# San 

# loaqu¡n Valley 

# V
HEALTHY

# AIR LIVINGAIR POLTUTIflN CflNTRÍ)L DISTRICT

RE 

### February 

### 11,2015 Attention Docket 

### No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-081 3 

### Anita Lee 

### Air Planning 

### Office (AlR-2) U.S. Environmental Protection 

### Agency, Region 9 

### 75 Hawthorne Street 

### San Francisco, 

### California 94105 Via email: 

### lee.anita@epa.gov 

### Docket No. EPA-RO9-OAR -201 4-0813 

### Comments 

### on Designation ofAreas

### for Air Quality Planning Purposes; 

### California; San

### Joaquin Valley; Reclassification as 

### Serious Nonattainment 

### forthe 1997 PM2.5 

### Standards. Proposed 

### Rule. (80 Fed. Reg. 

### 7, 

### pp.1482- 1491, 

### January 12,20151
Dear Ms. Lee: 

### The San Joaquin Valley 

### Air Pollution Control District 

### (District) is

### committed

### to protecting 

### the health of 

### our residents and 

### acting in accordance 

### with Clean 

### Air

### Act requirements. ln achieving 

### cleaner air, 

### the challengesthat 

### the District 

### faces in

### the San Joaquin Valley 

### Air Basin are unmatched by any 

### other region in

### the nation due 

### to its unique geography, 

### topography, meteorology, and 

### economy, These challenges are 

### compounded by provisions of

### the Clean 

### Air Act 

### which result in

### overlapping standards, requirements, and deadlines 

### and new requirements implemented on air 

### districts resulting 

### from court decisions, such as

### the recent decision 

### with respect 

### to Clean 

### AirAct subpart4 and PM2.5 

### requirements. The District appreciates 

### the U.S. 

### Environmental Protection 

### Agency's (EPA) 

### efforls towork collaboratively 

### with us

### to implement Clean Air 

### Act requirements, 

### specifically in regards to

### the proposed reclassification of

### the San Joaquin 

### Valley (SJV) 

### as a 

### Serious nonattainment area for 

### the 1997 

### PM2.5 national ambient air quality 

### standards (NAAOS).
EPA's proposal 

### to establish an adoption date 

### for a revised nonattainment new source review 

### (NSR) rule 

### of 12-months after 

### final approval of

### the reclassification is appropriate and consistent 

### withthe Clean 

### Air

### Act, However, EPA

### then negates 

### that deadline by stating 

### that a request 

### for a 

### deadline date 

### extensionwould require 

### thatthe revised NSR rule,with 

### the PM2.5 major source 

### threshold lowered 

### from 100 

### tons per year 

### to 70 tons peryear, 

### would need 

### to be 

### submitted "in time 

### for EPA 

### to approve such an extension prior to

### the December 31 

### ,2015 Serious area 

### attainment

### date." EPA provides no valid justification 

### forthis requirement, despite knowing 

### that

### the District must request such an 

## gxtension' seyed sadredin Execulive Director/Air Pollution Control 0fficer

Northern Region 4800 Enterprise Way Modesto, CA 95356-8718 Tel: (2091 557.6400 FAX: {2091 557.6475 Central Begion (Main 0ffice)
'I990 E. Gellysburg Avenue Fresno, CA 93726.0244 Tel: (559) 230-6000 FAX: (559) 230-ô061 Southern Region 34946 Flyover Court Bakersfield, CA 93308-9725 Tel: 661.392-5500 FAX: 681.392.5585 www.valleyair.org www.healthyairliving.com Pr¡nrod on rscyclod papor 

### oDocket No. EPA-R09-OAR-201 4-081 3

February 11,2015 Page 2 of 3 EPA invokes 188(e) 

### to supportthis requirement, but

### there is no 

### such requirement in 

### 188(e), ln

### fact, 188(e) 

### specifically says 

### that "the

### Administrator may extend 

### the attainment date 

### for a SerioUS 

### Area", if: 

### Attainment by

### the date 

### established under 

### subsection (c) of

### this section 

### would be impracticable, 

### The State has complied 

### with all requirements and 

### commitments pertaining to that 

### area in

### the implementation plan, 

### The State 

### demonstrates to

### the satisfaction ofthe 

### Administrator that 

### the plan

### for that area includes 

### the most 

### stringent measures 

### that are included in

### the implementation plan of 

### any State or are achieved in 

### practice in any 

### State, and can

### feasibly be implemented in

### the area, and 

### The State must 

### submit a revision 

### tothe implementation plan 

### that includes a 

### demonstration of attainment by

### the most 

### expeditious alternative date practicable. 

### There is no 

### mention of NSR, 

### either directly 

### or by implication, 

### thatwould lead one to believe that 

### the updated NSR rule is required prior 

### to approval of

### the attainment deadline extension. 

### ln conversations 

### with EPA Region lX staff, the

### justificationforthe requirement 

### to adopt 

### a revised NSR rule prior 

### tothe approval of

### the extension request is based on the supposition 

### that Congress intended 

### that a

### serious area 

### to be in

### full compliance with all serious 

### area requirements prior 

### to requesting an 

### extension, including having adopted the 

### appropriate NSR 

### rule. However, ifsuch 

### was Congress' intention, it is

### also natural to assume 

### that Congress intended 

### for EPA

### to have adopted 

### the appropriate implementation rule 

### and acted in a

### timely manner on 

### California's attainment plan 

### submittals. Neither ofthose 

### things 

### happened. EPA's implementation rule

### wasfound by 

### the coutls 

### to have 

### been based on

### the incorrect 

### subpart of

### the Clean 

### AirAct, and EPA 

### was ordered 

### to reissue 

### an implementation rule under 

### the proper subpart (which has yet 

### to be 

### issued). Furthermore, EPA has not 

### adopted implementation rules 

### or other guidance 

### for states on 

### adopting NSR rules 

### that properly 

### address CAA Subpart 4 requirements 

### for PM2.5 

### nonattainment

### areas. ln spite 

### of EPA's delays in performing the required 

### actions under 

### the Clean 

### AirAct, EPA now is proposing 

### to require 

### the District to 

### peÍorm as if

### they had.
To 

### summarize, EPA is asking 

### the District 

### to begin an 

### expedited process 

### to adopt a serious 

### area NSR rule prior 

### tothe District being 

### classified as a 

### serious nonattainment area and in a

### vacuum of appropriate implementation 

### rules. This has

### the impact 

### of EPA establishing guidance 

### without the appropriate public 

### attention and comment that would be received 

### had EPA 

### proceeded appropriately and in a

### timely 

### manner. EPA has repeatedly 

### found itself 

### being held legally accountable 

### for rulemaking 

### without proper public process, 

### and appearsto be going down 

### this path 

### withthis element of the proposed action. lnstead, EPA 

### should clarify inthe 

### final action on

### the reclassificationthat

### the District be required 

### to adopt 

### a revised NSR rule

### within 12-months after 

### final approval ofthe a

a

aDocket No. EPA-R09-OAR-201 4-081 3

February 11,2015 Page 3 of 3 reclassification, and 

### that such an NSR rule adoption 

### deadline does not interfere with EPA's ability 

### to approve an 

### attainment deadline 

### extension under 188(e). 

### The District

### thanks you 

### for EPA's 

### time and 

### effort in

### considering our 

### comments. Followup inquiries 

### can be 

### directed

### to Mrs.

### Anna Myers Senior 

### Air Quality 

### Specialist, at (559) 230-6100 or at

### Anna.Myers@valleyair.org. We look fonruard to

### working closely with EPA staff as

### the proposed action isfinalized.

Re llv,

ad utive 

### Director/Air Pollution 

### Control Officer