-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; 2008 San Joaquin Valley PM2. 5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by California to provide for attainment ofthe 1997 fine particulate
matter (PM2. 5)national ambient air quality standards in the SanJoaquin Valley (SJV). These SIP revisions are the SJV 2008 PM2. 5 Plan (revised 2010 and 2011) and SJV-related provisions ofthe 2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011). EPA is approving the emissions inventory, the reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control technology demonstration, reasonable further progress demonstration, attainment demonstration and associated air quality modeling, and the transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA is also granting California's request to extend the attainment deadline forthe SJV to April 5, 2015 and approving commitments to

measures and reductions by the SJV Unified Air Pollution Control District and the California Air Resources Board. Finally, itis disapproving the SIP's contingency provisions and issuing a protective finding for transportation conformity determinations under 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3) for this disapproval. DATES: The rule is effective January 9, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically athttp:// www.regulations.govandin hard copy atEPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, SanFrancisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material) and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normalbusiness hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. Copies ofthe SIP materials are also available for inspection at the following locations:

e California Air Resources Board, 1001 IStreet, Sacramento, California 95812

e SanJoaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 1990 E. Gettysburg, Fresno, California 93726.

The SIP materials are also electronically available at: http:// www.valleyair.org/AirQualityPlans! PMPlans.htmand http:// www.arb.ca.gov/lplanning/sip/sip.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office (AIR-2),U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 972-3957, wicher.frances@epa.gov

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

Table of Contents

I. Summary ofEPA's Proposed and Final Actions onthe 2008 State Implementation Plan forAttainment of the 1997 PM2.5Standards inthe San Joaquin Valley II.Response toPublic Comments Received on the Proposals III. Approval Status oftheControl Strategy Measures and Final Actions onthe
Attainment Demonstration and Enforceable Commitments IV. Approval ofthe MotorVehicle Emissions Budgets and Trading Mechanism for Transportation Conformity V. Final Actions and Resulting Clean Air Act Consequences VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of EPA'sProposed and Final Actions on the 2008 State Implementation Plan for Attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 Standardsin the San JoaquinValley

On July 13, 2011, EPA proposed to approve in part and disapprove in part California's state implementation plan (SIP) for attaining the 1997 fine particulate (PM2. 5)national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV). See 76 FR41338. California developed this SIP to provide for expeditious attainment ofthe PM2 .5 standards in the SJV and to meet other applicable PM2.5 planning requirements in Clean Air Act (CAA) section 172(c) and EPA's PM2. 5 implementation rule.' In all, California has made six submittals to address the PM2.5 SIP planning requirements for the SJV. The
two principal ones are the SJV Unified Air Pollution Control District's (SJVUAPCD or District) 2008 PM2. 5 Plan

1"The Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5NAAQS," 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007) and codified at40 CFRpart 51, subpart Z (PM2.5 implementation rule). (amended 2010 and 2011) and the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (amended 2009 and 2011).2 Together, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 State Strategy present

a comprehensive and innovative strategy for attaining the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV.

In ourJuly 2011 notice, EPA proposed multiple approval actions on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP. First, we proposed to approve the SIP's reasonably available control measure/reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT) demonstration, reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration, attainment demonstration and associated air quality modeling, base year emissions inventory; air quality modeling; and motor vehicle emissions budgets. 3 Second, we proposed to approve enforceable commitments by both the District andCARB to certain

measures and specific amounts of emissions reductions. Third, we proposed to concur with the State's determination thatvolatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia are not attainment plan precursors for attainment ofthe 1997 PM2.5NAAQS in

2These SIPsubmittals are: 1. SJVUAPCD, 2008 PM2. Plan,adopted on April 30, 2008 by the SJVUAPCD and on May 22, 2008 by CARB, submitted onJune 30, 2008.

2. CARB, ProposedState Strategy for California's 2007StateImplementationPlan,as amended and adopted on September 27, 2007 by CARB, submitted on November 16, 2007.

3. CARB, StatusReporton the StateStrategy for California's 2007StateImplementationPlan (SIP) andProposed Revisions to the SIPReflecting Implementationofthe 2007StateStrategy(pages 11-27 only), adopted on April 24, 2009 by CARB, submitted on August 12, 2009.

4. SJVUAPCD, 2008 PM 2.5 PlanAmendment to Extend the Rule 4905Amendment Schedule, adopted on June 17, 2010 bythe SJVUAPCD, submitted on September 15, 2010

5. CARB, Progress Report onImplementationof PM 2.1StateImplementationPlans(SIP) forthe South CoastandSanJoaquinValleyAirBasinsand ProposedSIPRevisions (Appendices B, C and D only), adopted on April 28, 2011 by CARB, submitted on May 18, 2011. "2011 Progress Report."

6. CARB, 8-HourOzone StateImplementation PlanRevisions andTechnicalRevisionsto thePM2 ., StateImplementation PlanTransportation ConformityBudgets forthe South CoastandSan JoaquinValleyAirBasins,adopted onJuly 21, 2011 by CARB and submitted onJuly 29, 2011. ("2011 Ozone SIP Revisions") Only the PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions budgets in this submittal are addressed in today's action.

3The 2011 Progress Report contained budgets that were not approvable because they included emissions reductions from a rulethat was ineligible for SIP credit. These budgets also included data entry errors. See 76 FR 41338, 41360. We proposed instead to approve alternative budgets that CARB had developed andposted for public comment as part ofits 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions and stated that the approval was contingent on our receipt ofthe SIPrevision containing the revised budgets. Id. CARB submitted that SIP revision on July 29, 2011. 69896 Federal Register/Vol. 76,

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations 69897

the SJV. Lastly, we proposed to grant California's request to extend the attainment date for the SanJoaquin Valley PM2. 5 nonattainment area to April 5, 2015. See 76 FR 41338, 41361.

EPA also proposed to disapprove the contingency measures provisions ofthe SJV 2008 PM2. 5 SIP for failing toprovide sufficient emissions reductions. 4!d.

A more detailed discussion ofeach of California's SIP submittals for the SJV
area, the CAA and EPA requirements applicable to them, and our evaluation and proposed actions can be found in

our July 2011 proposal (76 FR 41338) and the technical support document (TSD) for this final action. 5

Our July 2011 proposal was the second time that EPA proposed action

on California's SJV 2008 PM2. 5 SIP. On November 30, 2010 (75 FR 74518), EPA proposed to disapprove the majority of the provisions in this SIP. During the
comment period for the November 2010 proposal, we received several comment letters from the public aswell as comment letters from CARB and the District. Subsequent to the close ofthe
comment period, CARB adopted and submitted revisions to the SJV PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy. After considering information contained in the comment letters and the supplemental SIP submittals, we issued the July 2011 proposed rule which substantially amended our November 2010 proposal.

EPA istoday approving most elements ofthe SJV 2008PM 2.5 SIP based onour conclusion that they comply with applicable CAA requirements and provides for expeditious attainment ofthe 1997 PM2.5 standards in the San Joaquin Valley. We are also today disapproving the SIP's contingency measure provisions because they do notprovide sufficient emissions reductions. We are continuing to working with the State and District to identify additional control measures and incentive programs that meet the CAA's requirements for contingency measures

4We also proposedto disapprove a commitment by the District to adopt revisions to its Rule 4702 "Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines" by December 2010 because that date had passed and the District had not adopted revisions to therule. We stated in the proposal that we would not finalize this proposed disapproval if theDistrict adopted revisions to therule by the time of ourfinal
action on the SIP. See 76 FR 41338, 41361. On August 18, 2011, the District adopted the revisions
to Rule 4702; therefore, we are not finalizing our proposed disapproval ofthis commitment.

5"Technical Support Document and Response to Comments Final Rule on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5StateImplementation Plan," Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, September 30, 2011. The TSD can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. consistent with EPA regulations and policy.

II. Response to Public Comments Received on theProposals

As part ofthis final action, EPA has considered and provided responses to the comments submitted inresponse to both the November 2010 and the July 2011 proposals. Comments on our proposals were received from:

The Center on Race, Poverty &the Environment onbehalf ofthe Association ofIrritated Residents (AIR) and other San Joaquin Valley-based environmental and community organizations. AIR submitted comments

on both proposals.

Earthjustice, on behalfofMedical Advocates for Healthy Air and other San Joaquin Valley-based environmental and community organizations. Earthjustice submitted comments on both proposals.

SJVUAPCD provided comments on the November 2010 proposal.

CARB provided two comment letters

on our November 2010 proposal. The first transmitted air quality modeling documentation and the second provided
comments on the proposal.6

Tom Frantz, President, AIR, submitted comments on our November 2010 proposal.

Arthur D. Unger submitted comments

on our November 2010 proposal.

A copy ofthese comment letters and their attachments canbe found inthe docket for this final rule.

In the following sections, we summarize our responses to the most significant comments received on the proposals. Our full responses to all
comments received canbe foundin the "Response to Comments" section (sectionIII) ofthe TSD for this final rule.

A. Comments on theProposed Action

on theEmissionsInventory

Comment:Earthjustice comments on the importance ofemissions inventories, noting that CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that nonattainment plans "include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources ofthe relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area." Earthjustice objects to EPA's proposal to approve the inventories in the 2008 PM2. 5 SIP because they were current and
accurate "at the time the Plan was developed and submitted," arguing that such language is not inthe CAA andis
not a reasonable extension of Congress's

6The majorityof CARB's and the District's

comments addressed the November 2010 proposed disapprovals and EPA's grounds for them. These
comments were, for the mostpart, addressed by our July 2011 amended proposal. intent, which is to ensure the adoption and approval of SIPs thatwill achieve clean air meeting the NAAQS. Earthjustice argues thatan inventory that is "known to be wrong" undermines the modeling demonstration ofthe emissions reductions needed to attain, and that EPA's interpretation suggests that revisions to an inventory are needed only when itis found that the inventory is not current or accurate as ofthe date it is submitted. Earthjustice argues that such an interpretation undermines any

assurance that "the requirements of [Part D ofthe CAA] are met." Finally, Earthjustice asserts that "EPA cannot approve these inventories as complying with the requirements of section 172(c)(3) knowing that the data are not valid for purposes ofbuilding an attainment plan."

Response:EPA does not dispute the importance ofemissions inventories. We evaluated the emissions inventories in the 2008 PM2
. 5 Plan to determine whether they satisfy the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and adequately support the Plan's RACM, RFP and attainment demonstrations. Based on this evaluation, we have concluded that the Plan's 2005base year emissions inventory was based on the most current and accurate information available to the State and District atthe time the Plan was developed and submitted and comprehensively addresses all source categories in the SJV area, consistent with applicable CAA requirements and EPA guidance. See 76 FR41338 at 41342-41343 and 2011 Proposal TSD 7
at section IIA; see also "General Preamble for Implementation ofTitle I ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990," 57 FR 13498 at 13502 (April 16, 1992) ("General Preamble").

We do not agree with Earthjustice's suggestion that EPA interprets the CAA
to require revisions to an emissions inventory only when it is found that such inventory is not current or accurate

as ofthe date itis submitted. Significant changes to a base year inventory that undermine the assumptions in an attainment demonstration may, on a
case by case basis, call for a reevaluation ofthe modeling or other planning analyses supporting that demonstration. In this case, however, as discussed in the proposed rule (76 FR 41562, 41567) and in section II.A. below, we have concluded that the State's changes to its methodologies for estimating future

7"Technical Support Document for the Revised Proposed Rulemaking Action on the SanJoaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5Plan and the San Joaquin Valley Portions ofthe Revised 2007 State Strategy," Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9,June 29, 2011, "2011 Proposal TSD."No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations

emissions do not significantly affect the 2002 base year inventories and, consequently, do not undermine the modeling or other analyses that rely on those inventories and that support the attainment demonstration in the Plan. Based on this technical assessment, we have concluded that itis notnecessary in this case for the State to submit a revised base year inventory. We note that states are required to report comprehensive emissions inventories to EPA every three years under the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. See 40 CFR 51.30(b).

CAA section 172(b) provides that "the State containing [a nonattainment] area shall submit a plan or planrevision (including the plan items) meeting the applicable requirements of [section 172(c) and section 110]" on the schedule established by EPA, and section 172(c) contains, inter alia, the requirement that nonattainment plans "shall include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory ofactual emissions from all sources ofthe relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area." We believe it is reasonable to read these provisions together as requiring that the State submit an inventory that is "comprehensive, accurate, [and] current" at the time the State submitted it to EPA, rather than requiring that the State continually revise its plan asnew emissions databecomes available. See Brief ofRespondents, EPA, in Sierra Club, eta].v. U.S.EPA, eta]., Case Nos. 10-71457 and 10-71458 (consolidated), May 5, 2011. States could never effectively plan for air quality improvements ifthey had to constantly revise their inventories as new data became available. Air quality planning is an iterative process and states and EPA must rely on the best available data
atthe time the plans are created.

Comment:Throughout its comments, AIR uses the term "recession reductions" which it defines as "the emissions reductions the [C]ARB claims have occurred as a result ofthe recession."

Response:In its comments, AIR calculates what itconsiders "the total reductions from baseline reductions without recession reductions" as 11 tpd ofPM2
.5, 195 tons per day (tpd)of nitrogen oxides (NON), and 0.9 tpd of sulfur oxides (SOx). These figures are the same as the calculated reductions from the baseline measures prior to the updates to the 2014baseline inventory. 8

8 See line D on Table 7 in the November 30, 2010 proposed action on the SJV PM2.5SIP at 75 FR 74518. On this table, the baseline NOx reductions

are listed as 199.2 tpdbut include 4.2 tpd of Based on these calculations, AIR seems to consider the "recession reductions"
to be the difference between the 2014 baseline inventory submitted with the 2008 PM2. 5 Plan in 2008 and the revised 2014 baseline inventory submitted with the 2011 Progress Report in 2011. By labeling this difference as "recession reductions," AIR attributes the differences entirely torevisions to the economic forecasts. This is not entirely
correct.

Changes to the 2014 baseline inventory include revisions not only to the economic forecasts but also to a variety of other factors (out-of-state vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates, cumulative mileage, equipment populations, load factors, and hours of
use, etc.) used to calculate emissions from trucks, buses, and certain off-road equipment categories. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E. CARB estimates that revisions to the truck inventory excluding recession impacts reduced truck emissions statewide by 10 percent from the 2014 baseline levels estimated when the Truck rule was adopted in 2008 while recession impacts reduced the baseline level by a further 7percent. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 19.9For off-road equipment, CARB estimates that inventory changes independent of the recession were responsible for half the overall reduction in projected statewide emissions. See 2010 OffRoad Rule ISOR, p. 17.10 We note that these figures are average statewide figures and
not specific to the SJV. Comment:AIR contends that in the 2011 Progress Report, CARB first claims that the reduced economic activity caused by the recession has reduced 2014 emissions levels in the SJV by 2.7 tpd ofPM2. 5, 63.1 tpd ofNON and 0.1 tpd ofSO.x AIRfurther contends that CARB claims that the recession has caused current inventories ofthe goods
movement and construction sectors to

uncreditable reductions that are notincluded in AIR's numbers. By "baseline inventories" or "projected baseline inventories," we mean projected emissions inventories for future years that
account for, among otherthings, the ongoing effects ofeconomic growth and adopted emissions control requirements. A 2014 baseline inventory is important because this year is the "attainment year," the yearby which all reductions needed for attainment need to be inplace for the SJV. See 40
CFR 51.1007(b).

9CARB, "Staff Report: Initial State ofReasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulations, TheDrayage Truck Regulation and the Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation," October 2010 ("2010 Truck Rule ISOR").

10CARB Staff Report: Initial Statement ofReasons
for Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for InUse Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets and the Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Fleet Requirements, October 2010, including Appendix D1 ("2010 Off-Road Rule ISOR"). be lower than projected in the 2008

PM2.5 Plan. Finally, citing EPA's
statement in the 2011 Proposal TSD about the effect ofthe 2007-2009 economic recession on activity levels in the State's construction andgoods
movement sectors, AIR asserts that accounting for the recession through inventory adjustments is improper.

Response:CARB does not claim that the recession alone has reduced the projected 2014baseline emissions inthe SJV nor did itprovide the numbers cited by AIR. As discussed in the response to the preceding comment, revisionsto the baseline inventory took into account not only changes to the State's economic forecasts but also updated information

on out-of-state VMT estimates, cumulative mileage, equipment populations, and other data used to calculate emissions from trucks, buses, and certain off-road equipment. The emissions reduction figures that AIR ascribes to CARB are figures EPA calculated using data provided by CARB.

EPA uses the phrase "adjustments to the baseline" to refer to the difference between the 2014 baseline initially submitted in the 2008 SJV PM2.5 Plan and the recently revised 2014baseline

as submitted in the 2011 Progress Report. This "adjustments tobaseline" figure is nothing more than EPA's summary ofthe overall impact ofboth recession and non-recession related changes between the two projected inventories. EPA calculated this adjustment from summary data CARB provided in Appendix E ofthe 2011 Progress Report. The adjustment represents the netresults ofCARB's changes to its inventories rather than the changes themselves.

CARB revised its inventories for trucks and diesel off-road equipment to incorporate new and better data including new research ontruck travel within California. See2010 TruckRule ISOR, Appendix G. These revisions

were not mere adjustments to previous inventories but thorough reviews of much ofthe data that goes into estimating emissions from these

sources. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, Appendix G and 2010 Off-Road Rule ISOR, Appendix D."I These inventory revisions also included review of
current and future activity data (such as fuel consumption, diesel fuel sales,

11

Foran overview ofthese changes and their results, see the presentation to theCARB Board by CARB's Planning and Technical Support Division

on November 18, 2010, entitled, "Diesel Inventory Improvements for Regulatory Development," available at http://www.arb.ca.govlboardlbooksl 2010/111810/10-10 -9pres.pdf and in the docket for this rule. 69898 Federal Register/Vol. 76,Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations 69899

trucking industry tonnage reports, truck sales trends, and truck registration data) for these categories as well as economic forecasts from a number ofreputable

sources. 12 Throughout its development ofthese revisions, CARB held workshops seeking public review and input into its work. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 13.

Emissions projections are a function ofchange in activity (growth or decline) combined with changes inthe emissions
rate or controls applicable to emissions

sources. Projected inventories are, therefore, necessarily affected by forecasts ofindustrial growth, population growth, and transportation growth, among other factors. 13 EPA guidance emphasizes the importance of developing reliable methods for estimating future source activity levels

as part ofthe SIP planning process. 14

We disagree with AIR's assertion that "EPA claims that the ARB has opted to take credit for the decrease inthe inventory in the attainment demonstration as 'a line-item adjustment to the baseline inventories.'" EPA stated in the 2011 Proposal TSD (pg. 18) that "California is reflecting these recession impacts as a line-item adjustment to the baseline inventories." This statement was incorrect and should have read thatEPA (notCARB) isreflecting the recession impacts as a line-item adjustment to the baseline inventories. EPA believes this adjustment is appropriate in light ofthe impact ofthese emissions changes on the baseline. We should have alsobeen clearer thatthe 2014 adjustments included the technical revisions to the inventory thatare discussed on page 19 ofthe 2011 Proposal TSD.

Finally, we note that although AIR objects categorically to the revisions to the projected emissions inventories based onCARB's revised economic forecasts, it provides no information to refute CARB's extensive documentation ofthe impact ofthe economic recession

12

See CARB, "ARB StaffAssessment ofthe Impact of theEconomy on California Trucking Activity and Emissions 2006-2014," draft December 2009, available in the docket for this rule.
Sources of economic data included California Department ofFinance, California Legislative Analyst's Office, California Energy Commission, UCLA Anderson School,Beacon Economics, University ofthe Pacific, Congressional Budget Office, and USEnergy Information Agency. Id.pp. 11-12.

13See "Emission Projections," STAPPA/ ALAPCO/EPA Emissions Inventory Improvement Project, Volume X (December 1999) at 1-1 (available at http://www.epa.govlttnchielleiipl techreport/volumelO/x01.pdfl.

14See "Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections," EPA Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-450/4-91-019 (July 1991) atp. 6 and section III. on air pollution generating activity. It also provides no information to refute CARB's non-recession related revisions
to the projected inventories.

B. Commentson theProposed Action on theAir Quality Modeling
Comment:Earthjustice and AIR
comment that CARB's emissions inventory update necessitates new attainment demonstration modeling. AIR alleges that EPA's 2011 Proposal TSD stated that updates should trigger

new modeling. AIR notes EPA's
statement in that TSD that the model underpredicts. In addition, AIR questions EPA's reliance on unreviewed model sensitivity results from CARB as the basis for not requiring new modeling. Earthjustice comments that the difficulty ofperforming new modeling is not a valid reason for approving an erroneous attainment demonstration. It adds that EPA's method for assessing the effect ofthe inventory update has the "obvious flaw" that it relies on design value changes to within hundredths ofa percent, starting from design values that
are, according to Earthjustice, acknowledged tobe erroneous.

Response:While some large emissions inventory changes might indeed necessitate new modeling, EPA does not agree that the inventory changes were large enough to substantially affectthe SJV modeling conclusions, or to invalidate the SJV attainment demonstration. As EPA stated in the 2011 Proposal TSD (p. 47), ideally new modeling wouldbe performed when an area's emissions inventory is changed. However, since the cost in time and

resources ofremodeling and consequent reworking ofa plan is nottrivial, administrative necessity requires a judgment call about when changes are large enough to merit new modeling; there is no automatic trigger. An important criterion in making this judgment is whether the changes would affect the conclusion that the plan's emissions reductions are adequate for attaining the NAAQS. Another consideration is the uncertainty inherent in modeling; although model results may be reported to several decimal places, model performance goals for fractional bias are typically in the range of 30 percent. Plan's Regional Model Performance Analysis, 15p.12, and EPA Guidance 16 Appendix B.

15The "Regional Model Performance Analysis" is

an appendix to the 2008 PM2.5Plan.

16

EPA "Guidance on the Use ofModels and
Other Analyses forDemonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals forthe 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze," April 2007. ("EPA Guidance"). Small changes in the emissions inventory could be in the range ofthe "noise" ofthe model. Thisis not to discount the importance ofan accurate emissions inventory, but rather to make the point that relatively small changes in inventory estimates do not necessarily invalidate amodel application. EPA finds that the 5-6 percent base year emissions decreases due to the inventory updates in this case

are relatively small.

EPA did assess the effect ofthe emissions inventory improvements on the attainment demonstration, using a procedure described in the 2011 Proposal TSD and other supporting documents. EPA did note in the 2011 Proposal TSD (p. 48) that the emissions update revealed some model bias. The model appears to be underpredicting (biasedlow): Its emissions inputs are

now known to be too high, so its predicted concentrations should have been higher, too. Modelbias is an important issue that modelers address in developing the model application for

a specific area and pollution episode, through testing and refinement ofa model's many inputs. The bias problem is somewhat ameliorated by the use of models in a relative sense via "relative reduction factors" (RRFs), as recommended in EPA Guidance (p. 20). The various influences that leadto model underestimation in the base year would also be expected to cause underestimation in the attainment year, and these tend to cancel outin the RRF ratio calculation used to project the future effect ofcontrols. In other words, the effect ofmodel bias isminimized when itis accounted for atboth end points, the base and attainment years. In

a similar vein, EPA assessed the effect ofthe emissions update onthe attainment demonstration, essentially by removing the bias revealed by the update from both the base year and the attainment year.' 7The bias was estimated by combining the emissions changes with an estimate ofmodel PM2.5 sensitivity per unitofemissions change. The effect ofremoving the bias bythis procedure was to increase predicted attainment year annual PM2. 5 design values by 1-2 percent. EPA finds that this is small enough to be considered

17This procedure is in some ways parallel to but
not the same as the RRF calculation and could be applied even ifthe model were notused in a relative sense. The inventory estimates the emissions reduction between the base and future
years. An RRF scales the monitored designvalue using the relative model response to a given emissions reduction estimate, inorder to account for that reduction. The procedure here scales the model's future predictions using model sensitivity, in order to account for changes inthe emissions reduction estimate.No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations

within the "noise" ofthe model and does not change the overall modeling conclusions. But even with this increase added in, the predicted concentrations
meet the NAAQS. This is a quantitative showing that the emissions updates are small enough that they do not invalidate the attainment demonstration.

As described in the 2011 Proposal TSD (section I.B), EPA reviewed the development ofthe model application, the procedures used to develop the model inputs, model testingmethods andperformance statistics, and the methods used to compute RRFs and attainment year PM2. 5 design values. EPA finds that CARB applied these methods appropriately, including to the sensitivity results andbelieves that these modeling inputs and RRF calculations were carried out as described by CARB. As aresult, we find that the sensitivity results provide a reasonable basis for assessing the effect ofthe inventory update onthe attainment demonstration.

EPA does not agree with Earthjustice that starting from the Plan's modeled design values and ending with small design value changes constitute flaws in the procedure for estimating the effect of the baseline inventory revisions. All modeling has uncertainty and bias including any new modeling that would be done using the updated emissions inventory estimates. Every modeling result is an approximation andis likely
to contain errors. Administrative necessity, therefore, requires ajudgment call about whether such problems are substantial enough to impact regulatory decisions. Modeling experts from regulatory agencies, academia, and consulting firms were involved in developing the SJV modeling. It underwent successful diagnostic testing and performs well. EPA finds that it continues to constitute an adequate basis for the attainment demonstration.

Further, EPA believes that the original modeling isbasically sound in howit portrays SJV atmospheric chemistry and transport and that results derived from model sensitivity tests are a reasonable approximation to what would result from new modeling with the updated inventory. EPA's procedure for estimating the effect ofthe inventory changes using model sensitivity results does make a number ofassumptions: Emissions changes are small enough that the model response is linear, model sensitivity is similar in the starting and ending years, and the spatial and temporal distribution ofemissions is little changed with the inventory update. EPA believes that these assumptions are reasonable and that the procedure itused provides strong evidence for the attainment demonstration's validity.

As for the smallness ofthe design value changes resulting fromthe procedure, EPA does not believe this is

a substantive issue. Anyprocedure (evennew modeling) that starts with small emissions changes will necessarily result in small design value changes. Within a small range, over which the chemistry does not shift fundamentally, ambient concentrations

are approximately proportional to emissions, by the law ofconservation of
matter. This isnot a case of an overly precise tiny number being added to a large erroneous random number,but rather of an adjustment ratio applied to

a number derived from extensive data and analysis. Some intermediate steps in the calculation procedure that EPA used to evaluate the emissions inventory change did involve tenths of

a percent (not hundredths as stated by the commenter), but this is largely an artifact ofshowing the procedure in multiple steps for comprehensibility. EPA could have done the calculation in

a single step to avoid this artifact. When modeling a 10 percent change in NOx emissions results in a design value change of 1.4 percent, a calculation using this model sensitivity result will necessarily involve fractions of 1 percent or less. In this case, the emissions inventory update involved a change in NOx emissions ofless than 10 percent, and thus, would also be expected to yield relatively small design value changes.
Comment:Earthjustice comments that

a simple screening analysis cannot substitute for an unmonitored area analysis, as itisinadequate to address the sharp ambient concentration gradients that occur in near-highway

areas.

Response:EPA agrees thatthe simple screening analysis in the Plan as originally submitted inJune 2008 is not

an adequate substitute for an unmonitored area analysis (UAA) and noted this deficiency in our November 2010 proposal. See 75 FR 74518, 74530. As noted in the 2011 proposal (76 FR 41388, 41348), CARB subsequently submitted a modeling supplement that included a UAA that follows EPA Guidance. See CARB modeling supplement, p. 139.18 The UAA led to the conclusion that there wouldnot be
any NAAQS violations at locations

1'Letter and enclosure, John DaMassa, Chief, Modeling and Meteorology Branch; California Air Resources Board,January 28, 2011 ("CARB modeling supplement"). away from monitors, and EPA has evaluated and accepted that conclusion.

As for whether the UAA itself adequately addresses the commenter's underlying concern about sharp concentration gradients, the EPA Guidance states:

"The unmonitored area analysis is intended tobe the primary means for identifying high PM 2. 5 concentrations outside oftraditionally monitored locations. * * * Based on the monitoring guidance, we believe that anunmonitored area analysis conducted at 12 km or finerresolution is sufficient to address unmonitored PM2. 5 for the annual NAAQS. Conducting the unmonitored analysis at 4 km or finer resolution will provide an evenmore detailed analysis of the spatial gradients of primary PM2.5, especiallywhen evaluating violations ofthe 24-hr. NAAQS."

This modeling guidance recommendations are consistent with the requirements ofthe EPA's PM 2.5 monitoring rules. The modeling guidance UAA spatial scale recommendations are intended to capture neighborhood scale and larger
areas, since the monitoring rules do not require micro or middle scale monitors for either the annual or 24-hr PM2.5 standards. CARB's UAA was conducted
ata resolution of4 km, so itis more detailed than EPA's recommended approach for UAA. In addition, it is intended for areas with alarge primary PM2.5 contribution (thatis, directly emitted rather than formed chemically

over time), and relying on local primary PM controls to reach attainment. EPA Guidance, p.100. By contrast, the attainment demonstration in the 2008 p.m.2.5 Plan mainly relies on area-wide control ofNOx, a PM2.5precursor, rather than on control oflocal primary PM2.5 . Comment:Earthjustice comments that air quality worsened after 2005 despite the economic downturn, so that new air quality modeling should be performed
to account for this upward trend.

Response:EPA did review the evaluation of air quality progress presented in the Plan and also independently examined air quality data. See 2011 Proposal TSD,p.6 and p.45. Air quality monitoring data is useful for a general understanding ofthe SJV's air quality problem, aswell as for

use in supplemental analyses that
accompany the modeled attainment demonstration. Downward trending emissions and ambient concentrations would tend to support the conclusion that the area is on track toward attainment ofthe NAAQS, although evaluation of such trends should
account for the particular location, time period, and air quality metric examined. In addition, overall trends maybe hard 69900 Federal Register/Vol. 76,

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations 69901

to discern given the year-to-year variability ofmeteorology and other factors.

The Plan used the data that was available at the time itwas developed, focusing on 2001-2006, for which the Plan's Weight ofEvidence analysis makes a strong case for air quality progress according to several metrics, including design value concentrations, frequency ofhigh concentrations, concentration ofPM2. 5 component species, and emissions. We conclude that these analyses adequately support the attainment demonstration. EPA also looked at a longer period, 2000-2010, and found that the slight PM2.5 concentration increase shown in the Plan for 2006 continued through 2008 and flattened in 2009. Although PM2.5 concentrations continued to improve in 2010, the Bakersfield area's annual and 24-hour PM2. 5 design values calculated from 2008-2010 data were the highest in the U.S. See 76 FR 41338, 41339. We note, however, that data over the longer time frame shows there has been substantial air quality progress over the past decade. See TSD, section I.B.1.

The concentration increases during 2006-2009 are not well understood but may have been partly a result of unfavorable meteorology during that time. District and CARB efforts to evaluate the effect ofmeteorology on air quality trends are under way. The higher values during thatperiod do weaken the case made inthe Plan's Weight ofEvidence analysis, which is a supplemental analysis to the attainment demonstration itself,but are not themselves grounds for disapproving the attainment demonstration or the Plan. Comment:Citing 40 CFR 51.1000 and 72 FR at 20600, Earthjustice asserts that attainment ofthe PM2. 5NAAQS by April 5, 2015 will require review of ambient data from 2012, 2013, and 2014. Earthjustice also asserts that the majority ofemissions reductions inthe Plan are delayed until 2014 and argues that modeling ambient concentration in 2014 does not provide an accurate picture ofwhat emissions will be in 2012 and 2013. Itfurther states that the modeling year mustbe adjusted to give

amore reasonable prediction ofwhat a 3-year average concentration from 2012- 2014 willbe since itis this concentration that will determine ifthe Valley has attained the PM2. 5 standards by the attainment date. Finally, Earthjustice asserts that the fact that the majority ofreductions are in 2014 violates the reasonable further progress requirement.

Response:We disagree with Earthjustice's assertion that the Plan delays the majority ofemissions reductions until 2014 and therefore fails
to satisfy RFP requirements. As explained in our amended proposal (76 FR 41338 at 41355-41357) and further in section II.H. ofthe TSD, the majority ofthe reductions needed for attainment

occur well before 2014. The Plan's RFP demonstration shows that more than 87 percent ofthe NOx, 80 percent ofthe PM2. 5 and allthe 

### SOx reductions needed for attainment will occur by 2012. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix C, p. 1. We explain further in section II.H. ofthe TSD our reasons for concluding that the 2008 PM2. 5 SIP provides for RFP consistent with the CAA and the PM2.5 implementation rule.19 We also explain in section lI.D. our reasons for concluding that the Plan demonstrates that all control measures needed for attainment ofthe 1997 PM2.5 standards will be in place as expeditiously as practicable and no later than the beginning of 2014, consistent with the CAA and 40 CFR 51.1007(b) (requiring "implementation ofall control measures needed for attainment as expeditiously

as practicable, but nolater thanthe beginning ofthe year prior to the attainment date"). See section II.G. and lI.D. ofthe TSD.

We also concluded thatthe attainment demonstration inthe Plan

was developed consistent with procedures in EPA's modeling guidance. In addition, to a degree the modeling procedures already reflect the expected continuing emissions decreases during the years before the attainment year. The monitored baseyear design value reflects an emissions decrease over the three years of 2004-2006, notjust the single 2005 emissions year. The projected designvalue reflects a modeled change to that monitored design value, so ittoo is consistent with

some decreases occurring over multiple years, notjustthe single year of2014.

Finally, we note that Earthjustice conflates the requirements governing EPA's action on an attainment demonstration under CAA section 172(c)(1) with those governing an attainment determination under CAA section 179(c). Earthjustice appears to

assume that a demonstration of attainment by April 5, 2015, requires a demonstration that the area will have air quality measurements at orbelow the levels ofthe standards three years prior
to that date. Thisis incorrect. An attainment determination under CAA 179(c) is a fact-based determination

19Clean AirFine Particulate Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z "PM 2. 5 implementation rule." made after the attainment date based on air quality monitoring data. 2 0 An attainment demonstration, on the other hand, is a predictive tool for assessing what air quality will be at a future time. An attainment demonstration is based

on air quality modeling showing that the projected design value ofthe relevant pollutant in attainment year will be at or below the level ofthe relevant ambient air quality standard. See 72 FR from 20605 to 20609.

Additionally, for a PM2. 5 nonattainment area subject only to the requirements of subpart 1 oftitle I, part D ofthe CAA, a State may demonstrate that in the attainment year, the area will have air quality such that the area could be eligible for the first oftwo one-year extensions allowed under CAA section 172(a)(2)(C). Under CAA section 172(a)(2)(C), an area that does nothave three years ofmonitored data demonstrating attainment ofthe PM2. 5 NAAQS but has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area inthe applicable SIP, and that has no more thanminimal number ofexceedances of the NAAQS in the attainment year, may receive a one-year extension ofits attainment date. Ifthe same conditions are met in the followingyear, the area may receive

an additional one-year extension. Should the SJV area qualify forboth of these extensions, the relevant 3-year period for determining whether the area has attained the PM2. 5NAAQS would be 2014-2016.21

Comment:Earthjustice comments that given the problems ithas described with the air quality modeling, the 9:1 NON to PM2.5relative effectiveness ratio cannot be used for transportation conformity or other purposes, unless itis supported with new modeling.

Response:EPA does not agree with Earthjustice that the modeling problems

are substantial enough to invalidate the 9:1 ratio for NON to direct PM2. 5 emissions trading in the transportation

20A determination ofattainment ofthe 1997
annual PM2.5standard is based on monitoring data that shows a 3-year average ofannual mean PM 2 .5 concentrations ofless than 15 microgram per cubic
meter (p/m3), and a determination ofthe attainment ofthe 1997 24-hour PM2.5standard is based on monitoring data that shows the 3-year average of 98th percentile 24-hour concentrations is less than
65 /M 3

. See 40 CFR 50.7.

21EPA has long interpreted analogous provisions
for ozone nonattainment areas in CAA sections 181(a)(5) and 182(c)(2) inthis same manner. See Brief ofRespondents, EPA, in SierraClub, eta]. v. U.S.EPA, eta.,Case Nos. 10-71457 and 10-71458 (consolidated), May 5, 2011; see alsoEnvironmental Defensev. U.S .EPA, 369 F.3d 193 (2nd Cir. 2004) (denying petition forreview ofEPA's approval of New York's 1-hour ozone attainment plan based on, interalia,EPA's reasonable interpretation ofthe extension provision in CAA section 181(a)(5)).No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations

conformity context. As discussed above, EPA believes that the modeling is basically sound, including the model's (relative) sensitivity to emissions changes. There is no established method for determining trading ratios in conformity, but as discussed inthe 2011 Proposal TSD (p.148),EPA finds that the model sensitivity-based method used by CARB for determining an equivalency or relative effectiveness ratio is adequate for assessing the effect ofarea-wide emissions changes, such as

are used in conformity budgets. The method modeled "across the board" emissions changes over the entire modeling domain; emissions considered in transportation conformity are also domain-wide. Trading in other contexts could involve additional consideration ofspatial and temporal variation ofthe emissions, and would require an additional technical demonstration by the State and evaluation by EPA. EPA is
not approving the trading ratio for any other purpose than in conformity budgets.

C. Commentson theIdentificationof PM2
. 5 AttainmentPlanPrecursors
Comment:Earthjustice comments that EPA should rely on the November 2010 proposal's technical demonstration that VOC should be considered a PM2.5plan precursor and should disapprove the Plan for its failure to address control of VOC emissions. The commenter states that EPA reversed its earlier VOC finding without receiving any new credible evidence on the issue.

Response:The PM2.5 implementation rule establishes a presumption that VOC is not a PM2.5plan precursor requiring controls. See 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3). This presumption maybe overturned ifeither EPA or the State provides an appropriate technical demonstration showing that VOC emissions from

sources in the State significantly contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area. See40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3)(i) and (ii). The preamble to the implementation rule suggests various analyses that could be part of such a demonstration, such as emissions inventory, speciation data, modeling information, or other special studies. But the preamble isnot prescriptive on required technical demonstrations, and neither the preamble nor the rule defines "significantly." Under the rule, excluding VOC as an attainment plan precursor does not require a showing that VOC controls are ineffective or counterproductive. Rather, since VOCis already excluded by presumption, the lack ofa clear showing that VOC controls are effective is sufficient forit
to remain excluded. For the November 2011 proposal, EPA reviewed various monitoring and modeling studies on the role ofVOC as

a PM2. 5precursor in the SJV. EPA proposed to find that these studies constitute a technical demonstration that VOC is a PM2. 5 attainment plan
precursor, and used that as a basis to propose disapproval ofthe Plan, which lacks VOC controls.

Earthjustice correctly notes that CARB did not submit any new study results
persein response to our 2010 proposal but rather reinterpretation ofthe same modeling studies that EPA had already examined. Forthe 2011 proposal, EPA reviewed and accepted several of CARB's arguments made in its VOC supplement."2 CARB notedthe importance ofconsidering simultaneous VOC and NON reductions, a more realistic scenario than VOC-only or NOx-only reductions, given the various controls that are already in place for the

ozone plan. The only study to consider simultaneous reductions found a disbenefit from VOC control, while NON control continued tobe beneficial. CARB discounted one study that had found VOC control to be beneficial by noting that ithad used artificially doubled VOC emissions in order to perform reasonably well at predicting PM2. 5.For another study, CARB pointed
out some features ofthe multi-day model response to VOC reductions that

are inconsistent with the photochemical VOC pathway to PM2.5 formation and that the benefits from VOC reduction

were seen only at high PM2.5 concentrations thatare seldom seen today.

EPA found these arguments persuasive enough to raise questions about the efficacy ofVOC controls for reducing PM2.5levels in the SJV. Even setting aside the concern that VOC control could worsen PM2.5 concentrations in some circumstances, EPA finds that the evidence ofthe effectiveness ofVOC controls is at this time not clear enough to overcome the presumption in the PM2. 5 implementation rule that VOC should
not be an attainment planprecursor. However, EPA alsobelieves itis important thatreductions ofVOC, ammonia, and other PM2.5precursors be

more thoroughly explored with realistic model sensitivity and other analyses as

2 2Letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Frances Wicher, Office ofAir Planning, EPA Region 9, January 28, 2011, Attachment 4, "Air Resources Boardcomments on U.S. EPA's November 30, 2010 proposal that VOC be considered a significant PM2.5 Precursor for the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5State Implementation Plan (SIP)." ("CARB VOC supplement"). part offuture modeling efforts in the
SJV.

In its comment letter, Earthjustice also included additional information in favor ofVOC as a precursor. We have reviewed this information (which mainly duplicates information EPA has already reviewed) and concluded that it does not provide sufficient grounds to

reverse the presumption that VOC is not

aPM2.5 attainment plan precursor in the SJV. Our complete analysis of Earthjustice's information canbe found in the response to comments section (sectionIII.D.) ofthe TSD.

D. Comments on theProposed Action on theReasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably AvailableControl TechnologyDemonstration

Comment:Earthjustice asserts that EPA must disapprove the Plan's RACM/ RACT demonstration because many of the rules that the District andCARB rely

onhave not been approved as satisfying RACT requirements. Earthjustice also
states that the demonstration fails to address VOC controls or to provide adequate air quality modeling documentation. Finally, Earthjustice
asserts that several ofthe rules intended
to provide the majority ofNON andPM reductions from stationary sources in the Valley were adopted with substantially weakened controls from what was anticipated during plan development and will now provide only

afraction ofwhat is needed to bring the

area into attainment by 2014.

Response:Section 172(c)(1) ofthe CAA requires that each attainment plan "provide for the implementation ofall reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including suchreductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, ofreasonably available control technology), and shall provide for attainment ofthe national primary ambient air quality standards." For over 30years, EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require that States adopt only those "reasonably available" measures necessary for expeditious attainment and to meet RFP requirements. 40 CFR 51.1010; seealso 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979) (Part D of title I ofthe CAA "does not require that all sources apply RACM ifless than all RACM will suffice for [RFP] and attainment"); 57 FR 13498 at 13560 (April 16, 1992) ("where measures that might in fact be available for implementation in the nonattainment

area could notbe implemented on a schedule that would advance the date for attainment in the area, EPA would
not consider it reasonable to require 69902 Federal Register/Vol. 76,Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations 69903

implementation ofsuch measures"); "Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas," November 30, 1999 (1999 Seitz Memo) (a State mayjustify rejection of

ameasure as not "reasonably available" for that area based on technological or economic grounds); and 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005) at 71661 (noting that States "need adopt measures only ifthey are both economically and technologically feasible and will advance the attainment date or are necessary for RFP"). EPA's interpretation ofsection 172(c)(1) has been upheld by several courts. See, e.g., SierraClubv. EPA, et aL., 294 F. 3d 155 (DC Cir. 2002); SierraClubv. EPA, 314 F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 2002).

Under the PM2. 5 implementation rule
at 40 CFR 51.1010, a RACM demonstration must include "the list of the potential measures considered by the State, and information and analysis sufficient to support the State's judgment that it has adopted all RACM, including RACT." 40 CFR 51.1010(a). In addition, "[p]otential measures that are reasonably available considering technical and economic feasibility must be adopted as RACM if,considered collectively, they would advance the attainment date by one year or more." As explained in the preamble to the PM2.5 implementation rule, Congress provided EPA and States broad discretion to determine what measures to include in an attainment plan, and the language in section 172(c)(1) requiring only "reasonably available"

measures and implementation ofthese

measures "as expeditiously as practicable" indicates that Congress intended for the RACT/RACM requirement tobe driven by an overall requirement that the measure be "reasonable." 72 FR 20586 at 20610 (April 25, 2007). Thus, the rule of "reason" drives the decisions on what controls to apply, what should be controlled, by when emissions must be reduced, and finally, the rigor required in a State's RACT/RACM analysis. See id. States may, as part of aRACM analysis, consider the costs ofpotential control measures and whether the

measures can be readily and effectively implemented without undue administrative burden. Seeid. (citing55 FR 38327 and 66 FR 26969).

As a threshold matter, we note that VOC controls are not a required element ofthe RACM demonstration inthe 2008 PM2.5 Planbecause EPA agrees with the State's determination that VOCs are not attainment plan precursors for purposes ofthe 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area. See 76 FR at 41343 (citing 40 CFR 51.1002(c) and 51.1010) and our responses to comments on attainment plan precursors, in section II.C. above. Second, as to air quality modeling documentation, we explain in section lI.B. above in our responses to comments on the air quality modeling

our reasons for concluding that the modeling in the 2008PM 2.5 Plan adequately supports the Plan's RACM and attainment demonstration.

Third, as to Earthjustice's assertions about RACT, we note that although CAA section 182(b)(2) requires States to implement RACT for specific types of

sources in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above, there is

no specific RACT control mandate for PM2. 5purposes that applies to specific

sources in PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Rather, under the PM2.5 implementation rule, RACT and RACM are those

measures that a state finds are both reasonably available and contribute to attainment as expeditiously as practicable in the specific nonattainment area. See 76FR at41343 (citing40 CFR 51.1010 and 72 FR 20586
at 20612). EPA has, therefore, evaluated the collection ofreasonably available control measures that CARB and the District have adopted and submitted with the attainment demonstration in the 2008 PM2. 5 Plan to meet the RACM/ RACT requirement in CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1010. See 76FR 41338 at 41343-41346 and 2011 Proposal TSD at section lI.D.

Finally, as to the specific NOx and PM control options that Earthjustice
asserts should also be required as RACM, we have considered whether these additional control options are reasonably available for implementation in SJV considering technical and economic feasibility, and as to those

measures that are potentially reasonable, whether they would considered collectively would advance the attainment date in the SJVby one year or more. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the control options identified by Earthjustice are not required RACM for purposes ofthe 1997 PM 2. 5 NAAQS in the SJV area. Comment:Earthjustice states that EPA should not approve Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) as RACT because there isnojustification for the District's decision to exclude control requirements for under-fired charbroilers (UFC)from the rule. In support ofthis assertion, Earthjustice states, among other things, that: (1) SJVUAPCD had initially found certain control options for UFC units to be costeffective and that its later revisions to these cost estimates in response to comments were based on inappropriate criteria, such as its "10 percent ofthe industry's profits" test; (2)that BAAQMD's adoption ofUFC control requirements in 2007 indicates that such controls are considered feasible; and (3)thatSJVUAPCD's failure to control UFCs means that PM emissions reductions from this rule are reduced from more than 2tons per day (tpd)to just 0.02 tpd.

Response:EPA recently determined that Rule 4692 satisfied applicable CAA requirements and fully approved the rule into the SJV portion ofthe California SIP.23 See 76 FR 38340 (June 30, 2011) (proposed rule) and "Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District" final rule, pre-publication notice signed September 30, 2011 (Rule 4692). As part ofthat action, EPA reviewed the District's evaluation of potential UFC controls and concurred with the District's conclusion that those controls are not reasonably available for implementation in the SJV area at this time, considering technological and economic feasibility (see EPA'sJune 9, 2011 Proposal TSD at pp. 4-5). Given EPA's long-standing position that States
mayjustify rejection ofcertain control

measures as not "reasonably available" based on economic grounds (among others), we believe that itis appropriate for the District to consider the cost of controls at sources actually located within the specific area to determine if they are economically feasible with respect to those sources. Although we do not endorse the District's use ofa "10 percent ofthe industry's profit" test for economic feasibility, we agree with the District's conclusion that UFC controls

are not economically feasible based on the facts and circumstances relatedto actual cost ofthose controls in the SJV

area. For the reasons stated in our separate proposed and final rules on Rule 4692, we conclude inthis final action on the 2008 PM2. 5 Plan that Rule 4692 requires all RACM for charbroilers in SJV, and that the additional controls for UFC identified by Earthjustice are not required RACM for purposes ofthe 2008 PM 2.5 Plan because they are not

23As explained inour June 30, 2011 proposal to

approve Rule 4692 (76 FR 38340), the specific

ozone RACT requirement in CAA section 182(b)(2) does not apply to thisrule because there are no Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) documents for this source category and no major sources ofNOx

or VOC subject to this rule in the SJV area. See 76 FR at 38341. We therefore interpret the commenters' reference to RACT as referring to the general requirement forreasonably available control

measures (including RACT for stationary sources) in CAA section 172(c)(1). See 40CFR 51.1010.No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations

reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. Comment:Earthjustice asserts that Rule 4103 (OpenBurning) achieves far less than what was anticipated in the Plan, and that the District had inappropriately relied on the 10 percent ofprofits test to exemptfrom control the three largest source categories ofNOx, PM, and VOC covered bythe Rule. Earthjustice asserts that this resulted in foregone emissions reductions of 1,030 tpy NOx, 1,262 tpy PM2. 5 and 1,138 tpy VOC.

Response:EPA recently determined that Rule 4103 satisfied applicable CAA requirements and fully approved the rule into the SJV portion ofthe California SIP. See 76 FR 40660 (July 11, 2011) (proposed rule) and "Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, SanJoaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District;" final rule, pre-publication notice signed September 30, 2011 (Rule 4103)). As part ofthat action, EPA reviewed the District's evaluation ofthe postponements of certain burning prohibitions for certain agricultural crop categories and concurred with the District's conclusion that alternatives to openburning for these crop categories are not reasonably available for implementation in the SJV

area at this time, considering technological and economic feasibility (see, e.g., EPA's June 2011 TSD at pp. 5-7). For the reasons stated in those separate proposed and final rules on Rule 4103, we conclude inthis final action on the 2008 PM2. 5 Plan that Rule 4103 requires all RACM for open burning in SJV, and that the additional controls identified by Earthjustice are not required RACM for purposes ofthe 2008 PM2.5 Plan because they are not reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. Comment:Earthjustice stated that SJVUAPCD added a contingency provision to Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters) stating that, should the Valley failto attain the 1997 PM2. 5 standards bythe attainment date, the PM2. 5 concentration triggering a mandatory wood burning curtailment wouldbe lowered from 30 to 20 gg/m 3

.Earthjustice contends that, given the underperformance ofother SJVUAPCD rules, this "contingency" should be adopted nowto achieve additional reductions before the attainment date.

Response:EPA determined that Rule 4901 satisfied applicable CAA requirements and fully approved the rule into the SJV portion ofthe California SIP. See 74 FR 57907 (November 10, 2009). As part ofthat action, EPA reviewed the District's evaluation ofavailable controls and concluded that Rule 4901 requires implementation ofBest Available Control Measures under CAA section 189(b) for particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM-10)in the SJV area. This conclusion was based in part on

our finding that SJV's 30 gg/m 3
threshold for mandatory wood burning curtailment ismore stringent than the 35 gg/m 3threshold adopted in other

areas such as Sacramento, South Coast and Bay Area. See SJVUAPCD, "Final Draft StaffReport, Proposed Amendments to Rule 4901 "Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters," October 16, 2008, at pp. 5-6.

Earthjustice has provided no information to support an argument that reducing the threshold for mandatory wood burning curtailment in the SJV from 30 to 20 gg/m 3is a "reasonably available" control measure, nor any information to support an argument that such a measure would, individually or in combination with other reasonable
measures, advance attainment of the 1997 PM2. 5 standards in the SJV by at least ayear. We have, nonetheless, evaluated in the section entitled "Evaluation ofpotential to advance attainment" below the additional PM emissions reductions that could be achieved by implementing a mandatory wood burning curtailment at a 20 gg/m 3
threshold (1.6 tons per winter average day, see 76 FR at 41358) to determine whether this measure could, in combination with other potentially reasonable measures, advance attainment in the SJV area. Comment:Earthjustice asserts that the exemption in Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces) for furnaces that actually emit less than 8 tonsper year ofNOx orVOC (butare located at major sources) is "illegal" because the CAA requires that RACT be implemented for all major

sources. Earthjustice states that this exemption cost the Valley 1.6 tons per day ofSOx reductions and 2.9 tons per day ofPM reductions. Earthjustice also
states that the District had adopted a previous version ofRule 4354 that had earlier compliance deadlines than the version EPA ultimately approved into the SIP. Earthjustice asserts thatthe District should have removed the exemption for small furnaces at large facilities and should not have delayed compliance requirements, and that "it is unacceptable for the District to forego any emissions reductions in the years leading up to attainment."

Response:EPA recently determined that Rule 4354 satisfied applicable CAA requirements and fully approved the rule into the SJVportion ofthe California SIP. 24 See 76FR 53640 (August 29, 2011). As part ofthat action,

we determined that the VOC and NOx emission limits in Rule 4354 meet the CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f)RACT requirements for major sources ofVOC and NOx. The compliance schedule for NOx and VOC limits in the SIPapproved rule requires implementation of all technologically and economically feasible controls byJanuary 2014. See SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, "Proposed Amendments to Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces)," August 19, 2010, atpp. 10-12. We conclude, therefore, that this rule implements all VOC and NOx controls that are reasonably available for this source category in the SJV. We did not fully evaluate in that action the stringency of the rule's requirements for SOx and PM10 emissions, as there isno specific RACT control mandate for SOx or PM10 purposes that necessarily applies to

sources covered bythis rule.25We disagree with Earthjustice's assertion that the exemption from the SOx and PM10 limits for certain furnaces that actually emit less than 8 tpy ofVOC or NOx (see Rule 4354, section 4.3) is "illegal," as the CAA does not establish

a specific RACT control mandate for major sources ofSOx or PMo. Under CAA section 172(c)(1), however, the State/District are required to adopt all RACM necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet RFP requirements. 40 CFR 51.1010. Given the need for substantial NOx and PM2. 5 emissions reductions in the SJV to meet both the 1997 PM2
. 5 standards and the

more stringent 2006 PM2. 5 standardby the applicable attainment dates, we encourage the SJVUAPCD toreevaluate the PM10 control requirements in Rule 4354 and to adopt, as expeditiously as practicable, any additional PMo and PM2.5 control requirements that are reasonably available for implementation in the Valley. For purposes ofthe 2008 PM2.5 Plan, additional PM control requirements for glass melting facilities

24As explained inour June 30, 2011 proposal to
approve Rule 4692 (76 FR 38340), the specific

ozone RACT requirement in CAA section 182(b)(2) does not apply to thisrule because there are no Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) documents for this source category and no major sources ofNOx

or VOC subject to this rule in the SJV area. See 76 FR at 38341. We therefore interpret the commenters' reference to RACT as referring to the general requirement forreasonably available control

measures (including RACT for stationary sources) in CAA section 172(c)(1). See 40CFR 51.1010.

25The CAA requires implementation ofRACT at
any major source ofNOx orVOC in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see CAA 182(b)(2)(C) and 182(f)) but does not contain such a major source RACT control mandate for SOx orPM purposes. 

### 69904 Federal Register/Vol. 76,Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations 69905

may, upon SIP approval, be credited toward the District's remaining enforceable commitments. See 76 FR at 41354, Table 8.

Earthjustice asserts that the exemption in Rule 4354 for furnaces emitting less than 8 tpy ofNON orVOC
cost the Valley 1.6 tons per day of SOx reductions and 2.9 tonsper day ofPM reductions. For purposes ofthe 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the foregone 

### SOx emissions reductions do not affect the RACM and attainment demonstration because SJV has exceeded its target level of SOx reductions needed for attainment. See 76 FR at 41354, Table 8. As to PM, we have evaluated the additional emissions reductions that Earthjustice claims could have been achieved from glass melting facilities 26 in our evaluation below ofthe potential for such additional controls, in combination with otherpotential control options, to advance attainment ofthe 1997 PM2. 5 standards in the SJV. See section "Evaluation ofpotential to advance attainment" below. Comment:Earthjustice states that EPA recently rejected all ofthe NON emission limits in Rule 4352 (Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters) for failing to satisfy RACT and asserts that substantial NON reductions could be achieved ifthe District amended this rule to meet the stringent limits in place in other areas ofthe Country.

Response:Earthjustice correctly notes that EPA recently disapproved all ofthe NON emission limits in Rule 4352 based

on our conclusion that the District had failed to adequately demonstrate that these limits satisfy CAA section 182 RACT requirements. See 75 FR 60623 (October 1, 2010). Earthjustice did not provide any specific information about additional control measures that are reasonably available, nor has itprovided information about the amount of emissions reductions that might be achieved by such controls. We have, however, developed aconservative (high)estimate ofthe additional NOx reductions that could be achieved under this rule ifthe emission limits are strengthened. We developed this estimate based on the NON emission limits in the SIP-approved version of Rule 4352, the emissions attributed in the 2008 PM2. 5plan to solid fuel-fired boilers, steam generators, and process heaters in the SJV, emissions data from existing solid fuel-fired boilers in the SJV, and technical information about

26

Forthis assessment, we use Earthjustice's

estimate ofthe foregone PMreductions and assume conservatively that all such PM reductions are PM2.5 reductions. available control options from EPA's 1994 Alternative Control Techniques Document for NON Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers, U.S. EPA 453/R-94-022 (1994 Boiler ACT). Based on this information,

we have conservatively estimated that

more stringent control requirements for solid fuel-fired boilers, steam generators, and process heaters in SJV could achieve an additional 3.16 tpd of NON reductions.27 Comment:Earthjustice states that EPA's proposal fails to address the fact that the RACM/RACT analysis "does
not include reasonable controls for condensable [PM 2.5 ] emissions" and contains no discussion of such controls. Earthjustice references 40 CFR 51.1002(c) to support its assertion that "[t]he transition period allowing agencies to ignore controls on condensable emissions ended on January 1, 2011," and also quotes EPA's
statement in the preamble to the PM2. 5 implementation rule (72 FR at 20652) that "[w]e expect States to address the control of direct PM2. 5 emissions, including condensables with any new actions taken after January 1,2011." Earthjustice asserts that EPA must disapprove the RACM demonstration for failure to assess reasonably available controls on condensable emissions.

Response:EPA's PM2. 5 implementation rule states that "[a]fter January 1, 2011, for purposes of establishing emission limits under 51.1009 and 51.1010, States must establish such limits takinginto consideration the condensable fraction of direct PM2. 5 emissions." 40 CFR 51.1002(c). Prior to this date, the rule required that nonattainment area SIPs identify and evaluate sources ofPM2. 5 direct emissions and PM2. 5 attainment plan precursors as part ofthe RFP and RACM/RACT demonstrations but did
not specifically require states to address condensable PM2. 5.See id.28Because the attainment, RFP and RACM demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan

were adopted on May 22, 2008 (see76 FR at 41340), California was not required to address condensable PM in establishing the emission limits contained in these demonstrations as originally submitted, or in adopting any other PM emission limits under40 CFR sections 51.1009 and 51.1010 prior to January 1, 2011. Consistent with these

27Documentation ofthis estimate can be found in
the TSD, section III.E.

28See alsoLetter dated April 25, 2011, from Lisa
P. Jackson, EPA, to Paul Cort, Earthjustice, denying Petition for Reconsideration with respect to the deferral ofthe requirement to establish emission limits for condensable particulate matter (CPM) until January 1, 2011. requirements, EPA has evaluated the RFP and RACM demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and concluded that these elements ofthe Plan appropriately address all sources ofdirect PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 attainment plan
precursors (S0 2 and NOx)in the SJV. See 76 FR 41338 at 41343.29

The 2008 PM2. 5 Plan relies on several rules regulating direct PM 2.5 emissions

as part ofthe PM2. 5 control strategy (e.g., Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling, adopted 9/17/09), Rule 4103 (Open Burning, adopted 4/15/10), Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces, adopted 9/16/ 10) and Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters, adopted 10/16/08)) as well as rules controlling NON and SOx emissions. See 2011 Proposal TSD at Tables F-2, F-3, and F-4. Ofthe rules that control direct PM2.5 emissions, onlytwo establish emission limits for particulate matter (Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) and Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces)). EPA has notyet acted on any District rule adopted or revised after January 1, 2011 thatregulates direct PM2.5 emissions. As part of our action

on any such rule, we will evaluate the emission limits in the ruleto ensure that they appropriately address CPM as required by40 CFR 51.1002(c). We note that the revised version ofRule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) that EPA has recently proposed to approve (see 76FR 38340 (June 30, 2011)) requires testing in accordance with the SCAQMD Protocol, which requires measurement ofboth condensable and filterable PM in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Test Method 5.1.30 We also
note that the SIP-approved version of Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces) requires testing for condensable PM emissions using EPA Method 202. See 76 FR 53640 (August 29, 2011).

29In our proposedrule, we noted that the
SJVUAPCD has deferred limits for CPM in itsrules but that this limited deferral does not affect the Plan's RACM/RACT and expeditious attainment demonstrations. 76 FR 41338 at 41342, n. 12. We also noted that we would evaluate any PM2.5 rule adopted or revised by theDistrict after January 1, 2011 to assure that it appropriately addresses CPM. See id.

30See SCAQMD Protocol, Determination of
Particulate andVolatile OrganicCompound Emissions FromRestaurantOperations, November 14, 1997 (available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/R91 R9Testmethod.nsf03D4DEB4D21AB4AAF8825 70ADOOaDFF69/$file/SC%2oRest%20emiss.pdf) and SCAQMD Test Method 5.1, Determinationof
Particulate MatterEmissionsFrom Stationary Sources Usinga Wet ImpingementTrain,March 1989 (available athttp://aqmd.govltaolmethodsl stmlstm-005-1.pdf).No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations

Evaluation ofPotential to Advance Attainment

Table E-2 ofour 2011 Proposal TSD indicates that to advance attainment of the 1997 PM2. 5 standards in the SJVby

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

area would need an additional 15.6 tpd ofNOxreductions and an additional 3.9 tpd ofdirect PM2.5reductions. These figures represent the difference between the 2013 "controlled inventory" andthe 2014 "NOx emissions level needed for PM2.5 attainment." See 2011 Proposal TSD at Table E-2 (pg.80).3' The 2013 "controlled inventory" figures were based onthe District's expected emissions reductions from individual

measures as identified in the 2008 PM2. 5 Plan. See Plan at pp. 6-11 and 6-12 (Table 6-3).32 Following adoption of these measures, however, the District updated its estimates ofthe emissions reductions associated with several of these measures. See 2011 Proposal TSD
at Table F-4 (pg. 91). Based onthese updated estimates ofthe reductions associated with specific control
measures, which alter the 2013 "controlled inventory" estimates, we have re-calculated the amount ofPM2. 5 reductions needed to advance attainment by one year as 6.4 tpd.33

As discussed above, with respect to Rule 4692 (Charbroiling) and Rule 4103 (OpenBurning), we have concluded that the additional PM emissions control options that Earthjustice identified are not reasonably available considering economic and technical feasibility. Therefore, these potential control

measures are not required RACM for
purposes ofthe 1997 PM2.5 standards in the Valley. With respect to Rule 4901 (WoodBurning), Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces), and Rule 4352 (Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers), we assume for purposes ofthis analysis that additional control options are reasonably available for implementation inthe SJV. We therefore evaluate whether the

31

ForNOx, 15.6 tpdrepresents the difference between the 2013 "controlled inventory" (306.8 tpd) and the 2014 "NOx emissions level needed for PM2.5attainment" (291.2 tpd). For PM2.5,3.9 tpd represents the difference between the 2013 "controlled inventory" (67.2 tpd) and the 2014
"Direct PM2.5emissions level needed for PM2.5 attainment" (63.3 tpd).

32

Forexample, the 2013 "controlled inventory"
for PM2.5(67.2 tpd)is the sum ofthe expected emissions reductions from four PM2.5control

measures identified in Table F-2. See 2011 Proposal TSD at Table E-2 (pg. 87).

33

The updates to the PM2.5emissions reduction estimates reduced the creditable reductions from 6.7 tpd to 4.2 tpd,which in turn increased the 2013 "controlled inventory" from 67.2 tpd to 69.7 tpd. 6.4 tpd is the difference between the updated 2013 "controlled inventory" (69.7 tpd) and the 2014 "Direct PM2.5emissions level needed for PM2.5 attainment" (63.3 tpd). emissions reductions from these additional control options would, collectively, advance attainment ofthe 1997 PM2. 5 standards in the SJV by at least one year. Our estimate ofthe total reductions of direct PM2.5that could be achieved by the potential control options for wood burning (1.6 tpd) and glass melting furnaces (2.9 tpd)identified by Earthjustice is4.5 tpd. As to NOx reductions, although Earthjustice did
not provide any estimate ofthe reductions that could be achieved by

more stringent requirements for solid fuel-fired boilers, steam generators, and process heaters, we have conservatively estimated that such controls could result in an additional 3.12 tpd ofNOx reductions from existing emissions units in the SJV. These combined emissions reductions (4.5 tpd of direct PM2. 5 and 3.12 tpd ofNOx) are significantly lower than the total reductions necessary to advance attainment by one year in the SJV (6.4 tpd of direct PM2. 5 and 15.6 tpd ofNOx). Therefore, even assuming that additional control options for these three source categories are reasonably available for implementation in the SJV, they are not required RACM for
purposes ofthe 1997 PM2. 5 standards because they would not advance the attainment date in SJVby at least one year. See 40 CFR 51.1010(b).

Conclusion on RACM Demonstration

For all ofthese reasons and as discussed in our proposed rule (76 FR 41338) and 2011 Proposal TSD,we conclude that the 2008 PM2. 5 Plan includes all RACM (includingRACT for stationary sources) necessary for RFP and expeditious attainment ofthe 1997 PM2. 5 standards in the SJV and, therefore, satisfies the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1010.

E. Comments on theProposed Actions

on the ControlStrategyandEnforceable Commitments

1.Baseline Measures

Comment:Earthjustice and AIR assert that the baseline inventories are flawed because they include emissions reduction credit from both "waiver measures" and "non-waiver measures" adopted before December 2006 (together referred to as "baseline measures") that have not been approved intothe SIP, and that the inclusion ofcredit forthese baseline measures undermines the attainment andprogress demonstrations attached to these inventories. For example, both commenters object to the inclusion ofcredit for CARB's antiidling requirements in the baseline inventories because these requirements have never been submitted for SIP approval, and Earthjustice suggests that EPA should have adjusted the credit for these anti-idling requirements based on CARB's failure to enforce them. Both
commenters assert that EPA has not specifically evaluated thesebaseline

measures to determine how they should be credited in the baseline inventories, and Earthjustice asserts that the

measures upon which the attainment andprogress demonstrations rely must be enforceable, creditable controls approved into the SIP subject to the CAA's anti-backsliding provisions.

In addition,based on information provided in Table 7 ofthe 2011 Proposal and tables F-7 and F-9 ofthe 2011 Proposal TSD, AIR provides its

own calculations ofthe total amount of emissions reduction credits attributed to baseline measures and requests that EPA confirm the accuracy ofAIR's calculations.

Finally, AIR asserts that these additional "non-waiver" baseline

measures should also be SIP-approved:

* Heavy Duty Diesel Chip Reflash (adoptedMarch 27, 2004);

* Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operatedby Public Agencies and Utilities (adopted December 8, 2005);

* Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule (adoptedSeptember 24, 2003);

* Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment (adoptedMay 26, 2006);

* Pesticides-Field Fumigant Limits (submittedto EPA October 12, 2009).

Response:We disagree that there is
any inadequacy in the emissions projections thatundermines the RACM, RFP or attainment demonstrations in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. We explained in our 2011 proposal (76 FR 41338 at 41342, 41343) our reasons for concluding both that the 2005 base year inventory inthe
2008 PM 2.5 Plan is comprehensive, accurate, and current as required by CAA section 172(c)(3) and that the projected baseline inventories for 2009, 2012 and 2014 provide adequate bases for the RACM, RFP and attainment demonstrations in the Plan.

With respect to mobile source emissions, we believe that credit for emissions reductions from implementation ofCalifornia mobile

source rules that are subject to CAA section 209 waivers ("waiver measures") is appropriate notwithstanding the fact that such rules

are not approved as part ofthe California SIP. In the TSD supporting

our 2011 proposal, we explained why

we believe such credit is appropriate. See 2011 Proposal TSD at section 

### 69906 Federal Register/Vol. 76,

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations 69907

II.F.4.a.i. Historically, EPA has granted credit for the waiver measures because ofspecial Congressional recognition, in establishing the waiver process inthe first place, ofthe pioneering California
motor vehicle control program and because amendments to the CAA (in 1977) expanded the flexibility granted
to California in order "to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health ofits citizens and the public welfare" (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977)). In allowing California to take credit for the waiver measures notwithstanding the fact that the underlying rules are not part ofthe California SIP, EPA treated the waiver measures similarly to the Federal motorvehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed States to credit in their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision.

EPA's historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motor-vehicle-related waiver measures by allowing California
to include motorvehicle emissions estimates made by using California's EMFAC (andits predecessors) motor vehicle emissions factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reductions from motor-vehicle-related waiver measures through review and approval ofEMFAC, which isupdated from time to timeby California to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly-established emissions standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA's motor vehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as MOVES. 3 4 )
The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan was developed using a version ofthe EMFAC model referred to as EMFAC2007, which EPA has approved for use in SIP development in California. See 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). Thus, the emissions reductions that are from the California on-road "waiver measures" and that are estimated through use of EMFAC are as verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied uponby
states other than California in developing their SIPs based on estimates ofmotorvehicle emissions made through the use ofthe MOVES model. All other states use the MOVES model (and prior torelease ofMOVES, the MOBILE model) in their baseline inventories without submitting the federal motor vehicle regulations for incorporation into their SIPs.

Similarly, emissions reductions that

are from California's waiver measures for non-road engines and vehicles (e.g.,

3 4 MOVES replaced the MOBILE model as EPA's on-road mobile source emissions estimation model for use in SIPs and conformity in 2010. agricultural, construction, lawn and garden and off-road recreation equipment) are estimated through use of CARB's OFFROAD emissions factor model. 35 (Emissions reductions from EPA's non-road engine and vehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as NONROAD). Since 1990, EPA has treated California nonroad standards for which EPA has issued waivers in the same manner as California motorvehicle standards, i.e., allowing credit for standards subject to the waiver process withoutrequiring submittal ofthe standards as part ofthe SIP. In so doing, EPA has treated the California non-road standards similarly
to the Federal non-road standards, which are relied upon,but notincluded in, various SIPs. See generally 2011 Proposal TSD at section II.F.4.a.i.

CARB's EMFAC and OFFROAD models employ complex routines that predict vehicle fleetturnover byvehicle model years and include control algorithms that account for all adopted regulatory actions which, when combined with the fleet turnover algorithms, provide future baseline projections. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 7-8. For stationary
sources, the California Emissions Forecasting System (CEFS) projects future emissions from stationary and

area sources (inaddition to aircraft and ships) using a forecasting algorithm that applies growth factors and control profiles to the baseyear inventory.36 See id. at 7.The CEFS model integrates the projected inventories for both stationary and mobile sources into a single database to provide a comprehensive statewide forecast inventory, from which nonattainment area inventories

are extracted for use in establishing future baseline planning inventories. Seeid. In 2011, CARB updated the baseline emissions projections for several source categories to account for, among other things, more recent economic forecasts and improved methodologies for estimating emissions from the heavy duty truck and construction source categories. See 2011 Progress Report at Appendix E. These methodologies for projecting future emissions based on growth factors and existing Federal, State, andlocal

35Information about CARB's emissions inventories for on-road and non-road mobile

sources, and the EMFAC and OFFROAD models used to project changes in future inventories, is available athttp://www.arb.ca.govlmseilmsei.htm.

36Information on base year emissions from stationary point sources is obtained primarily from the districts, while CARB and the districts share responsibility for developing and updating information on emissions from various area source categories. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at
21. controls were consistent with EPA guidance on developing projected baseline inventories. See2011 Proposal TSD at section ILA; see also "Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections," EPA Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-450/4- 91-019, July 1991; "Emissions Projections," STAPPA/ALAPCO/EPA Emissions Inventory Improvement Project, Volume X, December 1999 (available athttp://www.epa.govl ttnchiel/eiip/techreport/volumel O/ xol .pdf).

In sum, the 2005 base year and future projected baseline inventories in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan were prepared using a complex setofCARB methodologies to estimate and project emissions from stationary sources, in addition to the
most recent emissions factors and models and updated activity levels for emissions associated with mobile
sources, including: (1)The latest EPAapproved California motor vehicle emissions factor model (EMFAC2007) and the mostrecent motor vehicle activity data from each ofthe metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in the San Joaquin Valley; (2) improved methodologies for estimating emissions from specific source categories; and (3)CARB'snon-road mobile source model (theOFFROAD model). SeeTSD Section II.A (referencing, interalia,2007 State Strategy at Appendix F) and 2011 Progress Report. EPA has approved

numerous California SIPs that rely on base year and projected baseline inventories including emissions estimates derived from the EMFAC, OFFROAD, and CEFS models. See, e.g., 65 FR 6091 (February 8, 2000) (proposedrule to approve 1-hour ozone plan for South Coast) and 65 FR 18903 (April 10, 2000) (final rule); 70FR 43663 (July 28, 2005) (proposedrule to approve PM-10 plan for South Coast and Coachella Valley) and 70FR 69081 (November 14, 2005) (finalrule); 74 FR 66916 (December 17, 2009) (direct final rule to approve ozone plan for Monterey Bay). The commenter has provided no information to support a claim that these methodologies for developing base year inventories and projecting future emissions in the SJV are inadequate to support the RACM, RFP, and attainment demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.

For all ofthese reasons and as discussed in our 2011 proposal (76 FR 41338 at 41342, 41343), we have concluded that the 2005base year inventory in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan is a "comprehensive, accurate, current inventory ofactual emissions from all

sources ofthe relevant pollutant or pollutants" in the SJV area, consistentNo. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations

with the requirements for emissions inventories in CAA section 172(c)(3), 40 CFR 51.1008, and 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. In addition, we conclude that the projected baseline inventories for 2009, 2012 and 2014 were prepared consistent with EPA's guidance on development ofemissions inventories and attainment demonstrations and, therefore, provide an adequate basis for the RACM, RFP and attainment demonstrations in the Plan. See 2011 Proposal TSD at section II.A.

As to the six specific baseline

measures that CRPE asserts should be SIP-approved, we note first that the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP does not rely on credit for emissions reductions from the Pesticides regulations (Field Fumigant Limits) as those regulations address onlyVOC and therefore do not apply to any pollutant that is a PM2. 5 attainment plan precursor in the SJV (PM 2. 5, NOx,

or S0 2).

Second, both the Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In-Use Trucks (effective November 15, 2006) 37 and the ForkLifts and Other Industrial Equipment measure (adopted May 26, 2006) are pending EPA waiver determinations under CAA section 209(b) or section 209(e).3 8We expect that EPA will act on these requests for waivers ofpreemption or authorization under CAA section 209 in the near term, and that our final approval ofthe 2008 PM2. 5 Planbased in part onits reliance

on the emissions reductions associated with these rules is, therefore, reasonable and appropriate. If,however, EPA either

37EPA is currently reviewing a request from CARB for a determination as to whether certain requirements ofthese anti-idling rules are preempted bysection 209(a) ofthe CAA; certain provisions are conditions precedent pursuant to section 209(a) ofthe Act; certain provisions are within-the-scope ofprevious waivers and authorizations issued pursuant to sections 209(b) and 209(e) ofthe Act, respectively; and at least one provision requires and merits a full authorization pursuant to section 209(e) ofthe Act. See 75 FR
43975 (July 27, 2010). CARB estimates that the operational requirement ofthe anti-idlingrule, which is not subject to a CAA section 209 waiver, achieves 0.2 tpd ofNOx in the SJV. See Memorandum,Doris Lo, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR-2); to the SanJoaquin Valley PM2.5 Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516, "SIP Credit for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Low-NOx Software ("Chip Reflash")"; from, September 28, 2011.

38See letter,James Goldstene, Executive Officer,
CARB to Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, EPA RE: Request for Authorization Determination Pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 209(e) for Amendments to California's Off-Road Emissions Standards Regulation for large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engines and Fleet Requirement for In-Use LSI Forklifts and Other Industrial Equipment and California State Motor Vehicle and Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Truck Idling Requirements; Opportunity for Public Hearing and Request for Public Comment; Notice Of Opportunity For Public Hearing And Comment. 75 FR 43975 (July 27, 2010). denies or does not issue the State's requested waiver for any ofthese

measures prior to the effective date of today's action, we will take appropriate remedial action to ensure that our action

on the plan is fully supportable or to reconsider that action.

Third, as to the Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated byPublic Agencies and Utilities (adoptedDecember 8, 2005), CARB's staffreport on this

measure indicates that the projected baseline inventories have attributed emissions reductions of 0.1 tpd PM2. 5 and 0.18 tpd NON statewideto this

measure. See StaffReport: Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated byPublic Agencies and Utilities, October 2005, atpg. 55. Assuming less than 25 percent ofthese reductions are attributed to the SJV area, the deminimis amounts ofemissions reductions attributed to this measure in the 2008 PM2. 5 SIP do not affect our evaluation ofthe attainment and RFP demonstrations in the 2008 PM2. 5 SIP. Similarly, as to the Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule (adopted September 24, 2003), CARB's staff report on this measure indicates that the projected baseline inventories have attributed emissions reductions of0.17 tpd PM2.5 and 2.3 tpd NON statewideto this measure. See Supplemental Staff Report: Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Collection Vehicles, August 8, 2003, at pg. 18. Assuming less than 25 percent ofthese reductions are attributed to the SJV area, the deminimis amounts ofemissions reductions attributed to this measure in the 2008 PM2. 5 SIP also do not affect our evaluation ofthe attainment and RFP demonstrations in the 2008 PM2. 5 SIP. Finally, the Heavy DutyDiesel Engine-Chip Reflash rule (adopted March 27, 2004) ("Chip Reflash" rule)

was intended to ensure expeditious compliance with CARB's NON emissions standard for heavy-duty diesel (HDD) engines by requiring installation of"Low-NOx Software." The Chip Reflash rule was invalidated in part by a California State Court, and CARB repealed the related regulations in June 2007. The emissions reduction credit attributed to Chip Reflash in CARB's baseline inventories is limited
to vehicles that havebeen "reflashed," i.e., physically installed the Low-NOx Software, 39 removal ofwhich would constitute a violation ofthe CAA and/or California state law. Seethe statutory anti-tampering laws in CAA section 203(a)(3) and California Vehicle Code section 27156. Thus,the NON emissions reductions attributed to "reflashed" engines are enforceable under the CAA and/or California state law.

As to AIR's calculation ofthe reductions from baseline measures, AIR calculates what itconsiders "the total reductions from baseline reductions without recession reductions" tobe 11 tpd ofPM2. 5, 195 tpd ofNON, and 0.9 tpd ofSOx. These figures are not correct because they do not take into account CARB's recent updates to the projected 2014 inventory.

For the 2008 PM2. 5 SIP, "baseline reductions" are calculated by subtracting the 2005 base year inventory form the projected 2014 pre-controlstrategy inventory. As we have discussed above, CARB revised its projected 2014 inventories to incorporate not only the continuing effects ofthe recent economic recession but also many non-recession related changes. These revisions have resulted in amore accurate projected 2014 inventory.

As we have discussed previously, projected emissions inventories are a function in part ofchanges in activity. Projected inventories are, therefore, necessarily affected by forecasts of industrial growth, population growth, and transportation growth, among other factors. EPA guidance emphasizes the importance ofdeveloping reliable methods for estimating future source activity levels as part ofthe SIP planning process. Webelieve that CARB has done this.

39The 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, "Emissions Inventory Output Tables" documents the adjustment in the baseline that CARB made to account for Chip Reflash (orHeavy-Duty Diesel Engine Software Upgrade). As described in appendix A, CARB staff estimates that the overall benefits of the software upgrade regulation plus related actions provided approximately 38 tons per day ofNOx emissions reductions statewide in year 2007. CARB also indicates that it took into account the fact that the software upgrade regulation had been invalidated byincluding no additional emissions reductions from chip reflash other than those that had already occurred dueto compliance with the regulation (priorto invalidation by the court), voluntary upgrade programs, ongoing engine rebuilds, engine upgrades by manufacturers exempt from the regulation, and interstate trucks. CARB staffrecently confirmed that the baseline adjustment for chip reflash in the 2007 State Strategyreflects emissions reduction credit only for engines that have been "reflashed". See Memorandum,Doris Lo, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR-2); to the SanJoaquin Valley PM2.5 Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516, "SIP Credit for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Low-NOx Software ("Chip Reflash")"; from September 28, 2011. 69908 Federal Register/Vol. 76,Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations 69909

2.Waiver Measures

Comment:Earthjustice and CRPE object to our proposal to grant emissions reduction credit to California's mobile

source control measures that have received a waiver ofpreemption under CAA section 209 without first approving them into the SIP. Both commenters argue that our reliance for this proposal

onthe general savings clause in CAA section 193 isinappropriate for several

reasons.

First, the commenters assert that CAA section 193 only saves those "formal rules, notices, or guidance documents" that are not inconsistent with the CAA. They argue thatboth the CAA and EPA's long-standing policies and regulations require SIPs to contain the
state and local emission limitations and control measures that are necessary for attainment and RFP and to meet other CAA requirements. They assert that our position on the treatment ofCalifornia's waived measures isinconsistent with this requirement. CRPE asserts that EPA has, in contrast, approved other (nonmobile source) state measures into the SIP, e.g., the consumer products rules and fuel standards. Earthjustice also argues that only SIP approval provides for the CAA's enforcement oversight (CAA sections 179 and 304) and antibacksliding (CAA section 110(1) and 193) safeguards.

Second, the commenters argue that

we cannot claim that our position was ratified byCongress because section 193

saves only regulations, standards, rules, notices, orders and guidance "promulgated or issued" bythe Administrator and we have not identified documents promulgated or issued by EPA that establish our position here. Earthjustice further
asserts that our interpretation has not been expressed through any affirmative
statements and the only statements of relevant statutory interpretations are contrary to our position on California's waived measures.

Third, Earthjustice argues that there is

no automatic presumption that Congress is aware ofan agency's interpretations and we have not provided any evidence that Congress was aware ofour interpretation regarding the SIP
treatment of California's mobile source control measures. Similarly, CRPE argues that our positions that Congress
must expressly disapprove ofEPA's long-standing interpretation and Congressional silence equates to a ratification ofEPA's interpretation are incorrect.

Finally, CRPE argues that waiver

measures may not be used in attainment demonstrations because EPA makes no finding during the waiver process that the rules achieve the reductions claimed

or that the measures are SIP creditable. CRPE also notes that these issues are the subject oflitigation in the 9th Circuit U.S. Court ofAppeals in SierraClubv. EPA, Consolidated Case Nos. 10-71457 and 10-71458.

Response:We continue to believe that credit for emissions reductions from implementation ofCalifornia mobile

source rules thatare subject to CAA section 209 waivers ("waiver measures") is appropriate notwithstanding the fact that such rules

are not approved as part ofthe California SIP. In our 2011 proposal and the 2011 Proposal TSD, we explained why we believe such credit is appropriate. See 76 FR41338 at 41345 and 2011 Proposal TSD at section II.F.4.a.i. Historically, EPA has granted credit for the waiver measures because of special Congressional recognition, in establishing the waiver process inthe first place, ofthe pioneering California
motor vehicle control program and because amendments to the CAA (in 1977) expanded the flexibility granted
to California in order "to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health ofits citizens and the public welfare," (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977)). In allowing California to take credit for the waiver measures notwithstanding the fact that the underlying rules are not part ofthe California SIP, EPA treated the waiver measures similarly to the Federal motorvehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed States to credit intheir SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision. As we explained in the 2011 Proposal TSD (pp. 100-102), credit for Federal measures, including those that establish on-road and nonroad standards, notwithstanding their absence in the SIP, isjustified by reference to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which establishes the following content requirements for SIPs: "* * * enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions ofemissions rights), * * *, as maybe necessaryor appropriate to meet the applicable requirements ofthis chapter." (emphasis added). Federal measures are permanent, independently enforceable (byEPA and citizens), and quantifiable without regard to whether they are approved into a SIP, and thus EPA has

never found such measures to be "necessary or appropriate" for inclusion in SIPs to meet the applicable requirements ofthe Act. Section 209 of the CAA establishes a process under which EPA allows California's waiver

measures to substitute for Federal
measures, and like the Federal measures for which they substitute, EPA has historically found, and continues to find, based on considerations of permanence, enforceability, and quantifiability, that such measures are not "necessary or appropriate" for California to include in its SIP to meet the applicable requirements of the Act.

First, with respect topermanence, we note that, to maintain a waiver, CARB's on-road waiver measures can be relaxed onlyto a level of aggregate equivalence
to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP). See section 209(b)(1). In this respect, the FMVCP
acts as a partial backstop to California's on-road waiver measures (i.e., absent a waiver, the FMVCP would apply in California). Likewise, Federal nonroad vehicle and engine standards act as a partial backstop for corresponding California nonroad waiver measures. The constraints ofthe waiver process thus serve to limit the extent to which CARB can relax the waiver measures for which there are corresponding EPA standards, and thereby serve an antibacksliding function similar in substance to those established for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(1) and
193.40 Meanwhile, the growing
convergence between California and EPA mobile source standards diminishes the difference in the emissions reductions reasonably attributed to the two programs and strengthens the role ofthe Federal program in serving as an effective backstop to the State program. In other words, with the harmonization ofEPA mobile source standards with the corresponding State standards, the Federal program is becoming essentially

afull backstop to mostparts ofthe California program.

Second, as to enforceability, we note that the waiver process itselfbestows enforceability onto California to enforce the on-road ornonroad standards for which EPA has issuedthe waiver. CARB has as long a history ofenforcement of

40In addition, the commenters' concerns over the potential for relaxation by the State ofthe waiver

measures because the underlying regulations are not subject to EPA review and approval as a SIP revision are not a practical concern for this particular plan given that the plan's horizon is very short term (next couple ofyears), and the on-road and nonroad vehicles that inpart will determine whether the area attains the standard are alreadyin operation orin dealer showrooms. There is no practical means forthe Stateto relax the standards ofvehicles already manufactured, even ifthe State wanted to relax the standards.No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations

vehicle/engine emissions standards as EPA, and CARB's enforcement program is equally as rigorous as the corresponding EPA program. The history and rigor ofCARB's enforcement program lends assurance to California SIP revisions thatrely onthe emissions reductions from CARB's rules inthe

same manner as EPA's mobile source enforcement program lends assurance to other state's SIPs in theirreliance on emissions reductions from the FMVCP. While itistrue that citizens andEPA

are not authorized to enforce California waiver measures under the Clean Air Act (i.e.,because they are not in the SIP), citizens and EPA are authorized to enforce EPA standards in the event that vehicles operate in California without either California or EPA certification.

As to quantifiability, EPA's historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motor-vehicle-related waiver measures by allowing California to include motor vehicle emissions estimates made by using California's EMFAC (andits predecessors) motorvehicle emissions factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reductions from motor-vehicle-related waiver measures through review and approval ofEMFAC, which isupdated from timeto time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly-established emissions standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA's motorvehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as MOVES.) The EMFAC model isbased on the motorvehicle emissions standards for which California has received waivers from EPA but accounts forvehicle deterioration and many other factors. The motorvehicle emissions estimates themselves combine EMFAC results with vehicle activity estimates, among other considerations. See the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, and the related EPA rulemakings approving the plan (see 48 FR 5074 (February 3, 1983) for the proposed rule and 48 FR 57130 (December 28, 1983) for the final rule)

as an example ofhow the waiver

measures have been treated historically by EPA in California SIP actions. The SanJoaquin Valley plan was developed using a version ofthe EMFAC model referred to as EMFAC2007, which EPA has approved for use in SIP development in California. See 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). Thus, the emissions reductions that are from the California on-road "waiver measures" and that are estimated through use of EMFAC are as verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied uponby
states other than California in developing their SIPs based on estimates ofmotorvehicle emissions made through the use ofthe MOVES model.

Moreover, EPA's waiver review and approval process is analogous to the SIP approval process. First, CARB adopts its emissions standards following notice and comment procedures at the state level, and then submits the rules to EPA

as part of its waiver request. WhenEPA receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for public hearing and
comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal Register following the public comment period. Once again, in substance, the process is similar to that for SIP approval and supports the argument that one hurdle (the waiver process) is all Congress intended for California standards, not two (waiver process plus SIP approval process). Second, just as SIP revisions are not effective until approved by EPA, changes to CARB's rules (for which a waiver has been granted) are not effective until EPA grants a new waiver, unless the changes are "within the scope" of a prior waiver and no new waiver is needed. Third, both types of final actions byEPA-i.e., final actions

on California requests for waivers and final actions on state submittals ofSIPs and SIP revisions maybe challenged under section 307(b)(1) ofthe CAA in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals.

In the 2011 Proposal TSD (pp. 102- 103), we indicated that we believe that section 193 ofthe CAA, the general savings clause added by Congress in 1990, effectively ratified our longstanding practice ofgranting credit for the California waiver rulesbecause Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA's
treatment of California's motorvehicle standards inconsistent with the Act. Rather, Congress extended the California waiver provisions to most types ofnonroad vehicles and engines,

once again reflecting Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means toprotect the health of its citizens and the public welfare. Requiring the waiver measures to undergo SIP review in addition to the statutory waiver process is not consistent with providing California with the broadest possible discretion as to on-road and nonroad vehicle and engine standards, but rather, would add
to the regulatory burden California faces in establishing and modifying such standards, and thus would notbe consistent with Congressional intent. In short, we believe that Congress intended California's mobile source rules to undergo only one EPA review process (i.e.,the waiver process), not two.

In summary, we disagree that our interpretation ofCAA section 193 is fundamentally flawed. EPA has historically given SIP credit for waiver

measures in our approval ofattainment demonstrations and other planning requirements such as reasonable further progress and contingency measures submitted by California. We continue to believe that section 193 ratifies our long-standing practice ofallowing credit for California's waiver measures notwithstanding the fact they are not approved into the SIP, and correctly reflects Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in the development and promulgation ofon-road and nonroad vehicle and engine standards.41

CRPE correctly notes that EPA's
treatment of California waiver measures in SIP actions is the subject ofcurrent litigation in SierraClubv. EPA, Consolidated Case Nos. 10-71457 and 10-71458 (9th Circuit).

3.Enforceable Commitments

Comment:AIR argues that EPA
cannot make a finding that the "recession reductions" are an "enforceable" measure within the meaning ofCAA section 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) because "recession reductions" are onlyvoluntary behavior
to reduce activity for economic reasons and nothing prevents such an increase in activity as the economy improves. Based on this argument, AIR asserts that EPA's approval ofthe attainment demonstration is arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with the law. AIR asserts that CARB concedes that the reductions coming from reduced activity may change in the future.

Response:EPA isnot making a finding that emissions "reductions" related to the economic recession are "enforceable" measures under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6). As explained in our amended proposal (76 FR 41338 at 41354-41356), we are concluding that CARB's 2011 SIP revisions, which updated the State's projected ("baseline") emissions inventories based on improved

41In this regard, we disagree that we are treating the waiver measures inconsistently with other California control measures, such asconsumer products and fuelsrules, for the simplereason that, unlike the waivermeasures, there isno history of pastpractice orlegislative history supporting treatment ofother California measures, such as
consumer products rules and fuelsrules, in any
manner differently than is required as ageneral rule under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), i.e.,state and local

measures that are relied uponfor SIP purposes must beapproved into the SIP. 69910 Federal Register/Vol. 76,

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations 69911

methodologies for estimating emissions and more recent growth factors, reduced the total amount ofemissions reductions needed for attainment and that the control strategy inthe 2008

PM2.5 Plan, as revised in 2011, demonstrates expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM2. 5 NAAQS in the SJV from the revised baseline.

Section 110(a)(2)(A) ofthe CAA requires that each implementation plan submitted by a State include "enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques * * * as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of [the CAA]." Section 172(c)(6) contains substantively identical requirements for all nonattainment area plans. Baseline emissions inventories, however, are not "enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques" or "schedules and timetables for compliance" that are necessary or appropriate to meet CAA requirements. SeeEl ComitePara El BienestardeEarlimart v. Warmerdam, 539 F.3d 1062 (9thCir. 2008) (concluding that abaseline inventory is
not an enforceable "standard or limitation" as defined by the CAA and is not,therefore, an independently enforceable aspect[] ofthe SIP"). Rather, baseline emissions inventories provide the basis for, among other things, the demonstrations ofattainment and progress toward attainment required by CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 172(c)(2). Specifically, CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that each plan for a nonattainment area include "a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory ofactual emissions from all

sources ofthe relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area * * *"). After developing this "base year" emissions inventory, States use modeling and other analyses to calculate future emissions projections and "target" emissions levels, which then inform the State's development ofprogress milestones and control strategies for attaining the NAAQS. See General Preamble at 13507-13510. In short, emissions inventories provide estimates of current and future emissions that, in turn, provide the starting point for the State's attainment demonstration and enforceable control strategy.

Nothing in the CAA precludes a State from revising a submitted planto take into account revised emissions estimates and projections. All projections offuture emissionsgenerating activity (including the original projections in the 2008 PM2. 5 Plan that AIR would have CARB and EPA continue to use) arebased on projections ofpopulation and employment and other growth factors that reflect voluntary behavior, all of which can increase or decrease as economic conditions change. However, reliance on projections from reputable

sources ofeconomic behavior based on established methods ofpredicting such behavior isthe historic practice for development ofemissions inventories. CARB's revised projections offuture emissions-generating activity are based

on reputable sources, represent the most current understanding ofexpected economic conditions through at least 2014, and were subject to extensive public review and comment before CARB adopted its 2011 SIP revisions containing these updated projections. Given the magnitude ofthe economic recession's impact on emissionsgenerating activity in SJV and other parts ofCalifornia, and the resulting impact on the State's assessment ofthe control strategy necessary to demonstrate attainment ofthe 1997 PM2. 5 standards, we conclude that itis appropriate to take these updated emissions projections into account as part of our action on the 2008 PM2. 5 Plan. Other than asserting generally that CARB and EPA should not rely onthe revised economic data to determine the reductions needed for attainment and that future conditions may change, AIR provides no information that undermines the State's revised economic data or the related changes to the projected inventories.

We disagree with AIR's unsupported assertion that "CARB concedes that the reductions coming from reduced activity may change in the future." CARB has stated that itwill continue to track emissions trends to ensure that the 2014 emissions targets are met and maintains its commitment to adopt and implement additional control requirements, incentive programs, or other measures as appropriate to reduce emissions to the levels necessary to attain. See 2011 Progress Report, p. 4.

Moreover, as discussed above, the revisions to the 2014 baseline inventory that AIR characterizes as "recession reductions" tookinto account not only the State's revised economic forecasts but numerous other factors, including updated activity data and growth projections. Seesection II.A ("Comments on the Proposed Actions

on the Emissions Inventory") above. Comment:AIR asserts that the Plan relies on emissions reductions caused by the recent economic recession to demonstrate attainment, rather than requiring reductions from diesel trucks and other diesel equipment in 2014. Noting CARB's recent revisions to five ofits in-use rules,42 AIR argues that these rule revisions "reduc[ed] the
amount ofreductions that those five inuse rules would have achieved by 2014," and that CARB has equated recession-related emissions reductions with the reductions necessary to meet the 2014 tonnage targets. AIR asserts that the difference between the prerecession and recession inventories in the Valley is 40 tons per day ofNOx.

Response:As discussed above, CARB's revisions to the 2014 baseline inventories took into account not only the State's revised economic forecasts but numerous other factors, including updated activity data and growth projections. See section II.A above. These improvements to the emissions estimates reduced the projected 2014 emissions levels for trucks, buses and certain off-road equipment compared to the levels expected when CARB initially adopted its rules for these sources in 2007 and 2008. These revised projections, in turn, reduced the State's
assessment ofthe amount ofemissions reductions needed from these emissions

sources to provide for attainment ofthe 1997 PM2. 5 NAAQS in the SJV and allowed CARB to provide some economic reliefto the affected industries. 43We note thatbecause EPA has not previously approved California's in-use truck rules into the SIP, EPA's approval ofthese rules strengthens the SIP and meets the requirements ofCAA section 110(1). SeeCAA 110(1) (prohibitingEPA from approving a revision of a plan "ifthe revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress * * * or any other applicable requirement of [the Act]").

Both the revised Truck rule and the revised Off-Road rule continue to require reductions from diesel trucks

42Thesefive in-use rules are CARB's Truck rule, Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Regulation, In-Use On-Road DieselFueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks Regulation, OffRoad rule), andthe LSI regulation (collective "inuse rules").

43 To determine the extent to which it could
revise its in-userules to provide economic relief and still meet the attainment target, CARB evaluated whether the lower emissions from the revised inventories for both trucks, buses and offroad equipment, when combined withthe effects of the recession, provided greater emissions reductions from the in-use rules than were initially expected. CARB referred to these greater-than - expected emissions reductions as the "emission margin." Becausethe in-use dieselrules reduced both direct PM2. 5 and NOxand both pollutants contribute to ambient levels ofPM2.5, CARB calculated the margin on a "NOx equivalent" basis and found that the margin for the SJV was 40 tpd ofNOx equivalents. See 2010 Truck RuleISOR,
p. 23.No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations

and other diesel equipment in 2014 and future years. See 2010Truck Rule ISOR, p. 45 and 2010 Off-Road Equipment ISOR, p. 38; see also, 76 FR 41338, 41346 (Table 6). Comment:AIR claims that the 2011 Progress Report shows CARB considers "recession reductions" as a part ofits "global" emissions reduction commitment. In support ofthis claim, AIR quotes the 2011 Progress Report at page 4:

As a result ofthe recession, actual emissions decreases moved California closer
to the emissions levels needed for attainment in 2014. The recession has reduced economic activity and emissions, most notably inthe goods movement sector. This has allowed ARB to maintain the State's SIP commitments in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley while also providing some near-term economic reliefto affected industries.

As the economy recovers, ARBwill continue totrack emissions trends to ensure the 2014 emissions targets are met. Iffuture emissions were to exceed the SIPtarget, the State's commitment could be made up with additional controls, incentive programs, or otherprograms tobring emissions downto the necessary levels.A discussion ofhow ARB accounted for therecession isfound later in thisreport.

Response:EPA isnot treating any "recession reductions" as part ofthe State's enforceable commitments. As explained above, we are approving the attainment demonstration and control strategy in the 2008 PM2.5 Planbased on

our conclusion that the Plan, as revised by CARB's 2011 revisions to the projected baseline inventories, demonstrates expeditious attainment of the PM2.5 standards in the SJV. EPA interprets the quoted language as a statement ofCARB's future plans to revise the SIP as necessary should economic activity change significantly in the future. Comment:AIR claims that in proposing to disapprove the CARB's global commitment in November 2010, EPA recognized that the Truck rule could reduce thatpercentage of reductions remaining as commitments below 10 percent. It then asserts that EPA cannot now approve the commitment and the attainment demonstration because CARB's relaxation ofthe Truck rule and the OffRoad rule to delay reductions beyond 2014 mean that the percentages ofPM2. 5 andNOx reductions needed for attainment that remain as commitments

are still well above the 10 percent threshold. AIR states thatbased on its calculations, the percentage oftotal reductions remaining as commitments, ifadjustments to the baseline are not included, would be 25.1 percent for
PM 2. 5 and 26.7 percent for NOx. Response:EPA did not propose to disapprove CARB's aggregate commitments in its 2010 proposal. We proposed then and again in our 2011 proposal to approve CARB's aggregate emissions reductions commitments as described in CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B. See 75 FR 74518 at 74541 and 76 FR 41338 at 41361. EPA did initially propose to disapprove the attainment demonstrationbased in part

on our finding that the percentage ofthe emissions reductions needed for attainment that remained as commitments was too high. See 75 FR at 74541. As explained in our 2011 proposal, however, additional submittals from CARB have reduced the percentages ofemissions reductions remaining as commitments to 13.2 percent for direct PM 2. 5 and 4.5 percent for NOx. These percentages are reasonably close to the 10 percent range that EPA has historically accepted as appropriate for enforceable commitments in approving attainment demonstrations. See 76 FR at 41355, 41356. Because the State's revisions to the projected baseline inventories in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP have reduced the total tonnage ofemissions reductions
necessary to attain the 1997 PM 2. 5 standards (seesection II.A above), we disagree with AIR's calculation ofthe percentage oftotal reductions remaining

as commitments. Comment:Earthjustice comments that EPA has outlined a three-factor test to

assess whether the commitments in the
SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP are reasonable but has not documented, under the first factor, how we determine the level of remaining reductions and what is meant by "reasonably close."

Response:In our 2011 proposal we provide a detailed discussion ofthe emissions reductions needed for attainment and how they have been or will be achieved. Seegenerally 76 FR 41339, 41344-41347 and 41354-41357 and 2011 Proposal TSD, sections II.F. and G. These reductions include those from measures adopted prior to 2007 (baseline measures), measures adopted since 2007 and measures that are yet to be adopted (i.e.,enforceable commitments). The expected reductions from each ofthese sets ofmeasures are provided in the 2011 proposal, as are EPA's calculations ofthe percentages of needed reductions remaining as commitments. See 76 FR 41338 at 41354, Table 8; seealso 2011 Proposal TSD at pp. 105-106 and 113-114. As provided in the tables in our 2011 proposal and 2011 Proposal TSD, the reductions remaining as commitments are 12.9 tpd ofNOx and 3.0 tpd of PM2.5 . Id.These reductions represent 4.5 percent and 13.2 percent ofthe total NOx and PM2.5 emissions reductions (respectively) needed for attainment. Id.

In support ofour statement that these percentages (4.5percent ofNOx and 13.2 percent ofPM2. 5) are "reasonably close to the 10 percent range that EPA has historically accepted in approving attainment demonstrations," we referenced several prior EPA approvals of SIPs relying on similar enforceable commitments. See 76 FR 41339 at41355 and n. 30. We also explained our legal rationale for approving such enforceable commitments and referenced several
court decisions that support our interpretation ofthe CAA. See id. at n. 27 and 28. Based on our evaluations, we proposed to allow the State to rely on these limited enforceable commitments

as part ofthe attainment demonstration in the 2008 PM2. 5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy. Id.at 41356. Earthjustice does
not explain whythese explanations

were not adequate or why reliance on enforceable commitments consistent with these court cases is inappropriate. Comment:Earthjustice comments that it is not reasonable to approve a "plan
to make a plan," which is whatthey believe the District and CARB have provided. Earthjustice states that the District and CARB are asking EPA to trust them that they will find emissions reductions needed to meet the standards by 2015. Earthjustice states that this is
not what the CAA contemplates, citing section 110(a)(2)(A) ofthe CAA (requiringplans to include "enforceable emission limitations and other control

measures * * * necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements ofthis Act"). Earthjustice
states thatthere isno point in having a plan which does not specifically identify how itplans to accomplish the needed reductions.

Response:We disagree with Earthjustice's assertion that the 2008 PM2.5 SIP does not identify how CARB and the SJVUAPCD plan to accomplish the reductions needed for attainment of the 1997 PM2. 5 standards in the SJVby 2015. As discussed in our amended proposal, the 2008 PM2. 5 Plan relies principally on adopted measures approved into the SIP or given waivers under CAA section 209 rules to achieve the emissions reductions needed to attain the 1997 PM2. 5 standards in the SJVby April 5, 2015, including baseline (pre-2007)measures that continue to achieve emissions reductions through 2014. See 76 FR at 41356. The balance ofthe needed reductions is currently in the form ofenforceable commitments that account for 13.2 percent ofthe 

### 69912 Federal Register/Vol. 76,

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations 69913

direct PM2. 5 and 4.5 percent ofthe NOx emissions reductions needed from 2005 levels to attain. See id. These SIPapproved or CAA-waived control

measures and enforceable commitments satisfy the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) to include "enforceable emission limitations and other control
measures, means or techniques * * * as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements" ofthe CAA. See id. at 41355, n. 27. Although CARB's and the District's enforceable commitments to achieve additional emissions reductions

are expressed in aggregate tonnages and
not tied to specific measures, both CARB and the District have provided a list ofpotential measures that may achieve the additional reductions needed to attain the standards, together with expeditious rule development, adoption, and implementation schedules consistent with EPA'spolicy

on acceptable enforceable commitments. See id. at41355, 41356. Both CARB and the District have also made significant progress to date in meeting their enforceable commitments. Id.

Comment:AIR notes that one ofEPA's criteria for evaluating an attainment demonstration thatrelies on commitments is whether the state is capable offulfilling the commitment. AIR argues that CARB is not capable of fulfilling its commitment given CARB's alleged use of"recession reductions" instead ofactual measures to meet its commitment when diesel emissions can change based on economic forces that the State cannot control. Italso claims that CARB's decision to revise its five in-use rules is evidence thatCARB can and likely will amend rules in the future that may undermine its commitment.

Response:We disagree with AIR's assertion that CARB's revisions to the in-use rules or to its projected emissions levels based on updated economic forecasts undermine its commitments or demonstrate that the State isnot capable offulfilling its commitment. We discussed above in section II.A our

reasons for concluding that the revisions
to the 2014baseline emissions inventories are legitimate.

Contrary to AIR's assertions, CARB's rulemaking record for the revisions to its in-use rulesindicate that the State intends to ensure that any future revisions to the rules will not undermine its SIP commitment. See,
e.g., 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 2 and 2010 Off-Road Rule ISOR, p. 2 (stating that rule revisions should "continue
progress toward cleaner air" and "meet
state implementation plan (SIP) commitments"). Before revising its inuse rules, CARB calculated the maximum level ofreliefitcould provide without violating it SIP commitment. This "SIP margin" was calculated as40 tpd in NOx equivalent (aweighted combination ofNOx and PM2.5 emissions) in the SJV. See2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 23 and 2010 Off-Road Rule ISOR, p. 20. The revisions to the in-use rules did not decrease their combined benefits by more this amount. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 51 and 2010 Off-Road Rule ISOR, p. 43. Thus, CARB's actions did not reflect any lack ofintention to fully meet its enforceable commitments to provide emissions reductions sufficient for timely attainment. Comment:Earthjustice also contends that the second factorfor determining whether to approve an attainment demonstration thatrelies on commitments, whether the state is capable ofmeeting its commitment, is
not met because CARB has repeatedly fallen short ofachieving its estimated emissions reduction from its rules and has notbegun to develop its Agricultural Equipment Rule which was to achieve 5to 10 tons per day ofNOx in the SJV and be adopted by 2009. To support its argument, it points to the methodology changes associated with the Truck Rule and Off-Road Rule and the "massive recession reductions" that have resulted in fewer reductions being needed from these rules. Earthjustice concludes that it does not believe that CARB is capable ofmeeting the "massive, last-minute commitments" relied upon in the Plan given CARB's history ofavoiding satisfying its commitments. Italso argues that CARB cannot relyon changes to the inventory
to lessen the reductions fromits rules without reassessing the relationship between emissions and ambient concentrations offine particulates and that the "massive recession reductions"

are neither permanent nor enforceable.

Response:We disagree with Earthjustice's assertion that CARB has a history ofnot satisfying its commitments orthat the State's recent revisions to its future emissions projections indicate itis not capable of meeting its commitments. We discussed above in section II.A. our reasons for concluding that the revisions to the 2014 baseline emissions inventories are valid. We also note that Earthjustice has provided no information or data to undermine CARB's revisions to its future emissions projections based on its revised economic forecasts and updated methodologies for estimating emissions.

In addition, Earthjustice's assertion that CARB's actions with respect to regulation ofin-use agricultural equipment indicate it will not meet its enforceable commitment is unsupported. CARB recently adopted changes to its rulemaking schedule to establish an adoption date of 2013 for regulation ofin-use agricultural equipment. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. 3. The 2007 State Strategy indicates that this measure is expected
to achieve 5to 10 tpd NOx reductions in 2017, well after the period covered by the 2008 PM2. 5 SIP. See 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 18. CARB did
not quantify emissions reductions for this measure for 2014. See id. at 16. The fact that the State revised its adoption schedule for a measure that is not relied

on for attainment or RFP in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP does not establish that the State is generally incapable of meeting its enforceable commitments in that SIP. As discussed in the 2011 proposal and its TSD and in our response to comments on the air quality modeling above in section II.B., EPA has concluded as a technical matter that the revisions to the base year inventory are not significant enough to change the basic conclusions drawn from the air quality modeling or to warrant a new air quality modeling assessment at this time. See 76 FR 41338, 41349 and 2011 Proposal TSD, section II.B. Comment:Earthjustice states that CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) require SIPs to contain "enforceable limitations * * * as may be necessary

or appropriate" to achieve attainment. Earthjustice further states that, while section 110(k)(4) allows EPA to grant "conditional approval" of a SIP lacking certain statutory elements "based on a commitment ofthe state to adopt specific enforceable measures" by a date certain, the statute provides that the conditional approval automatically becomes adisapproval ifthe state fails
to comply with the commitment within

one year. Earthjustice then claims that EPA appears tobe trying to avoid this limitation by treating open-ended promises ofthe State to reduce emissions as enforceable commitments

even though the State has never specified exactly what it commits to do. Earthjustice states that courts have rejected similar attempts to circumvent the statute's limitations on conditional approval and cites SierraClub v.EPA, 356 F.3d 296, 298 (DC Cir. 2004) as overturning EPA's conditional approval of SIPs based in part on the fact that the commitments identified no specific

measures the state would implement.

Response:As pertinent to the comment, SierraClub involved EPA's conditional approval under section 110(k)(4) ofSIPs lacking in their entiretyNo. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations

RACM and rate-of-progress (ROP) demonstrations and contingency

measures based on letters submitted by
states that committed to cure these deficiencies. The court rejected EPA's construction ofsection 110(k)(4) as contrary to the unambiguous statutory language requiring the state to commit
to adopt specificenforceable measures. SierraClub at 302. The court found that EPA's construction turned the section 110(k)(4) conditional approval into a

means ofcircumventing SIP deadlines. Id. at 303.

EPA does not dispute the holding of SierraClub.However that case is not germane to EPA's approval ofCARB's and the District's commitments here because the Agency is not approving those commitments under section 110(k)(4). The relevant precedent is instead BCCAAppeal Groupv. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003). The facts in BCCA were very similar to those presented here. In BCCA, EPA approved

an enforceable commitment in the Houston ozone SIP to adopt and implement unspecified NON controls on

a fixed schedule to achieve aggregate emissions reductions. Petitioners claimed that EPA lacked authority under the CAA to approve a SIP containing an enforceable commitment
to adopt unspecified control measures in the future. The court disagreed and found that section 110(k)(4) conditional approvals do not supplant EPA's practice offully approving enforceable commitments:

Nothing in the CAA speaks directly to enforceable commitments. The CAA does, however, provide EPA with great flexibility in approving SIPs. A SIP may contain "enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, ortechniques

* * * as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate" to meet the CAA'srequirements * * *. Thus, according to the plain language ofthe statute, SIPs may contain "means," "techniques" and/or "schedules and timetables for compliance" that the EPA considers "appropriate" for attainment so long as they are "enforceable." Seeid.
§7410(a)(2)(A)."Schedules and timetables" is broadly defined as "a schedule ofrequired

measures including an enforceable sequence ofactions or operations leading to compliance with an emission limitation, prohibition or standard." 42 U.S.C. 7602(p). The remaining terms are not defined by the Act. Because the statute is silent on the issue ofwhether enforceable commitments are appropriate means, techniques, or schedules for attainment,EPA's interpretation allowing limited use ofan enforceable commitment in the Houston SIPmustbe upheld if reasonable.

BCCA at 839-840. The court upheld EPA's approval ofthe commitment, finding that "EPA reasonably concluded that an enforceable commitment to adopt additional control measures on a fixed schedule was an 'appropriate'
means, technique, or schedule or timetable for compliance" under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6). Id.
at 841. Thus the court recognized that sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) provide a basis forEPA to approve enforceable commitments as distinct from the commitments contemplated by section 110(k)(4), which are notin fact enforceable but instead lead to SIP disapproval ifnot honored. See also EnvironmentalDefensev. EPA, 369 F.3d 193, 209-210 (2nd Cir. 2004) (similarly upholding enforceable SIP commitments). As a result, contrary to Earthjustice's contention, section 110(k)(4) isnot a bar to EPA's approval of CARB's and the District's enforceable commitments and that approval under section 110(k)(3) is permissible as an appropriate means, technique or schedule or timetable for compliance under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6).

Comment:Earthjustice states that the commitments are "absurd" because CARB may claim credit toward its aggregate commitments from everything from new regulations to unenforceable incentive programs to "actual decreases occurring in any air basin for which emissions reduction commitments have been made." Earthjustice states this is arbitrary and that EPA needs to explain how the commitments offered in the plan would be enforced, what reliefEPA

or the public could demand, and when

a suit could be brought. Earthjustice
states that it does not see how these open-ended commitments are practically enforceable in a court oflaw and asserts that EPA must lay out a roadmap that canbe followed by courts in the future to ensure that meaningful emissions reductions are achieved.

Response:As discussed in our amended proposal (76 FR at 41355), the CAA allows approval ofenforceable commitments that are limited in scope where circumstances warrant the use of such commitments in place ofadopted control measures. Commitments approved byEPA under section 110(k)(3)ofthe CAA are enforceable by EPA and citizens under, respectively, sections 113 and 304 ofthe CAA. In the past, EPA has approved enforceable commitments and courts have enforced these actions against states that failedto comply with those commitments: See,
e.g., AmericanLungAss'n of N.J.v. Kean,670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC,Inc.v. N.Y. StateDept.ofEnv. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens foraBetterEnv'tv. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition forCleanAirv. South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist.,No. CV 97-6916-HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999). See 76 FR at41355, n. 27.

In response to Earthjustice's comment, we are clarifying in this final action that we are not providing SIP credit for "actual decreases" in air pollution emissions or "recessionrelated reductions" in approving the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. Rather, we are approving the 2008 PM2.5 Plan taking into account CARB's revisions to the control strategybased onthe revisions
to its projected baseline inventories.

Specifically, as explained in our 2011 proposal, CARB's aggregate emissions reduction commitment in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan as submitted in 2008 is to achieve 76 tpd ofNON reductions and 

### 5tpd ofPM2.5reductions by 2014. See 76 FR at 41346; CARB Resolution 07- 28, Attachment B at pp. 3-6 and 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 21. 4 4
The District's aggregate emissions reduction commitment in the Plan as submitted in 2008 is to achieve 8.97 tpd ofNON reductions, 6.7 tpd ofPM2. 5 reductions, and 0.92 tpd ofSO 2 reductions by 2014. See 76 FR at41345, Table 3. Morebroadly, however, CARB's emissions reduction commitment is to achieve the "total emissions reductions
necessary to attain Federal standards" through "the implementation of control
measures; the expenditure oflocal, State, or federal incentive funds; or through other enforceable measures." SeeCARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B at pp. 3-6. The updates and improvements to the inventories as presented in CARB's 2011 Progress Report altered the calculation ofthe reductions needed for attainment ofthe 1997 PM2.5 standards in SJVby reducing the total reductions needed from control strategy measures to 9 tpd (forPM2. 5), 26.1 tpd (for NOx), and 0.8 tpd (for SO 2). See 76 FR at 41354, Table 7.We therefore interpret CARB's emissions reduction commitment, together with the adjustments to the 2014 baseline inventories provided in CARB's 2011 SIP revision and the District's commitments, as adjusting CARB's total emission reduction commitment such that the CARB isnow obligated to achieve 2.3 tpd ofPM2. 5reductions and

44 In our proposed rule (76 FR 41338, 41346) we reference the 2007 State Strategy, p. 63 and CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B. p.6. Note that
page 63 ofthe 2007 State Strategy was replaced with information inthe 2009 State Strategy Status Report, pp. 20-21. 

### 69914 Federal Register/Vol. 76,

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations 69915

17.1 tpd ofNON reductions 45 by 2014 through enforceable control measures to provide for attainment ofthe 1997 PM2. 5 NAAQS in SJV. The District's aggregate emissions reduction commitment in the Plan as submitted in 2008 (8.97 tpd of NON reductions, 6.7 tpd ofPM2.5 reductions, and 0.92 tpd ofS02 reductions by 2014) remains unchanged. SeeTable 3below.

We also note that we do not agree with CARB's position that "actual decreases occurring in any air basin for which emissions reduction commitments have been made" or incentive programs may be counted as SIP credit toward CARB's enforceable commitment, unless the State provides

a demonstration that such emissions decreases are actually enforceable or otherwise meet EPA's requirements for SIP creditability.

CARB's commitment is to adopt and implement measures that will achieve specific reductions of NON and PM2. 5 emissions and are, as such, specific strategies designed to achieve the SIP's overall objectives. Further, ifCARB fails
to meet its commitments, EPA could make a finding of failure to implement the SIP under CAA Section 179(a), which starts an 18-month period for the State to correct the non-implementation before mandatory sanctions are imposed, or alternatively either EPA or citizens could enforce the commitments directly against CARB under CAA section 113 or 304, respectively.

Comment:Earthjustice states that
courts "may only enforce SIP strategies" and that "[m]ere approval ofan aspirational goal or non-specific promise into the SIP does not convert that goal or promise into an enforceable commitment." In support ofthese assertions, Earthjustice cites Bayview HuntersPointCommunityAdvocatesv. MetropolitanTransp.Comm'n, 366 F.3d 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2004) and Citizensfor

aBetterEnvironmentv. Metropolitan Tranp.Comm'n, 746 F. Supp. 976, 980 (N.D.Cal. 1990) [known as CBEII]. In addition, Earthjustice singles outEl ComitePara ElBienstardeEarlimart v. Warmerdam,539 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2008), stating that inEl Comitethe
court explained thatbecause an inventory in a SIP is not a "standard or limitation" as defined by the CAA, it

was not an independently enforceable aspect ofthe SIP. Thus,Earthjustice
reasons, in order to be enforceable, not onlymust a state's commitment to adopt additional measures to attain emission standards be specific and announced in

45 Note that the District has already achieved all ofthe SOx reductions necessary to attain. See 76

FR 41338, 41354, Table 8. plain language, but any data or rubric that willbe used to determine when and how the state will adopt those measures must be enforceable. Similarly, citing Bayview andEl Comite,AIRcharacterizes CARB's and the District's commitments to achieve aggregate emissions reductions by the attainment year as "global commitments" that could be interpreted

as "goals" unenforceable by citizens under Ninth Circuit precedent, rather than enforceable "strategies" to achieve those goals. AIR argues that the plans' global commitments are not enforceable for two reasons. First, enforcement is
not practical because itis virtually impossible for citizens or EPA to determine whether the CARB and the District have, in fact, met the global commitments. Second, the manner in which CARB and the District determine compliance with the tonnage target is left to their discretion, and citizens and EPA wouldbe placed inthe situation held by the plaintiffs in Warmerdam.

AIR adds that even ifthe commitments are viewed as "strategies" enforcement is not practical because when no measures are submitted to EPA for inclusion into the SIP, citizens have

no idea which measures CARB has used
to satisfy the total tonnage commitments. AIR also states that there

are no provisions for CARB andthe District to report to EPA and the public what actions they have taken to comply with the tonnage commitments. EPA and citizens are left to determine, based

on information collected by CARB and the District, whether the commitments have in fact been met.

Response:Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements ofthe Act, as well as timetables for compliance. Similarly, section 172(c)(6) provides that nonattainment area SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations and such other control measures, means or techniques "as maybe necessary or appropriate toprovide for attainment" ofthe NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.

Control measures, including commitments in SIPs, are enforced directly byEPA under CAA section 113 and also through CAA section 304(a) which provides for citizen suits to be brought against any person who is alleged "to be inviolation of * * * an emission standard or limitation* * *" "Emission standard or limitation" is defined in subsection (f)of section 304. As observed in Conservation Law Foundation, Inc.v. JamesBuseyetal., 79 F.3d 1250, 1258 (1st Cir. 1996):

Courts interpreting citizen suitjurisdiction have largely focused on whether the particular standard orrequirement plaintiffs sought toenforce was sufficiently specific. Thus, interpreting citizen suitjurisdiction as limited to claims "for violations of specific provisions of the act or specific provisions of

an applicable implementation plan," the Second Circuit held that suits can bebrought
to enforce specific measures, strategies, or commitments designed to ensure compliance withthe NAAQS, butnot to enforce the NAAQS directly. See, e.g., Wilder,854F.2d

at613-14.Courts have repeatedly applied this test as the linchpin ofcitizen suit jurisdiction. See, e.g., Coalition Against ColumbusCtr.v. CityofNew York, 967 F.2d 764, 769-71 (2d Cir. 1992); Catev. Transcontinental GasPipeLine Corp.,904 F. Supp. 526, 530-32 (W.D. Va. 1995); Citizens foraBetterEnv'tv. Deukmefian,731 F. Supp. 1448, 1454-59 (N.D. Cal.), modified, 746 F. Supp. 976 (1990).

Thus courts have found that the citizen suit provision cannot be used to enforce the aspirational goal ofattaining the NAAQS, but can be used to enforce specific strategies to achieve that goal, including enforceable commitments to develop future emissions controls.

We describe CARB's and the District's commitments in the 2007 State Strategy (revised in 2009 and 2011) andthe 2008 PM2.5 Planin detail in our amended proposal. See 76 FR at41343-41347. The 2007 State Strategy includes commitments to propose defined new

measures and an enforceable commitment for emissions reductions sufficient, in combination with existing

measures and the District's commitments, to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJVby April 5, 2015. See CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B
atpp. 3-6 and 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 21. For the SJV, the CARB's emissions reductions commitments as submitted in 2008 were to achieve 76 tpd NON and 5tpd of direct PM2. 5by 2014. Id. SJVUAPCD's commitments as submitted in 2008 were to achieve 9 tpd NON and 6.7 tpd direct PM2.5by 2014. See 76 FR at 41345-41346, See also 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 6-9, Table 6-2. The language used in the Board's resolution adopting the 2008 PM2. 5 Plan at page 5
to describe its commitment is mandatory and unequivocal innature:

9.The District Governing Board commitsto adoptandimplementthe rules and measures in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan by the dates specified in Chapter 6 toachievethe emissions reductionsshown in Chapter 6,and to submit these rules and measures to theARB within

one month ofadoption for transmittal to EPA

as a revision to the State Implementation Plan. Ifthetotal emissions reductions from the adopted rules are less thanthoseNo. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations

committed to in the Plan, theDistrict Governing Board commits to adopt,submit, andimplementsubstitute rules and measures that will achieve equivalent reductions in emissions ofdirect PM2.5 or PM2 .5precursors in the same adoption and implementation timeframes orin the timeframes needed to meet CAA milestones. (emphasis added).

SJVUAPCD Board Resolution No. 08- 04-10, p. 5.

As discussed above, the 2011 SIP revisions reduced the reductions needed from new measures in 2014 to attain to 9 tpd of PM2. 5 reductions, 26.1 tpd of NOx reductions, and 0.8 tpd of SOx. See 76 FR at 41354, Table 7.The District's aggregate emissions reduction commitment in the Plan as submitted in 2008 remains unchanged (8.97tpd of NOx reductions, 6.7 tpd ofPM2. 5 reductions, and 0.92 tpd ofS02 reductions by 2014). Thus, CARB remains obligated to achieve through the adoption ofenforceable measures by 2014, 2.3 tpd ofPM 2. 5 and 17.1 tpd of NOx. The District's commitments remain as submitted in 2008 at 9 tpd NOx, 6.7 tpd direct PM 2. 5 and 0.9 tpd SOx by 2014. See Table 3below.

Thus, CARB's and the District's commitments here are to adopt and implement measures that will achieve specific amounts ofNOx and direct PM2. 5 emissions reductions by 2014. These are not mere aspirational goals to ultimately achieve the standards or emissions inventories as mentioned by Earthjustice. Rather, the State and District have committed to adopt enforceable measures no later than 2014 that will achieve these specific amounts ofemissions reductions priorto the attainment date ofApril 5,2015. All of these control measures are subject to State and local rulemaking procedures and public participation requirements, through which EPA and the public may track the State/District's progress in achieving the requisite emissions reductions. EPA and citizens may enforce these commitments under CAA sections 113 and 304(a), respectively, should the State/District fail to adopt

measures that achieve the requisite
amounts ofemissions reductions by the beginning of 2014. See40 CFR 51.1007(b) (requiring implementation of all control measures needed for expeditious attainment no later than the beginning ofthe year priorto the attainment date). We conclude that these enforceable commitments to adopt and implement additional control

measures to achieve aggregate emissions reductions on a fixed schedule are appropriate means, techniques, or schedules for compliance under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) of the Act. Both Earthjustice and AIRcite Bayviewas support fortheir contention that the plan's commitments are unenforceable aspirational goals. Bayviewdoes not,however, provide any such support. That case involved a provision ofthe 1982 Bay Area 1-hour

ozone SIP, known as TCM 2,which
states in pertinent part:

Support post-1983 improvements identified in transit operator's 5-year plans, after consultation with the operators adopt ridership increase target for 1983-1987.

EmissionReduction Estimates:These emission reduction estimates are predicated

on a 15% ridership increase. The actual target would be determined after consultation with the transit operators.

Following a table listing these estimates,
TCM 2 provided that "[r]idership increases would come from productivity improvements

Ultimately the 15 percent ridership estimate was adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the implementing agency, as the actual target.Plaintiffs subsequently attempted to enforce the 15 percent ridership increase. The court found that the 15 percent ridership increase was an unenforceable estimate

or goal. In reaching that conclusion, the
court considered multiple factors, including the plain language ofTCM 2 (e.g., "[a]greeing to establish aridership 'target' is simply not the same as promising to attain that target," Bayview
at 698); the logic ofTCM 2,i.e., the drafters ofTCM 2were careful not to characterize any given increase as an obligation because the TCM was contingent on a number offactors beyond MTC's control, id. at 699; and the fact that TCM 2was an extension of TCM 1that had as an enforceable strategy the improvement oftransit services, specifically through productivity improvements in transit operators' five-year plans, id. at 701. As

a result of all ofthese factors, the Ninth Circuit found that TCM 2clearly designated the productivity improvements as the only enforceable strategy. Id. at 703.

The commitments in the 2007 State Strategy (revised in 2009 and 2011) and 2008 PM2. 5 Plan are in stark contrast to the ridership target that was deemed unenforceable in Bayview.The language in CARB's and the District's commitments, as stated multiple times in multiple documents, is specific; the intent ofthe commitments is clear; and the strategy of adopting measures to achieve the required reductions is completely within CARB's and the District's control. Furthermore, as stated previously, CARB and the District identify specific emissions reductions that they will achieve, how they will be achieved and the time bywhich these reductions could be achieved, i.e.,by 2014.

Earthjustice also cites CBEIIat 980 for the proposition that courts can only enforce "express" or "specific" strategies. However, as discussed below, there isnothing in the CBEcases that supports the commenter's view that the CARB and District commitments are neither express nor specific. In fact, these cases support our interpretation of CARB's and the District's commitments. Citizens foraBetterEnvironmentv. Deukmejian, 731 F.Supp.1448 (N.D. Cal. 1990), known as CBEL concerned in part contingency measures for the transportation sector in the 1982 Bay Area 1-hour ozone SIP. The provision
states: "If a determination is made that RFP is not being met for the transportation sector, MTC will adopt additional TCMs within 6 months ofthe determination. These TCMs willbe designed to bring the region back within the RFP line." The court foundthat "[o]n its face, this language is both specific and mandatory." Id. at 1458. In CBEL CARB and MTC argued that TCM 2could not constitute an enforceable strategybecause the provision fails to specify exactly what TCMs must be adopted. The court rejected this argument, finding that "[w]e discern no principled basis, consistent with the Clean Air Act, for disregarding this unequivocal commitment simply because the particulars ofthe contingency measures are not provided. Thus we hold that the basic commitment to adopt and implement additional measures, should the identified conditions occur, constitutes

a specific strategy, fully enforceable in

a citizens action, although the exact contours ofthose measures are not spelled out." Id.at 1457.46 In concluding that the transportation and stationary source contingency provisions were enforceable, the court stated: "Thus, while this Court is not empowered to enforce the Plan's overall objectives [footnote omitted; attainment ofthe NAAQS]-or NAAQS-directly, it

can and indeed, must, enforce specific strategies committed to in the Plan." Id.
at 1454.

Earthjustice's reliance on CBEI is misplaced. Italso involves in part the

46 In this passage, the court was referring specifically to the stationary source contingency

measures in the Bay Area plan which contained a commitment to adopt such measures if emissions targets were notmet. The Plan identified a number ofpotential stationary sources butdid not commit
to any particular one. In discussing the transportation contingency measures, the court applied this same reasoning. Id.at 1456-1457. 69916 Federal Register/Vol. 76,

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations 69917

contingency measures in the 1982 Bay Area Plan. In CBEH1, defendants argued that RFP and the NAAQS are coincident because, had the plan's projections been accurate, then achieving RFP would have resulted in attainment ofthe NAAQS. The court rejected this argument, stating that:

the Court would be enforcing the contingency plan,an express strategy for attaining NAAQS. Although enforcement of this strategy might possibly result in attainment, it is distinct from simply ordering that NAAQS be achieved without anchoring that order on any specified strategy. Plainly, thefact that a specified strategy might be successful and lead to attainment does not render that strategy unenforceable. (Emphasis in original). CBEIIat 980.

CARB's and the District's commitments here are analogous to the
terms ofthe contingency measures in the CBEcases. CARB andthe District commit to adopt measures, which are not specifically identified, to achieve a specific tonnage ofemissions reductions. Thus, the commitment to a specific tonnage reduction is comparable to a commitment to achieve RFP. Similarly, a commitment to achieve a specific amount ofemissions reductions through adoption and implementation ofunidentified

measures is comparable to the commitments to adopt unspecified TCMs and stationary source measures. The key isthat commitment must be clear in terms ofwhat is required, e.g.,

a specified amount ofemissions reductions or the achievement of a specified amount ofprogress (i.e., RFP). ARB's and the District's commitments

are thus clearly a specific enforceable strategy rather than an unenforceable aspirational goal.

Earthjustice's reliance onEl Comiteis also misplaced. The plaintiffs in the district court attempted to enforce a provision ofthe 1994 California 1-hour

ozone SIP known as the Pesticide Element. The Pesticide Element relied

on an inventory ofpesticide VOC emissions to provide the basis to determine whether additional regulatory

measures would be needed to meet the SIP's pesticides emissions target. To this end, the Pesticide Element provided that "ARB will develop abaseline inventory ofestimated 1990 pesticidal VOC emissions based on 1991 pesticide

use data * * *." El ComitePara El BienestardeEarlimart v. Helliker,416
F. Supp. 2d 912, 925 (E.D. Cal. 2006). CARB subsequently employed a different methodology that it deemed

more accurate to calculate the baseline inventory. The plaintiffs sought to enforce the commitment touse the original methodology, claiming thatthe calculation ofthe baseline inventory constitutes an "emission standard or limitation." The district court disagreed:

Byits own terms, the baseline identifies emission sources and then quantifies the amount ofemissions attributed tothose

sources. As defendants argue, once the

sources ofairpollution are identified, control strategies can thenbe formulated to control emissions entering the airfrom those sources. From all the above, Imust conclude that the baseline isnot an emission "standard" or "limitation" withinthe meaning of42 U.S.C. 7604(f)(1)-(4).
Id. at 928. Inits opinion, the court distinguished Bayview and CBEL pointing out that in those cases "the

measures atissue were designed to reduce emissions." Id.

On appeal, the plaintiffs shifted their argument to claim thatthe baseline inventory and the calculation methodology were necessary elements ofthe overall enforceable commitment
to reduce emissions in nonattainment

areas. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that the baseline inventory was not an emission standard or limitation and rejected plaintiffs' arguments attempting "to transform the baseline inventory into an enforceable emission standard or limitation by bootstrapping itto the commitment to decide to adopt regulations, ifnecessary." Id.at 1073.

While Earthjustice cites the Ninth Circuit's El Comiteopinion, its utility in analyzing the CARB and District commitments here is limited to that court's agreement with the district court's conclusion that neither the baseline nor the methodology qualifies

as an independently enforceable aspect ofthe SIP. Rather, itis the district court's opinion, in distinguishing the commitments in CBEand Bayview,that provides insight into the situation at issue in our action. As the court recognized, a baseline inventory or the methodology used to calculate it,is not

a measure to reduce emissions. It instead "identifies emissions sources and then quantifies the amount of emissions attributed to those sources." In contrast, as stated previously, in the 2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011) and SJV 2007 PM2.5 Plan,ARB and the District commits to adopt and implement measures sufficient to achieve specified emissions reductions by a date certain. As described above, a number ofcourts have found commitments substantially similar to ARB's here to be enforceable under CAA section 304(a). Comment:Earthjustice comments that before EPA can approve the commitments in the PM2.5 plan itmust explain howthe promise to reduce emissions by some amount is a "standard or limitation" enforceable under section 113 or 304 ofthe Act. Moreover, citing CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), Earthjustice asserts that EPA must explain how enforcement of these commitments, which arguably could not even be considered until after the attainment deadline has come and
gone, is adequate to assure the requirements ofthe Act (including timely attainment) are met. Earthjustice contends that the strategy ofrelying on these open-ended commitments is a recipe for failure and is not a reasonable substitute for the detailed, enforceable plan envisioned and required by the Act.

Response:We disagree. As discussed above, EPA believes that CARB's and the District's commitments to adopt and implement control measures to achieve the specified aggregate tonnage by 2014

are enforceable as an emission standard

orlimitation under CAA section 304. The fact that the State may meet its SIP obligation by adopting measures that are not specifically identified in the SIP, or through one ofseveral available techniques, does not render the requirement to achieve the aggregate emissions reductions unenforceable. State and local control measures are subject to rulemaking procedures and public participation requirements, through which EPA and the public may track the State/District's progress in achieving the requisite emissions reductions in the years leading up to 2014 andbefore the attainment date of April 5, 2015. Should the State/District fail to adopt measures that achieve the requisite amounts ofemissions reductions by the beginning of 2014 (see 40 CFR 51.1007(b)), EPA and citizens
may enforce these commitments under CAA sections 113 and 304(a), respectively.

F. Commentson theProposed Action on theAttainmentDemonstrationand AttainmentDateExtension
Comment:Earthjustice comments that EPA cannot grant an extension ofthe attainment date to April 5,2015 because the flaws Earthjustice alleges are in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan's attainment modeling and RACM/RACT analysis meant that the demonstration required to grant a 5-year extension have notbeen met. Earthjustice asserts that the alleged flaws include the exemptions for significant sources ofemissions from the charbroiling, glass melting and open burning rules; the delay in the implementation ofcertain control requirements (glassmelting and agricultural equipment), and theNo. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations

exclusion ofcontrols for VOC and condensable PM2
.5 emissions in the Plan

Response:We have evaluated Earthjustice's comments on the RACM/ RACT analysis, VOC as an attainment plan precursor, and condensable particulate and have determined that

none change our conclusion that the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan provides for RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1).

Under the PM2. 5 implementation rule,
states thatrequest an extension ofthe attainment date under CAA section 172(a)(2) must provide sufficient information to show that attainment by April 5, 2010 is impracticable due to the severity ofthe nonattainment problem in the area and the lack of available and feasible control measures to provide for faster attainment. 40 CFR 51.1004(b). States must also demonstrate that all RACM and RACT for the area arebeing implemented to bring about attainment ofthe standard by the most expeditious alternative date practicable for the area. 72 FR 20586 at 20601. As discussed in

our 2011 proposal, we believe that California has met the relevant tests for granting an extension ofthe attainment date under CAA section 172(a)(2). See 76 FR 41388, 41341.

Comment:Earthjustice comments that EPA should not approve the attainment demonstration, because ofits "heavy" reliance on State commitments to adopt last-minute control measures and because the emissions reductions and the attainment targets are not valid given the problems in the inventory and the modeling analysis. Furthermore, the defective modeling results in inaccurate attainment target levels.

Response:The SJV 2008PM 2.5 SIP does not rely heavily on State commitment to "adopt last-minute controls." As noted previously, the bulk ofthe emissions reductions needed for attainment are from measures adopted prior to 2007. 76 FR 41338, 41354. Moreover, one ofEPA's criteria for approving attainment demonstrations that rely on commitments is that the commitments represent a limited portion ofthe reductions needed for attainment. As we have shown, CARB's and the District's remaining commitments account for only 4.5 percent (12.9 tpd)of theNOx and 13.2 percent (3.0 tpd)ofthe PM2. 5reductions needed for attainment. Id. In comparison, already achieved reductions are 271 tpd ofNOx and 19.7 tpdofPM2. 5. See 76FR 41338, 41354 (Table 8) (numbers are the sum oflines B and C). Finally, we have determined that the SJV PM2.5 Plan provides for a generally linear reduction in emissions demonstrating reasonable further
progress as required by CAA 172(c)(2). G. Comments on theProposed Actions

on theReasonableFurther Progress Demonstration
Comment:Earthjustice comments that EPA should disapprove the RFP demonstration because itfails to address VOC and to show generally linear progress in reducing emissions. It also argues that because ofthe alleged defects in the inventory and the alleged failure ofthe modeling analysis to identify the target level ofemissions reductions, it isimpossible to assess progress. Itfurther argues that the RFP demonstration must alsobe updated to reflect corrections to the inventory.

Response:For the reasons discussed in the 2011 proposal and response to comments on the precursor issue above, EPA has found that insufficient data exist to reverse the presumption inthe PM2. 5 implementation rule that VOC is
not a PM2. 5 attainment plan precursor for attainment ofthe 1997PM 2.5 standards in the SJV. See 76 FR41350 and 2011 Proposal TSD, p. 50. Because VOC is not considered an attainment plan precursor, itneed not be addressed in the RFP demonstration. See40 CFR 51. 1009(c).

For the reasons discussed inthe 2011 proposal and response to comments on the air quality modeling above in section II.B., EPA has found that the air quality modeling in the SJV 2007PM 2.5 SIP is adequate to support the attainment demonstration and thus to establish the target level ofemissions. See 76 FR 41338, 41348 and 2011 Proposal TSD, section II.B. As discussed in the 2011 proposal, EPA evaluated the effect ofthe changes inthe base year inventory on the RFP demonstration and determined that it did notrevise

our conclusion thatthe Plan provided for RFP. See 76 FR41338, 41357 (ftn. 32) and 2011 Proposal TSD, p. 122.

H. Commentson theProposed Actions

on the Contingency Measures
Comment:Earthjustice states that EPA's analysis ofthe contingency

measures in the 2008 Plan is generally sound. Earthjustice, however, contends that our analysis relies on an RFP analysis that in turnrelies oninvalid NOx to PM2. 5 interpollutant equivalency ratios. It further argues that because these ratios are invalid, the assessment ofthe excess reductions in the RFP demonstration is also invalid and the shortfall targets mustbe recalculated using valid methods and results.

Response:EPA's calculation ofthe

excess reductions in the RFP demonstration is done on a per pollutant basis and does not assume any interpollutant trading. See 76 FR 41339, 41359 (Table 10) and 2011 Proposal TSD, p. 130. In the 2011 Progress Report, CARB states that these reductions are equal to at least oneyear's worth ofRFP when considered on

a PM2.5 equivalency basis (see 2011 Progress Report, p. 2); however, to make this statement, the State relies inpart on

an interpollutant trading ratio of 1ton of

### SOx reductions to 1ton ofPM2.5 reductions. As discussed in section II.B.4. ofthe 2011 Proposal TSD, EPA found that there was insufficient technical support for this ratio and EPA did not allow its use in the RFP demonstration or for any other purpose. Id. at 42358 and p. 129. Comment:In its comments onthe 2010 proposal, Earthjustice notes that the District proposes to rely on emissions reductions achieved by the

ozone nonattainment fee and other incentive programs. Itargues that the District does not have criteria for how these monies willbe spent and does not provide a mechanism for ensuring that any claimed emissions reductions are enforceable and that any future reliance

on funding programs to reduce emissions must demonstrate that the emissions reductions meet statutory creditability requirements including an explanation ofhow these agreements between the District and the subsidized

source canbe enforced by EPA or the public.

Response:We are not approving reductions from the District's incentive grant programs as part ofthe 2008 PM2. 5 SIP's contingency measures provisions; therefore, comments related to them are not germane to this action. In both its 2010 and 2011 proposals EPA proposed
to disapprove the Plan's contingency

measures provisions and is disapproving those provisions in today's action. See 75 FR 74518, 74539 and 76 FR 41338, 41358. Those provisions include the District's ozone nonattainment fee program and other incentive programs as potential contingency measures.

In both proposals, we noted that while neither the CAA nor EPA policy bar the use ofemissions reductions from incentive programs to meet all or part of

an area's contingency measure obligation, the incentive programs must

assure that the reductions are surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent in accordance with EPA's guidance. See "Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs," EPA-452/R-01-001 (January 2001). We also noted that the 2008PM 2.5 Plan does
not identify the incentive grant programs expected to generate the emissions reductions. The Plan also does not identify the quantity ofthese 69918 Federal Register/Vol. 76,

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations 69919

emissions reductions that the District intended to use to meet the contingency

measure requirement. Therefore, we are unable to determine ifthey are SIP creditable or sufficient to provide in combination with other measures the roughly one-year's worth ofRFP needed. For these reasons, we determined that programs did not currently meet the CAA requirements for contingency measures. See 75 FR 74518, 74538 and 76 FR 41338, 41358.

Comment:While AIR agrees with EPA's proposed disapproval ofthe contingency measures, itargues against the use ofwaiver measures and on-road fleet turnover as contingency measures because waiver measures are not inthe SIP and there are no control measures that require fleet turnover. It further argues that reductions from fleet
turnover are derived from assumptions based onvoluntary future activity that fail to meet the Act's requirements for enforceable measures. Finally, it asserts that EPA has made nofinding that such fleet turnover reductions have actually occurred.

Response:As discussed previously,

we believe thatreductions from CAA 209 waiver measures can be used to meet CAA requirements including the contingency measure requirement even though they are not in the SIP.

The measures relied on in part for contingency measure emissions reductions are the State and federal onand off-road new engines standards. Fleet turnover is the mechanism by which these new engine standards are implemented, and it ishow these standards actually result in emissions reductions in an area. CARB calculates reductions from its mobile sources, including base year and future projected
year, using its EMFAC2007 and OFFROAD models. These models included assumptions regarding fleet
turnover based on historical records. 47

Recent updates to the truck,bus, and offroad equipment inventories included review and adjustments offleet turnover rates which are alsobased on available records. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, section F. Comment:SJVUACPD commented that EPA's current requirement that contingency measures provide for oneyear's worth ofemissions reductions is
not practical for areas like the SJV and that EPA should work towards realistic and specific solutions for future implementation rules. It also stated that

47 See CARB, "Public Meeting to Consider Approval ofRevisions to the State's On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory, Technical Support Document," May 2000, section 7.3 "Retention Rates" which can be found athttp:// www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/doctabletest.htm. it would continue to work with EPA to incorporate reductions from the District's incentive programs into the SIP so that they may be used satisfy the contingency measures requirement.

Response:EPA recognizes the difficulty ofidentifying contingency

measures and appreciates the District's

concerns. We will continue to work with the District to identify potential contingency measures including incentive programs that produce reductions thatare surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent in accordance with EPA guidance.

L Commentson theProposed Actions

on theMotor VehicleEmissionsBudgets andTradingMechanism
Comment:Earthjustice comments that EPA cannot approve the revised motor vehicle emissions budgets because they

are derived from attainment and RFP demonstrations that Earthjustice asserts

are not approvable because they are based on invalid modeling. It also claims the issues with the modeling also affect the conformity analysis because it depends on interpollutant equivalency ratio between NOx and PM2
. 5that is derived from the modeling. Earthjustice
notes that CARB derived this ratio by conducting a sensitivity analysis with the model which according to Earthjustice, EPA acknowledged was not a legitimate basis for determining interpollutant equivalency ratios, citing the 2011 Proposal TSD at p. 47. Earthjustice further claims that these "defective ratios" were used to demonstrate RFP and conformity.

Response:We agree that EPA would
not be able to approve budgets that are derived from unapprovable or disapproved attainment or RFP demonstrations. However, we are approving these demonstrations in the SJV 2008 PM2.5Plan and, because they

are derived from those demonstrations and otherwise meet all applicable requirements for transportation conformity budgets, EPA's is also approving the budgets. For the reasons discussed above in our response to comments on the air quality modeling,

we do not agree with Earthjustice that the modeling is invalid.

CARB included a trading mechanism
to be used in transportation conformity analyses that use the proposed budgets

as allowed for under 40 CFR 93.124. This trading mechanism allows future decreases in NOx emissions from onroad mobile sources to offset any onroad increases in PM2.5,using aNOx: PM2. 5ratio of 9:1. As proposed by CARB and proposed for approval by EPA, the trading mechanism would only be used, ifneeded, for conformity analyses for years after 2014. Also, to ensure that the trading mechanism does not impact the ability ofthe SJV to meet the NOx budget, the NOx emissions reductions available to supplement the PM2. 5 budget would onlybe those remaining after the 2014 NOx budget has been met. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix D, p. 2 and 76 FR 41338, 41361. We found that the method CARB usedto derive the 9:1 NOx to PM2.5ratio, which was based onthe SIP's photochemical modeling, is adequate for purposes of assessing the effect of area-wide emissions changes, such as are used in RFP, contingency measures, and conformity budgets. See 76 FR 41338, 41349 and 2011 Proposal TSD,p. 46.

EPA did find that the method usedby CARB and the District (a modified rollback approach) to derive the 1:1 SOx
to PM2.5 isinadequate for determining interpollutant equivalency ratios and stated that thisissue would be better explored with a photochemical model. See 76 FR 41338, 41349 and 2011 Proposal TSD, p. 47. It is this latter discussion that Earthjustice incorrectly cites as itsbasis for claiming that EPA rejected the interpollutant tradingratio used in establishing the trading mechanism for transportation conformity analyses. The 2008 PM2. 5 SIP does not establish motorvehicle emissions budgets for S0 2 and therefore does not establish an S0 2:PM2. 5trading mechanism for transportation conformity purposes.

Comment:Earthjustice claims that a transportation agency cannot rely on budgets derived from what it considers
to be the unapprovable SJV 2008PM 2.5 SIP withoutviolating CAA section 176(c)(1) because they wouldnot be able to assure that their actions would
not interfere with timely attainment or reasonable further progress.

Response:As documented in the TSD and our 2011 proposed rule, EPA has found that the SJV 2008 PM2. 5 SIP demonstrates reasonable further progress and expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM2. 5 standards consistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations. We have also concluded thatthe budgets in this SIP are consistent with these demonstrations and areboth adequate and approvable. Therefore, the SJV MPOs must use these budgets in their transportation conformity determinations.

J. Commentson OtherTopicsNot CoveredPreviously

Comment:AIR claims that EPA fails
to listthe 2009 State Strategy Status Report (pages 11-23) among the documents which itproposes to includeNo. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations

as part of the SIP, citing 76 FR 41338, 41361, and that this is an error given CARB's intent in the 2009 State Strategy Status Report (citingp. 11). AIR requests that EPA clarify its intentto approve a CARB commitment for staff to propose

arule to regulate in-use mobile agricultural equipment. AIR notes that this commitment was part ofthe 2007 State Strategy (citingCARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B, p. 7), included in the 2009 State Strategy Status Report, and was a component ofEPA's previous proposed approval ofthe 2007 State Strategy (citing 75 FR 74518, 74541 (November 30, 2011)), but is not included in the updated rulemaking schedule in 2011 Progress Report.

Response:EPA lists the 2009 State Strategy Status Report as one offive submittals that comprise the 2007 PM 2.5 SIP for the SJV. See 76FR 41338, 41340. We also state in section VI. (EPA's proposed Actions and Potential Consequences) that we were proposing

to approve the SJV portions ofCARB's 2007 State Strategy as revised in 2009 and 2011 addressing CAA and EPA regulations for attainment ofthe 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. We specifically proposed to approve CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures as listed in Table B1 on page 1 ofAppendix B ofthe 2011 Progress Report submittal based on CARB's own characterization ofthat submittal as its updates to its rulemaking schedule for the PM 2.5
measures in the 2007 State Strategy. See 2011 Progress Report, p. 8, Table 1.

On June 20, 2011 CARB provided public notice of proposed revisions to the ozone portions ofthe 2007 State Strategy including revisions to the rulemaking schedule for in-use agricultural equipment. See CARB, Notice ofPublic Hearing to Consider a Status Report on the State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan and Consider Approval of Proposed Revisions for the 8-Hour Ozone and Minor Technical Revisions
to the PM 2. 5 SIP Transportation Conformity Budgets," June 20, 2011. As stated in the proposed revisions, CARB does not consider the in-use agricultural

measures to be part ofits PM 2.5 control strategy and therefore did notinclude updates to the schedule for that measure in its PM 2.5 SIP revision. 48 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. 3. These revisions

were adopted by the Board on July 21, 2011, submitted to EPA on July 29, 2011 and proposed for approval by EPA on

4 8As discussed previously, CARB provided
emissions reductions estimates for the in-use agricultural equipment measure only for 2017, which is three years after the 2014 attainment year for PM2. September 16, 2011 at 76 FR 57846. This proposed approval includes the revised schedule for the in-use agricultural equipment measure. See 76 FR at 57846, 57853. 49
Comment:AIR requests clarification from EPA on whether the omission of the proposed commitment in the 2011 Progress Report is an administrative
error, or whether CARB intentionally removed that commitment from the 2007 State Strategy. AIR notes that based on CARB's Web site, itappears that the omission was in error,because CARB continues torepresent to the public that itis working on the in-use agricultural equipment rule. AIR asserts that to the extentthat CARB intentionally removed the commitment, such action violates 40 CFR 51.102 because CARB did not provide adequate notice to the public ofthisfundamental change to CARB's strategy and that the public should not be expected to search through "voluminous SIP-related material, searching out stealth amendments by omission."

Response:As required by 40 CFR 51.102, CARB posted the draft 2011 Progress Report including the proposed revisions to the rulemaking schedule in the 2007 State Strategy 30 days prior to the public hearing and requested public
comments. See CARB, Notice ofPublic Hearing to Consider the Approval of a Progress Report and Proposed State Implementation Plan Revisions for
PM 2. 5 ,March 29, 2011. Questions and comments on the State's proposed revisions to its rulemaking schedule, including changes to the in-use agricultural equipment measure, should be directed to CARB during the State's public comment periods or at the public hearings. Comment:AIR comments that the 2008 PM 2. 5 Plan and the 2007 State Strategy fail to demonstrate a monitoring program for CARB mobile

source measures and the pesticide regulation, stating EPA regulations specifically require each plan to make this demonstration, citing 40 CFR 51.111. Itprovides as an example, CARB's anti-idling rules.

Response:EPA's regulation at 40 CFR 51.111 requires each planinclude a description ofenforcement methods including, but not limited to, procedures for monitoring compliance with each ofthe selected control

measures andprocedures for handling violations. These requirements apply to the control measures that are in the SIP.

49AIR notes that Table F-8 inEPA's 2011 Proposal TSD lists the agricultural equipment rule

as a defined measure in the 2011 Progress Report. This was an error and has been corrected in the final TSD. For the reasons discussed previously,

we do notbelieve that California's mobile source measures thatreceive waivers under CAA section 209 need to be submitted for inclusion into the SIP; therefore, California need not include a description ofthe enforcement and or monitoring program for these measures in its SIP. 5 o As noted previously, CARB's anti-idling regulations are pending a section 209 waiver decision. Should any ofthese provisions need to be submitted for SIP approval, we will evaluate their monitoring procedures at the time we take action to incorporate them into the SIP. As we have also noted previously, the pesticide regulation is not part ofthe 2008PM 2.5 SIP's control strategy; therefore, the lack of any monitoring procedures is not material to our approval ofthis SIP.

As a practical matter, to be effective, monitoring procedures (which includes monitoring and recordkeeping requirements and testing procedures)
must be tailored to the specific emission limitation for which they are to be used. For example, the procedures for monitoring NOxemissions from utility boilers are very different from the procedures for monitoring the VOC
content ofpaints. Compare, for example, Rule 4601 (Boilers > 5million BTUper hour), sections 5.4 "Monitoring Requirements" and 6.0 "Administrative Requirements" requiring continuous emissions monitoring and annual source testing using specific testprocedures to Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), section 6.0 "Administrative Requirements" specifying label requirements, requiring maintenance of annual sales records, and specifying test methods for determining the VOC
content ofcoatings. Because ofthe need
to tailor monitoring procedures to the emission limit, EPA evaluates a prohibitory rule's monitoring, recordkeeping, and testing procedures at the time itreviews the rule for incorporation into the SIP. We note that

we are not approving any rules or regulations as part ofthis specific action

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP.
III.Approval Status ofthe Control Strategy Measures andFinal Actions on the Attainment Demonstration and Enforceable Commitments

A. ApprovalStatusofControlStrategy Measures

As part ofits control strategy for attaining the PM 2.5 standards in the SJV, the District made specific commitments

5o

Fora description ofCARB's source monitoring
and enforcement programs including its procedures for handling violations, See http://www.arb.ca.govl enf/enf.htm. 

### 69920 Federal Register/Vol. 76,

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations 69921

to adopt thirteen measures on the schedule identified inthe Plan. See 2008 PM2
.5 Plan, Table 6-2 (revised June 17, 2010). The District has now completed its actions on all measures except for revisions to Rule 4905 (Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type Residential Central Furnaces) which is
not scheduled for adoption until 2014. SeeTable 1below. As Table 1 shows, EPA has approved all ofthe adopted rules with the exception ofthree, none ofwhich is credited with emissions reductions in the demonstrations.

TABLE 1-SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

### 2008 PM 2.5 PLAN SPECIFIC RULE COMMITMENTS

District rule Adoption date Current SIP approval status

4103- Open Burning

........................................................ April 2010

........................... Final approval signed: September 30, 2011. 4320-Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, October 2008

..................... Approved.

Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/ 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010). hr). 4307-Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters October 2008

..................... Approved.

(2 to 5 MMBtu/hr). 76 FR 5276 (January 31, 2011). 4308-Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters December 2009

.................. Approved.

(0.075 to < 2 MM Btu/hr). 76 FR 16696 (March 25, 2011). 4703- Stationary Gas Turbines

....................................... September 2007

................. Approved. 74 FR 53888 (October 21, 2009). 4702- Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

......... August 2011

....................... Submittal pending. 4354- Glass Melting Furnaces

........................................ October 2008

..................... Approved. 76 FR 37044 (June 24, 2011). 4902- Residential Water Heaters

.................................... March 2009

........................ Approved. 75 FR 24408 (May 5, 2010). 4905-Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type Residential Central Adoption scheduled for Most current revision of rule approved: October 20,

Furnaces. 2014. 2005 at 72 FR 29886 (May 30, 2007). 4901-Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning October 2008

..................... Approved.

Heaters. 74 FR 57907 (November 10, 2009). 4692- Commercial Charbroiling

....................................... September 2009

................. Final approval signed: September 30, 2011. 4311

- Flares

.................................................................... June 2009

.......................... Proposed for approval 76 FR 52623 August 23, 2011). 9410-Employer Based Trip Reduction Program

............ December 2009

.................. Action pending. Emissions reductions from this rule revision are not currently included in the attainment or RFP demonstration.

As part ofits control strategy for attaining the PM2.5 standards in the SJV, CARB committed to propose certain

measures on the schedule identified in the 2007 State Strategy. These commitments, which were updated in the 2011 Progress Report, and their
current approval status are shown in Table 2. Ofthe measures listed in the 2007 State Strategy's updated rulemaking schedule, we note that only reductions from the "SmogCheck Improvement," "Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks," and "Cleaner In-Use OffRoad Engines" measures are currently credited withreductions in the attainment demonstration. See 76FR 41338, 41346 (Table 6).

Generally speaking, EPA will approve

a State plan thattakes emissions reduction credit for a control measure only where EPA has approved the

measure as part ofthe SIP, or in the case ofcertain on-road and nonroad
measures, where EPA has issuedthe related waiver ofpreemption or authorization under CAA section 209(b)

or section 209(e). In our July 2011 proposed rule, in calculating and proposing to approve the State's aggregate emissions reductions commitment in connection with our proposed approval ofthe attainment demonstration, we assumed that full final approval, waiver, or authorization of a number ofCARB rules would occur prior to our final action on the San Joaquin Valley PM2. 5 Plan. See 76

### FR 41338, 41346 (table 6). Two specific CARB rules on which the attainment demonstration relies include the Truck Rule and the Drayage Truck Rule (that collectively are included in a State

measure referred to as "Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks"). Weproposed approval ofboth rules at 76 FR 40652 (July 11, 2011), but will be unable to take final action on the rules until after taking final action onthe SJV 2008 PM2. 5 SIP because, while CARB has adopted the rules, the rules cannot take effect until approved by the California Office ofAdministrative Law (OAL) and such approval will not happen before EPA's final action mustbe taken on the plan.

We are nonetheless allowing the plan's attainment demonstration, and

our final approval ofit, to rely onthe emissions reductions from the two CARB rules cited above for the following reasons:

* Both rules have been adopted by CARB and submitted to EPA as a revision to the California SIP,5 1and the adopted versions are essentially the

51The Truck Rule and the Drayage Truck Rule

were included in a SIP submittal dated September 21, 2011. We have included the September 21, 2011 SIP submittal in the docket for this rulemaking. same as those for which EPA proposed approval;

* The comments thatwe have received on our proposed approval of the two CARB rules (TruckRule and Drayage Truck Rule) contend that the rules are costly and may not be economically or technologically feasible, but such considerations cannot form the basis for EPA disapproval ofa rule submitted by a state as part ofthe SIP [see UnionElectricCompanyv. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 265 (1976)];

* The remaining administrative process, which involves review ofthe final adopted rules by California's Office ofAdministrative Law (OAL) is essentially procedural in nature, and should be completed over the near term; 52

* CARB intends to submit the final, effective rules to EPA as soon as OAL completes its review and approves the rules. Therefore, we are confident that the final action on the rules will be

52 See letterfrom James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, toJared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated September 21, 2011, submitting the Truck and Drayage Truck rules SIP revision to EPA. CARB indicates that the Drayage Truck Rule willbe submitted to OAL no later than September 23, 2011, and the Truck Rule will be submitted to OAL no later than October 29, 2011. Under California law, OAL must taken action within 30 working days.69922 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations

completed in the near-term and that, as

aresult, continued reliance by the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP, and our final approval ofit, on the emissions reductions associated with the rules is reasonable and appropriate. If,however, California does not submit the adopted and fully effective rules to EPA as a SIP revision prior to the effective date oftoday's action, we will take appropriate remedial action to ensure that our action

onthe plan is fully supportable orto reconsider that action.

TABLE 

### 2-2007 STATE STRATEGY DEFINED MEASURES SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERATION AND CURRENT STATUS

State measures Expected Implementation Current status action year
Smog Check Improvements

......... 2007-2009

.......... 2008-2010, 2013 Elements approved 75 FR 38023 (July 1,2010). 5 3 Expanded Vehicle Retirement (AB 2007

.................... 2009

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

118). Modification to Reformulated Gas- 2007

.................... 2010

.................... Approved, 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010).

oline Program. Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty 2007, 2008, 2010 2011-2015

.......... Proposed for approval 76 FR 40642 (July 11, 2011).

Trucks. Accelerated Introduction of Clean- 2008

.................... 2012

.................... Prop 1B bond funds awarded to upgrade line-haul locomotive ener Locomotives. gines not already accounted for by enforceable agreements with the railroads. Those cleaner line-hauls will begin operation by 2012. Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Engines 2007, 2010

.......... 2009

.................... Waiver action pending. New Emissions Standards for 2013

.................... To be determined Partial adoption, July2008. Additional action expected 2013.

Recreational Boats.

Source: 2011 Progress Report, Table 1.Additional information from http://www.ca.arb.gov. Only defined measures with direct PM 2
. 5 or NOx re- ductions in the SJV are shown here.

B. Enforceable Emissions Reductions Commitments

CARB's emissions reductions commitment is to achieve the "total emissions reductions necessary to attain Federal standards" through "the implementation ofcontrol measures; the expenditure oflocal, State, orfederal incentive funds; or through other enforceable measures." See CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B at pp. 3-6; 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 20; and 2011 Progress Report, p. 6.

The updates and improvements to the inventories as presented in CARB's 2011 Progress Report altered the calculation ofthe reductions needed for attainment ofthe 1997 PM 2 .5 standards in SJVby reducing the total reductions needed from District and State control strategy

measures to 9 tpd for PM2.5, 26.1 tpd for NOx, and 0.8 tpd for SO2 . See Table 3 below and 76 FR at 41354, Table 7.

We are approving the 2008 PM 2 .5 Plan taking into account CARB's revisions to the control strategy based on the revisions to its projected baseline inventories and its enforceable emissions reductions commitment. Specifically, we are interpreting CARB's emissions reductions commitment, together with the adjustments to the 2014 baseline inventories provided in CARB's 2011 SIP revision and the District's commitments, as adjusting CARB's total emissions reductions commitment such that CARB is now obligated to achieve 2.3 tpd ofPM2 . 5 reductions and 17.1 tpd ofNOx reductions by 2014 through enforceable control measures to provide for attainment ofthe 1997 PM 2 .5NAAQS in SJV. SJVUAPCD's commitments as submitted in 2008 are to achieve 9 tpd NOx, 6.7 tpd direct PM2 . 5, and 0.9 tpd SOxby 2014. See Table 3below. The commitment numbers in this table do
not include reductions frommeasures already adopted by CARB and the District to meet their commitments.

TABLE 

### 3-SJVUAPCD AND 

### CARB 2014 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS COMMITMENTS [Tons per average annual day in 2014]

Direct PM 2. 5 NOx SO 2

A- Adjusted 2014 baseline emissions level 1

............................ . ..... ..... .... ..... .... .... ..... ..... .... .... ... 72.3 317.3 25.4 B- 2014 attainmenttarget level2 ...

...................................... .... ..

..... . ..... .... ..... .... .... ..... ..... .... .... ... 63 .3 291.2 24.6 C-Reductions needed from control strategy measures (A

- B)

.............................................. 9.0 26.1 0.8 D

- 

### D istrict com m

itments3

........................................................................................................... 

### 6.7 9.0 0.9
E- CARB commitments (C

- D )

................................................................................................ 2.3 17.1

........................ 1From TSD, Table G-1. 22008 PM 2. 5 Plan, p. 9-3. 32008 PM 2. 5 Plan, pp. 6-11 to 6-12.

The level ofemissions reductions remaining as commitments after adjusting the baseline toreflect updates and improvements to the inventories and crediting reductions from SIP53 California Assembly Bill2289, passed in 2010, requires the Bureau ofAutomotive Repair to direct older vehicles to high performing auto technicians approved or otherwise SIP-creditable

measures is shown inTable 4. These levels remain unchanged from our 2011 proposal as does our conclusion that the attainment demonstration inthe SJV

and test stations for inspection and certification effective 2013. Reductions shown for the SmogCheck program inthe 2011 Progress Report do 2008 PM2.5 SIP which relies in part on these enforceable commitments is approvable. See 76 FR 41338, 41354 (Table 8) and 41356.

not include reductions from AB 2289 improvements. CARB Progress Report supplement, attachment 5.Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations 69923

TABLE 4-REDUCTIONS NEEDED FOR ATTAINMENT REMAINING AS COMMITMENTS BASED ON SIP-CREDITABLE MEASURES [Tons per average annual day in2014]

Direct PM2. 5 NOx Sox

A-Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy measures and other adjustm

ents to the baseline to attain

................................................................................................ 22.7 284.2 1.8 B-Reductions from baseline measures andadjustments to baseline

...................................... 13.7 258.1 1.0 C- Total reductions from approved m easures

........................................................................... 6.0 13.2 3.6 D- Total reductions remaining as commitments (A

- B

- C)

................................................. 3.0 12.9 0.0 E- Percent oftotal reductions needed remaining as commitments

........................................... 13.2 4.5 0.0

IV. Approval ofthe Motor Vehicle approving today in Table 5below. We included in the conformity analysis. See Emissions Budgets and Trading posted the draft version ofthese budgets 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix A, Mechanism for Transportation on our Web site for adequacy on July 14, p. A-6. Conformity 2011 for a 30-day comment period Now that the approval ofthe budgets

We noted in our July 2011 proposal which ended on August 15, 2011 (see is finalized, the SJV MPOs andthe U.S. that CARB had posted draft technical http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ Department ofTransportation are revisions to the SJV 2008 PM2. 5 SIP's stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm). required to use the revised budgets in
motor vehicle emissions budgets on We received no comments on our transportation conformity June 20, 2011 (see 76 FR 41338, at adequacy posting and have completed determinations. Due to the formatting of 41360 andhttp://www.arb.ca.gov/ our adequacy review (see TSD, section the budgets (combining emissions planning/sip/2007sip/2OO7sip.htm) to II.J.). changes, recession impacts and
correct data entry errors inthe budget EPA is also approving the trading reductions from control measures), corrct ataenh T errrs nth buget mechanism in the State's submittal for calculations and to remove the CARB will need to provide the MPOs emissions reductions attributable to use in transportation conformity with emissions reductions associated SJVUAPCD's Rule 9510 "Indirect analyses by the SJV MPOs as allowed with the control measures incorporated Source Review." 54 In our July 2011 for under 40 CFR 93.124. The trading into the budgets for the appropriate proposal, we proposed to approve these applies only to: analysisyears so that they can include draftbudgets contingent on our e Analysis years after the 2014 these reductions infuture conformity attainment year. determinationsper 40 CFR 93.122.In receiving the SIP submittal from CARB e On-road mobile emission sources. containing thesebudgets before our * Trades usingvehicle NOx emission addition, for these conformity final action on the SJV 2008 PM2. 5 SIP. reductions in excess ofthose needed to determinations, the motor vehicle The budgets were submitted by CARB as meet the NOx budget. emissions from implementation ofthe

a SIP revision onJuly 29, 2011 (see e Trades in one direction from NOx transportation plan should be projected letter, James Goldstene, Executive to direct PM2. 5. and compared to the budgets at the Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, e A trading ratio of9 tpd NOxto 1 same level of accuracy asthe budgets in Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, tpd PM2.5. the plan, for example emissions should dated July 29, 2011, with Attachments). Clear documentation ofthe be rounded to the nearest tenth (e.g. 0.1 We summarize the budgets we are calculations used in the trade wouldbe tpd).

TABLE 5-PM 2.5 

### MVEB FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

[Tons per average annual day]

2012 2014 County PM 2. 5 NOx PM 2 . 5 NOx

Fresno

............................................................................................................ 1.5 35 .7 1.1 31.4 Kern (SJV)

..................................................................................................... 1.9 48.9 1.2 43.8 Kin g

s ................................................................................................................ 0.4 1 0.5 0.3 9.3 Madera

.......................................................................................................... 0.4 9.2 0.3 8.1 Merced

.......................................................................................................... 0.8 19.7 0.6 17.4 San Joaquin

.................................................................................................. 1.1 24.5 0.9 21.6 Stanislaus

............................................................................................... ........ 0.7 16.7 0.6 14.6 T

u

la

re ............................................................................................................... 0.7 1 5.7 0.5 1 3.8

V. FinalActions andResulting Clean Air Act Consequences

A. EPA'sFinal Actions

For the reasons discussed in our July 13, 2011 proposal, EPA approves, with the exception ofthe contingency

measures provisions, California's SIP for attaining the 1997 PM2. 5NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley and grants the State's request for an extension ofthe attainment date to April 5, 2015. The California PM2.5 attainment SIP for the San Joaquin Valley is composed ofthe SJVUAPCD's 2008 PM2.5 Plan as revised in 2010 and 2011 and the SJV-specific

54EPA has approved Rule 9510 intothe California from the rule for any SIPpurpose including SIP but disallowed the use ofemissions reductions portions of CARB's 2007 State Strategy

as revised in 2009 and 2011 that address CAA and EPA regulations for attainment ofthe 1997 PM2.5NAAQS in the SJV.

Specifically, EPA approves under CAA section 110(k)(3) the following elements ofthe SJV PM2. 5 attainment SIP:

transportation conformity. See 75 FR 28509 (May 21, 2010) and 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011).No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations

1.The 2005 base year emissions inventories as meeting the requirements ofCAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008;

2.The reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control technology demonstration as meeting the requirements ofCAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1010;

3.The reasonable further progress demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1009;

4. The attainment demonstration and associated air quality modeling as meeting the requirements ofCAA sections 172(c)(1) and (6) and 40 CFR 51.1007;

5.The 2012 RFP year and 2014 attainment year motor vehicle emissions budgets (as submitted onJuly 29, 2011) and CARB's trading mechanism tobe used in transportation conformity analyses as allowed under 40 CFR 93.124;

6. SJVUAPCD's commitments to the adoption and implementation schedule for specific control measures listed in Table 6-2 (amendedJune 15, 2010) of the 2008 PM2 . 5 Plan to the extentthat these commitments have not yet been fulfilled, and to achieve specific aggregate emissions reductions ofdirect PM 2.5,NOx and 

### SOxby year, aslisted in Table 6-3 ofthe PM2 . 5 Plan; and 7.CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, as listed in Table B-1 onpage 1 ofAppendix B of the 2011 Progress Report to the extent that these commitments have not yet been fulfilled and to achieve aggregate emissions reductions of 17.1 tpdNOx and 2.3 tpd direct PM:.5by 2014 sufficient toprovide for attainment of the 1997 PM2 . 5NAAQS as described in CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B
at pp. 3-6, the 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 21. and given in Table 3 above.

In addition,EPA concurs with the State's determination under40 CFR 51.1002(c) that SOx and NOx are and VOC and ammonia are not attainment plan precursors for the attainment ofthe 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.

EPA also grants, pursuant to CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1004(a), California's request to extend the attainment date for the San Joaquin Valley PM2. 5 nonattainment

area to April 5, 2015.

Finally, EPA disapproves under CAA section 110(k)(3) the contingency

measures provisions of the SJV PM 2.5 attainment SIP as failing to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1012. B. CAA ConsequencesoftheFinal Disapprovalofthe ContingencyMeasure Provisions

EPA is committed to working with the District and CARB to resolve the remaining issues that make the current PM2. 5 attainment SIP for the SJV not fully approvable under the CAA and the PM2. 5 implementation rule. Under the CAA, a final disapproval of

a required CAA element, such as the contingency measures provisions in section 172(c)(9), triggers sanction clocks under CAA section 179(b)that

run from the effective date ofthe final action. The first sanction, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2), will apply in the SJV PM2. 5 nonattainment

area 18 months fromJanuary 9, 2012 The second sanction, highway funding sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1), will apply in the area six months after the offset sanction is imposed. Neither sanction willbe imposed underthe CAA ifCalifornia submits andwe approve prior to the implementation of the sanctions, SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies identified in our proposed action. In addition to the sanctions, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan addressing the deficient elements in the PM2.5 SIP for the SJV nonattainment area, two years after January 9, 2012, the effective date ofthis rule ifwe have not approved

a SIP revision correcting the deficiencies within the twoyears.

Because we are approving the RFP and attainment demonstrations and the
motor vehicle emissions budgets, we are issuing a protective finding under 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3) to the disapproval of the contingency measures. Without a protective finding, the final disapproval would result in a conformity freeze, under which only projects in the first four years ofthe mostrecent conforming Regional Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Programs

can proceed. During a freeze, no new RTPs, TIPs or RTP/TIP amendments can be found to conform. See40 CFR 93.120(a)(2). Under this protective finding, however, the final disapproval ofthe contingency measures does not result in a transportation conformity freeze in the SanJoaquin PM2.5 nonattainment area.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order12866,Regulatory PlanningandReview

The Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled "Regulatory Planning and Review."

B. Paperwork ReductionAct

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.Burden is defined at 5CFR 1320.3(b).

C.RegulatoryFlexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct

aregulatory flexibility analysis ofany rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unlessthe agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include smallbusinesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals and partial approvals/partial disapprovals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D ofthe Clean Air Act do not create any

new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because this partial approval/partial disapproval action does not create any new requirements, Icertify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature ofthe Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation offlexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness ofState action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA tobase its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectricCo., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. UnfundedMandatesReformAct

Under sections 202 ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes aFederal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most costeffective and leastburdensome alternative that achieves the objectives ofthe rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small 69924 Federal Register/Vol. 76,Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations 69925

governments that may be significantly

oruniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the partial approval/partial disapproval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no newrequirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result fromthis action.

E.Executive Order13132,Federalism

Federalism(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism)and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development ofregulatory policies that have federalism implications." "Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations thathave "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 ofgovernment." Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation thathas federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary topay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process ofdeveloping the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and thatpreempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process ofdeveloping the proposed regulation.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, onthe relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship orthe distribution ofpower and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 ofthe Executive Order do not perform activities conducive to the use apply to this rule. ofVCS.

F.Executive Order13175, Coordination With IndianTribalGovernments

Executive Order 13175, entitled "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to

ensure "meaningful and timely inputby tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications." This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Itwill not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, onthe relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order13045, Protectionof ChildrenFromEnvironmentalHealth Risks andSafetyRisks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such thatthe analysis required under section 5-501 ofthe Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard.

H. Executive Order13211,Actions That Significantly Affect EnergySupply, Distribution,or Use

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

L NationalTechnologyTransferand AdvancementAct

Section 12 ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use "voluntary

consensus standards" (VCS) ifavailable and applicable when developing
programs andpolicies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to J.Executive Order12898:Federal Actions ToAddressEnvironmental Justicein MinorityPopulations and Low-Income Population

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law,to make environmental justice part oftheir mission by identifying and addressing,

as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects oftheirprograms, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this rulemaking. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria ofthe Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP underCAA section 110 and subchapter I, part D and disapproves others, and will not in-andofitselfcreate any new requirements. Accordingly, it does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898.

K. Congressional ReviewAct
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides thatbefore a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rulemust submit a rule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A majorrule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective onJanuary 9, 2012.

L. Petitions forJudicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed inthe United States Court ofAppeals for theNo. 217/Wednesday, November 9, 2011/Rules and Regulations

appropriate circuit byJanuary9, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does
not affect the finality ofthis rule for the
purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which apetition forjudicial review maybe filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of suchrule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in40 CFRPart52

Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 30, 2011. Jared Blumenfeld,
RegionalAdministrator, EPARegion9.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

m 1. The authority citation for Part52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart F-California

* 2.Section 52.220, is amendedby adding paragraph (c)(356)(ii)(B), adding andreserving paragraph (c)(391), and adding paragraphs(c)(392), (c)(393), (c)(394), (c)(395), and (c)(396).
§52.220 Identificationof plan.

(c) * * * (356) * * * (i) * * * (ii) * * * (B) State ofCalifornia Air Resources Board. (1) Proposed State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan, adopted on September 27, 2007. (2) CARB Resolution No. 07-28 with Attachments A and B, September 27, 2007. Commitment to achieve the total emissions reductions necessary to attain the Federal standards in the SJV air basin, which represent 2.3 tons per day (tpd)ofdirect PM2.5 and 17.1 tpd of nitrogen oxides by 2014 for purposes of the 1997 PM2. 5NAAQS, as described in Resolution No. 07-28 at Attachment B, pp. 3-6, and modified byCARB Resolution No. 09-34 (April 24, 2009) adopting "Status Report on the State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revisions to the SIP Reflecting Implementation ofthe 2007 State Strategy" andbyCARB Resolution No. 11-24 (April 28, 2011) adopting the "Progress Report on Implementation of PM2. 5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and SanJoaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions." (3)Executive Order S-07-002, Relating to Approval ofthe State Strategy for California's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Federal 8-Hour Ozone and PM2. 5 Standards, November 16, 2007.

(391) [Reserved] (392) Aplan was submitted onJune 30, 2008by the Governor's designee.

(i) [Reserved] (ii)Additional Material. (A) SanJoaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. (1) 2008 PM2. 5 Plan, adopted on April 30, 2008.

(2) SJVUAPCD Governing Board, In the Matter of: Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Resolution No. 08-04-10, April 30, 2008. Commitments
to achieve emissions reductions (including emissions reductions of8.97 tpd ofNOx, 6.7 tpd ofdirect PM2.5, and 0.92 tpd ofSOx by 2014) as described in Table 6-3a (p. 6-11),Table 6-3b (p. 6-12), and Table 6-3c (p. 6-12) respectively ofthe 2008 PM2. 5 Plan and commitments to adopt and submit control measures as described in Table 

### 6-2 (p. 6-9) ofthe 2008 PM2. 5 Plan, as amended June 17, 2010.

(B) State ofCalifornia AirResources Board. (1) CARB Resolution No. 08-28 with Attachment A, May 22, 2008. (393) An amended plan was submitted on August 12, 2009by the Governor's designee. (i) [Reserved] (ii)Additional Material. (A) State ofCalifornia Air Resources Board. (1) Status Report on the State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revisions to the SIP Reflecting Implementation ofthe 2007 State Strategy, pages 11-17, April 24, 2009.

(2) CARB Resolution No. 09-34, April 24, 2009.

(394) An amended plan was submitted on September 15, 2010 by the Governor's designee. (i) [Reserved] (ii)Additional Material. (A) SanJoaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. (1) 2008 PM2. 5 Plan Amendment to Extend the Rule 4905 Amendment Schedule, June 17, 2010.

(2) SJVUAPCD Governing Board, In the Matter of: Proposed Amendments to the 2008 PM2. 5 Plan to Extend the Rule Amendment Schedule for Rule 4905 (Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Residential Central Furnaces), Resolution 10-06-18, June 17, 2010. (B) State ofCalifornia Air Resources Board. (1)Executive Order S-10-003, Relating to Approval ofAmendments to the 2008 PM2. 5 Plan to Extend the Rule Amendment Schedule for Rule 4905 (Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Residential Central Furnaces), September 15, 2010. (395) An amended plan was submitted onMay 18, 2011 by the Governor's designee. (i) [Reserved] (ii)Additional Material. (A) State ofCalifornia AirResources Board. (1)Progress Report on Implementation ofPM2. 5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions, Release Date: March 29, 2011. (2) CARB Resolution No. 11-24, April 28, 2011. Commitment topropose

measures as described inAppendix B of the Progress Report on the Implementation ofPM2. 5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions. (3)Executive Order S-11-010, "Approval ofRevisions to the Fine Particulate Matter State Implementation Plans for the South Coast Air Quality Management Plans for the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the SanJoaquin Valley AirPollution Control District," May 18, 2011. (396) An amended plan was submitted onJuly 29, 2011 by the Governor's designee. (i) [Reserved] (ii)Additional Material. (A) State ofCalifornia AirResources Board. (1) 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM2. 5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, Appendix A, page A-6, (dated June 20, 2011), adopted July 21, 2011.

(2) CARB Resolution No. 11-22, July 21, 2011.

(3)Executive Order S-11-016, "Approval ofRevisions to the 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plans for the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District," July 29, 2011.

[FRDoe. 2011-27232 Filed 11-8-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 69926 Federal Register/Vol. 76,