Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0260-0073
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations:California; San Joaquin Valley Serious Area and Section 189(d) Plan for Attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
Posted Date: 2021-11-26T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 225 (Friday, November 26, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67329-67343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25617]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0260; FRL-8644-01-R9]

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality 
Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley Serious Area and 
Section 189(d) Plan for Attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action to approve in part and disapprove in part portions of state 
implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by California to address 
Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requirements for the 1997 annual fine 
particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the San Joaquin Valley 
PM2.5 nonattainment area. Specifically, the EPA is approving 
the 2013 base year emissions inventories in the submitted SIP revision. 
The EPA is disapproving the attainment demonstration and related 
elements, including the comprehensive precursor demonstration, five 
percent annual emissions reductions demonstration, best available 
control measures (BACM) demonstration, reasonable further progress 
(RFP) demonstration, quantitative milestones, and contingency measures. 
The EPA is also disapproving the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 
plan as not meeting the requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective on December 27, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0260. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please 
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance 
in a language other than English or if you are a person with 
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, 
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Graham, Air Planning Office 
(ARD-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, 
(415) 972-3877, or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' 
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Rule
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
    A. Comments From SJVUAPCD
    B. Comments From Earthjustice
    C. Comments From a Private Citizen
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Rule

    On July 22, 2021, the EPA proposed to approve in part and 
disapprove in part portions of SIP revisions submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB) to meet CAA requirements for the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley 
PM2.5 nonattainment area.\1\ The SIP revisions on which we 
proposed action are those portions of the ``2018 Plan for the 1997, 
2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards'' (``2018 PM2.5

[[Page 67330]]

Plan'') \2\ and the ``San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State 
Strategy for the State Implementation Plan'' (``Valley State SIP 
Strategy'') \3\ that pertain to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 
CARB submitted the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and Valley State SIP 
Strategy to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP on May 10, 
2019. We refer to the portions of these two SIP submissions that 
pertain to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS collectively as the 
``SJV PM2.5 Plan'' or ``Plan.'' The SJV PM2.5 
Plan addresses the Serious area and CAA section 189(d) attainment plan 
requirements for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the San 
Joaquin Valley, including the State's demonstration that the area would 
attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 86 FR 38652.
    \2\ The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 
District (SJVUAPCD or ``District'') adopted the 2018 
PM2.5 Plan on November 15, 2018 and CARB adopted it on 
January 24, 2019. The 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes a revised 
version of Appendix H submitted by CARB as a technical correction on 
February 11, 2020.
    \3\ CARB adopted the Valley State SIP Strategy on October 25, 
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed to approve the 2013 base year emissions 
inventories in the SJV PM2.5 Plan and proposed to disapprove 
the attainment demonstration and related elements, including the 
comprehensive precursor demonstration, five percent annual emissions 
reductions demonstration, BACM demonstration, RFP demonstration, 
quantitative milestone demonstration, motor vehicle emissions budgets, 
and contingency measures. The EPA proposed to disapprove these elements 
because the San Joaquin Valley area did not attain by the State's 
projected attainment date of December 31, 2020.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The EPA's proposed action was based on our review of 
preliminary but complete and quality-assured ambient air monitoring 
data for 2018-2020. For this final action, the EPA has reviewed the 
final, certified ambient monitoring data. These final certified data 
values are the same as the values shown in Table 5 of the EPA's 
proposal in most instances except for minor differences in 2020 
annual means and 2020 design values for the following three sites: 
Fresno-Pacific (AQS ID: 06-019-5025), Bakersfield-Golden State 
Highway (AQS ID: 06-029-0010), and Corcoran (AQS ID: 06-031-0004). 
The final data values support our preliminary conclusion that the 
San Joaquin Valley area did not attain by the State's projected 
attainment date of December 31, 2020. Source: EPA, 2020 AQS Design 
Value Report, AMP480, accessed September 29, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also proposed action on amendments to the local air 
district's SIP-approved residential wood-burning rule, the San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or 
``District'') Rule 4901, ``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning 
Heaters'' (``Rule 4901''), submitted by the State to the EPA on July 
19, 2019. These amendments include a contingency measure in section 
5.7.3 of the amended rule that the State submitted to address 
contingency measure requirements for the 1997 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS. The EPA proposed to disapprove, and to remove from the 
California SIP, the contingency provision of Rule 4901 (i.e., section 
5.7.3) because this provision does not satisfy CAA requirements for 
contingency measures and is severable from the remainder of Rule 4901. 
Our disapproval of section 5.7.3 of Rule 4901 as a contingency measure 
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and our removal of this 
provision from the SIP, has no effect on our prior approval of Rule 
4901 for purposes of meeting the BACM and most stringent measures 
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin 
Valley,\5\ which remains in effect for all but section 5.7.3 of Rule 
4901.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 85 FR 44206 (July 22, 2020) (final approval of Rule 4901) 
and 85 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020) (determination that Rule 4901 
implements BACM and MSM for residential wood burning).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period 
that ended on August 23, 2021. We received four sets of comments, 
including two comment submissions from private citizens,\6\ one comment 
letter from the SJVUAPCD,\7\ and one comment letter from a coalition of 
environmental and community organizations (collectively referred to 
herein as ``Earthjustice'').\8\ All of the comments are included in the 
docket for this action. The comment submissions from private citizens 
generally supported our proposal to disapprove the contingency measures 
element of the SJV PM2.5 Plan. The supportive portions of 
those comments do not require a response. We respond to the remainder 
of the comments received on our July 22, 2021 proposed rule in this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Comment dated July 30, 2021, from Cherie Yang, to Docket ID 
No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0260, and comment dated August 23, 2021, from 
Thomas Menz, to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0260, with 
attachment.
    \7\ Letter dated August 23, 2021, from Samir Sheikh, Executive 
Director/Air Pollution Control Officer, SJVUAPCD, to Ashley Graham, 
EPA Region IX, Subject: ``Re: Partial Approval and Partial 
Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San 
Joaquin Valley Serious Area and Section 189(d) Plan for Attainment 
of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS (EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0260).''
    \8\ Letter dated August 23, 2021, from Paul Cort, Earthjustice, 
et al., to Ashley Graham, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``Re: Proposed 
Partial Disapproval of San Joaquin Valley Serious Area Plan for 
Attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS (Docket ID No. 
EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0260),'' including attachments A through G. The 
environmental and community organizations, in order of appearance in 
the letter, include Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, National 
Parks Conservation Association, Earthjustice, Climate Policy 
Coordinator, Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, The 
Climate Center, Central California Environmental Justice Network, 
Little Manila Rising, Madera Coalition for Community Justice, Mi 
Familia Vota, Fresno Building Healthy Communities, Valley 
Improvement Projects, Clean Water Action, The San Joaquin Valley 
Latino Equity Advocacy & Policy Institute, Coalition for Clean Air, 
and Center for Race, Poverty, and the Environment (collectively 
``Earthjustice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Comments From SJVUAPCD

    Comment A.1: SJVUAPCD states that it supports the EPA's proposal to 
approve the 2013 base year emissions inventories but is concerned about 
the proposed disapproval of the attainment demonstration and related 
elements. The District notes that it adopted the SJV PM2.5 
Plan on November 15, 2018, and that CARB adopted the plan on January 
24, 2019, and states that it is unfortunate that CARB did not submit 
the plan to the EPA until May 10, 2019. The District also notes that 
the EPA did not take action to approve or disapprove the Plan by 
November 10, 2020, as required by statute.
    Response A.1: We acknowledge that the EPA did not take action to 
approve or disapprove the SJV PM2.5 Plan by November 10, 
2020, as required by the Act. With this final action, we are 
discharging the EPA's statutory obligation under CAA section 110(k)(2) 
to act on the SIP submission.
    Comment A.2: SJVUAPCD states that ``[i]t is absurd and inequitable 
to disapprove a plan because monitoring data that was unavailable when 
the plan was completed now contradicts the modeling in the plan.'' In 
support of its argument, the commenter quotes from the D.C. Circuit 
Court of Appeals' decision in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 
795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015):

    We will not invalidate EPA's predictions solely because there 
might be discrepancies between those predictions and the real world. 
That possibility is inherent in the enterprise of prediction. The 
best model might predict that the Nationals will win the World 
Series in 2015. If that does not happen, you can't necessarily fault 
the model. As we have said previously, the fact that a `model does 
not fit every application perfectly is no criticism; a model is 
meant to simplify reality in order to make it tractable. See EME 
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 135 (D.C. Cir. 
2015), citing Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 28 F.3d 
1259, 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

    Response A.2: We disagree with the commenter's claim that it is 
absurd and inequitable to disapprove the SJV PM2.5

[[Page 67331]]

Plan based on ambient air quality monitoring data that contradicts the 
modeling in the plan. Section 189(b) of the CAA requires that a state 
with a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area submit, among other 
things, a demonstration that the plan ``provides for attainment of the 
[PM2.5 NAAQS] by the applicable attainment date,'' and 
section 189(d) similarly requires that a state with a Serious 
PM2.5 nonattainment area that fails to attain by the 
applicable attainment date submit plan revisions that, among other 
things, ``provide for attainment of the [PM2.5 NAAQS].'' 
Nothing in the CAA or in the EPA's implementing regulations precludes 
the EPA's consideration of ambient air monitoring data in determining 
whether a submitted plan satisfies these statutory requirements. The 
EPA's longstanding guidance on modeled attainment demonstrations 
highlights the importance of considering recent design values (i.e., 
ambient air quality data) in selecting a base modeling year and 
projecting future changes in emissions and ambient concentrations.\9\ 
Consistent with this guidance, the EPA routinely considers ambient air 
quality data during the model performance evaluation process that it 
conducts to determine whether a state's air quality model provides 
reliable predictions of future pollutant concentrations.\10\ The 
commenter provides no statutory or regulatory support for a claim that 
the EPA cannot consider available ambient air quality data as part of 
its review of a submitted attainment demonstration to determine whether 
it ``provides for'' attainment of the NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Memorandum dated November 29, 2018, from Richard A. Wayland, 
Division Director, Air Quality Assessment Division, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, to Regional Air Division 
Directors, Regions 1-10, Subject: ``Modeling Guidance for 
Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and 
Regional Haze,'' 18.
    \10\ See, e.g., EPA, Region IX Air Division, ``Technical Support 
Document, EPA Evaluation of Air Quality Modeling, San Joaquin Valley 
PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 
February 2020, 18-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, an attainment demonstration is a predictive tool for 
assessing air quality at a future time, and as the D.C. Circuit stated 
in EME Homer City Generation, the possibility of discrepancies between 
predictions and the real world is ``inherent in the enterprise of 
prediction.'' \11\ In this case, however, CARB submitted the attainment 
demonstration for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS less than 20 
months before the State's projected attainment date (i.e., December 31, 
2020),\12\ and the EPA's action on the SJV PM2.5 Plan is 
occurring at a time when that attainment date is no longer a projected 
date because the date has passed. Thus, our evaluation of the 
attainment demonstration is no longer based on ``predictions.'' 
Complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air quality data 
available to the EPA at this time clearly indicate that the SJV 
PM2.5 Plan failed to ``provide for'' attainment of the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the State's identified attainment 
date, December 31, 2020. In this context, it is reasonable for the EPA 
to take these data into account and, on that basis, to disapprove the 
attainment demonstration and related elements of the SJV 
PM2.5 Plan for failure to ``provide for'' attainment of the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the identified attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 795 F.3d at 135 (citing Chemical Manufacturers Association 
v. EPA, 28 F.3d 1259, 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).
    \12\ CARB submitted the SJV PM2.5 Plan on May 10, 
2019, well after the statutory deadline for this submission, which 
was December 31, 2016. 81 FR 84481, 84482 (November 23, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment A.3: The commenter asserts that ``[t]imely review of the 
Plan by EPA under the timelines required per statute would have negated 
the complications cited by EPA in their proposed disapproval.'' The 
commenter acknowledges that, according to the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals' decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2012), 
the EPA must properly evaluate new information that indicates that a 
SIP awaiting approval is inaccurate or not current and ``may not simply 
ignore it without reasoned explanation of its choice.'' \13\ However, 
the commenter claims that ``at issue in this Sierra Club case was EPA's 
2010 approval of a 2004 plan without consideration of emissions 
inventory data that became available in 2006'' and that ``[t]hese 
timeframes significantly surpass the timeframe at issue now with the 
District's 2018 PM2.5 Plan (adopted in late 2018, 
demonstrating attainment in 2020, and subject to EPA action in 2021).'' 
The commenter also notes that the Ninth Circuit in Sierra Club did not 
opine on the Petitioners' argument that the EPA improperly approved the 
plan in 2010 knowing that attainment by the 2010 attainment deadline 
was impossible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 671 F.3d at 967 (9th Cir. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response A.3: As discussed in Response A.1, we acknowledge that the 
EPA did not act on the SJV PM2.5 Plan within the statutory 
timeframe. We note that the EPA's delayed action on the SJV 
PM2.5 Plan was due, in part, to the State's late submission 
of several overdue attainment plans for multiple PM2.5 NAAQS 
for the San Joaquin Valley \14\ in May 2019. Notwithstanding the 
belated submission of these attainment plans, the EPA has since taken 
proposed or final action on each required plan.\15\ We are now 
discharging our statutory obligation under CAA section 110(k)(2) to act 
on the SJV PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 83 FR 62720 (December 6, 2018) (identifying statutory 
deadlines for submission of complete SIPs for 1997, 2006, and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley).
    \15\ 85 FR 44192 (final action on Serious area plan and 
extension request for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS), 86 FR 38652 
(proposed action on Serious area and section 189(d) plan for 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS), 86 FR 49100 (September 1, 2021) 
(proposed action on Moderate area plan for 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS), and 86 FR 53150 (September 24, 2021) (proposed action on 
Serious area and section 189(d) plan for 1997 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter suggests that Sierra Club does not support the EPA's 
rationale for disapproval of the SJV PM2.5 Plan because the 
period between the State's submission of, and the EPA's action on, the 
SJV PM2.5 Plan (approximately two and a half years, from May 
2019 to November 2021) is shorter than the period between the State's 
submission of, and the EPA's action on, the ozone plan at issue in 
Sierra Club (over five years, from November 2004 to March 2010).\16\ 
This suggestion, however, reflects a misconstruction of the court's 
holding in this case. In Sierra Club, the Ninth Circuit remanded the 
EPA's March 2010 approval of an ozone attainment plan for the San 
Joaquin Valley submitted in 2004, holding that the EPA's failure to 
consider new emissions data that the State had submitted in 2007 as 
part of a separate ozone plan rendered the EPA's action arbitrary and 
capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.\17\ Although the 
court noted the length of the EPA's delay in acting on the 2004 plan 
submission after updated emissions data had become available, the 
decision ultimately rested on the unreasonableness of the EPA's failure 
to address the new emissions data, not on the specific number of years 
that had passed since the State submitted the

[[Page 67332]]

plan.\18\ The court found the EPA's action arbitrary and capricious 
because of its ``reliance on old data without meaningful comment on the 
significance of more current compiled data'' and concluded that ``it 
was unreasonable for EPA summarily to rely on the point of view taken 
[in longstanding policy] without advancing an explanation for its 
action based on `the facts found and the choice made.' '' \19\ Contrary 
to the commenter's characterization of Sierra Club, the EPA interprets 
that decision to stand for the proposition that it would be 
inappropriate for the EPA to ignore monitoring data that clearly 
establish, as a factual matter, that the attainment demonstration 
failed to provide for attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 74 FR 33933 (July 14, 2009) (proposed rule) and 75 FR 10420 
(March 8, 2010) (final rule).
    \17\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2012). The court 
also noted that the EPA's action was inconsistent with the court's 
holding in Ass'n of Irritated Residents (AIR) v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 
(9th Cir. 2011), which ``supports the proposition that if new 
information indicates to EPA that an existing SIP or SIP awaiting 
approval is inaccurate or not current, then, viewing air quality and 
scope of emissions with public interest in mind, EPA should properly 
evaluate the new information and may not simply ignore it without 
reasoned explanation of its choice.'' Id. at 967.
    \18\ Id. at 965-968.
    \19\ Id. at 968 (citing Burlington Truck Lines, 371 U.S. 156, 
168 (1962)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has reviewed complete, quality-assured, and certified 
ambient air quality data for the 2018-2020 period that establish that 
the San Joaquin Valley did not attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS by the December 31, 2020 attainment date identified in the SJV 
PM2.5 Plan.\20\ In light of these facts, we conclude that 
the SJV PM2.5 Plan failed to provide for attainment of the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS as required by CAA sections 189(b) 
and 189(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 86 FR 38652, 38665 (Table 5) and fn. 4, supra (noting that 
certified data confirm the preliminary conclusions provided in the 
EPA's proposed rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter fails to explain its statement that ``[n]otably, in 
deciding the matter based on inventory data, the Sierra Club court did 
not reach Petitioners' argument that EPA improperly approved the 2004 
SIP submission in 2010 knowing that attainment by the 2010 deadline was 
impossible.'' We decline to speculate on the meaning or relevance of 
the Ninth Circuit's decision not to reach this issue.
    Comment A.4: SJVUAPCD's comment letter summarizes the regulatory 
consequences that would result from final disapproval of the SJV 
PM2.5 Plan and states that these consequences could not have 
been foreseen or avoided in light of recent wildfires and data handling 
issues. The commenter asserts that a better path would have been for 
the EPA to ``approve the plan as valid at the time of adoption by the 
District'' and concurrently make a finding of failure to attain by the 
2020 deadline, triggering a requirement for a revised plan. The 
commenter claims that this path would be ``more consistent with the 
cooperative federalism embedded in the Clean Air Act'' and would have 
avoided sanctions consequences outside of the District's direct 
control, although sanctions would still apply if the District were to 
fail to submit a revised plan on time.
    Response A.4: We disagree with the commenter's claim that the EPA 
could have proposed to approve the SJV PM2.5 Plan for the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS as ``valid at the time of adoption 
by the District.'' As discussed in our proposed rule and in Response 
A.2, complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring 
data for the 2018-2020 period establish that the San Joaquin Valley did 
not attain by the December 31, 2020 attainment date identified by the 
State in the SJV PM2.5 Plan. We are, therefore, disapproving 
the SJV PM2.5 Plan for failure to provide for attainment as 
required by the CAA.
    Comment A.5: SJVUAPCD states that the San Joaquin Valley did not 
attain by the December 31, 2020 attainment date due to wildfires and 
data handling issues that were outside of the District's control. The 
commenter concludes that after accounting for wildfire-related 
exceptional events, the San Joaquin Valley is attaining the 1997 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS and that all areas except for Bakersfield-
Planz are attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 
commenter attributes the failure to attain at the Bakersfield-Planz 
site to data handling issues at the CARB-operated monitor that were 
outside of the District's control.
    The commenter states that the District and CARB have drafted a SIP 
revision for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS with a December 31, 
2023 attainment date, and notes that the District Governing Board 
adopted the revision on August 19, 2021, and that CARB intends to 
approve the revision in September 2021. The commenter states that it 
hopes the EPA will approve the plan revision quickly to avoid a similar 
situation as the current one.
    Response A.5: We appreciate the commenter's perspective on the San 
Joaquin Valley's air quality challenges and information about recent 
steps taken by the State and District to develop a revised plan. 
Comments regarding the revised plan are, however, outside the scope of 
this rulemaking.
    Comment A.6: SJVUAPCD requests that the EPA clearly articulate in 
the final action on the SJV PM2.5 Plan for 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS that development, review, and approval of new 
contingency measures for those NAAQS are governed by a timeline 
separate from the elements included in the SIP revision that the 
District Governing Board adopted on August 19, 2021. The commenter 
states that the District looks forward to working with CARB and the EPA 
to address the contingency measure requirements.
    Response A.6: There is no separate timeline associated with the 
requirement for the contingency measure element, as the commenter 
suggests. As discussed in section III of this notice, as a result of 
this final action, California will be required to develop and submit a 
revised plan for the San Joaquin Valley that satisfies the CAA's 
Serious area and section 189(d) requirements, including the requirement 
for contingency measures, for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 
Section III of this final rule discusses the timeline for application 
of mandatory offset and highway sanctions as a result of this final 
disapproval.
    Comment A.7: SJVUAPCD asserts that the federal government has not 
done enough to achieve reductions in emissions from mobile sources and 
that this has resulted in ``disproportionate pressure on the District 
and CARB to continue reduc[ing] emissions to make up the shortfall, 
demonstrate attainment, and satisfy contingency requirements.''
    Response A.7: These comments do not identify a specific issue that 
is relevant to the EPA's action on the SJV PM2.5 Plan for 
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Comment A.8: SJVUAPCD asserts that the SJV PM2.5 Plan 
for the 1997 NAAQS is fully approvable even though the San Joaquin 
Valley did not attain by the December 31, 2020 attainment date.
    Response A.8: We disagree with these comments. See Response A.2.

B. Comments From Earthjustice

    Comment B.1: Earthjustice asserts that the EPA's proposed approval 
of the 2013 base year emissions inventories is arbitrary and 
capricious. Specifically, Earthjustice argues that because the 
inventories were developed using a mobile source emissions model (i.e., 
EMFAC2014) that has since been updated, the 2013 baseline emissions 
inventories do not reflect the best information available. Earthjustice 
claims that ``CARB and the District know the emissions assumptions 
included in the 2013 baseline inventory do not reflect the best 
information because they have a more current, more accurate EMFAC2017 
model that undermines those EMFAC2014 results.'' The commenter states 
that the EPA has not offered an analysis to support a conclusion that 
only the modeling was incorrect, and not the baseline emissions 
inventory inputs used in the modeling. Earthjustice further asserts 
that the inventories are inextricably tied to the attainment 
demonstration and

[[Page 67333]]

related elements, and that because the area did not attain by the 
attainment date in the Plan, the EPA must also disapprove the 
inventories. The commenter asserts that there is no reason for the EPA 
to approve the emissions inventories if the remainder of the plan is 
disapproved.
    Finally, Earthjustice states that the State must develop a new plan 
and that the new plan cannot rely on the 2013 base year emissions 
inventories that the EPA has proposed to approve, but rather the State 
must develop the new plan using the updated mobile source emissions 
model EMFAC2017. Earthjustice also claims that the State must use 
EMFAC2017 in any new regional and hot-spot analyses because the 
transportation conformity grace periods have expired.
    Response B.1: The EPA disagrees with Earthjustice's claim that our 
approval of the 2013 base year inventories is arbitrary and capricious. 
We evaluated the emissions inventories in the SJV PM2.5 Plan 
to determine if they satisfy CAA requirements as interpreted in the 
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.1008 and in the preamble to the EPA's 
implementation rule for the PM2.5 NAAQS (hereafter 
``PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule'').\21\ As discussed in the 
proposal, we found that the State and District had used emissions 
inventory estimation methodologies consistent with the EPA's 
recommendations, and that the inventories in the SJV PM2.5 
Plan are comprehensive and based on the most current and accurate 
information available to the State and District when they were 
developing the Plan.\22\ Based on these evaluations, we proposed to 
approve the 2013 base year emissions inventories in the SJV 
PM2.5 Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 
172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016).
    \22\ 86 FR 38652, 38658.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB used its mobile source emissions model, EMFAC2014, to generate 
the on-road mobile source inventories in the SJV PM2.5 Plan. 
The EPA approved EMFAC2014 for use in SIPs and conformity 
determinations on December 14, 2015.\23\ At the time that the State and 
District were developing the SJV PM2.5 Plan, EMFAC2014 was 
the most current mobile source model available for emissions inventory 
development purposes. CARB submitted the SJV PM2.5 Plan to 
the EPA on May 10, 2019. On August 15, 2019, the EPA approved 
EMFAC2017, the latest revision to this mobile source emissions 
model.\24\ We find that it would be unreasonable to require the State 
and District to revise the SJV PM2.5 Plan because of an 
updated EMFAC model that the EPA approved several months after the 
State's submission of the Plan. The EPA has stated in longstanding 
policy that the CAA does not require states that have already submitted 
SIP submissions or will submit SIP submissions shortly after the 
release of a new mobile source model to revise these submissions simply 
because a new motor vehicle emissions model is available, as it would 
be unreasonable to require a state to revise such a submission after 
significant work had already occurred.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 80 FR 77337.
    \24\ 84 FR 41717. The grace period for new regional emissions 
analyses begins on August 15, 2019, and ends on August 16, 2021, 
while the grace period for hot-spot analyses begins on August 15, 
2019, and ends on August 17, 2020. Id. at 41720.
    \25\ EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, ``Policy 
Guidance on the Use of MOVES3 for State Implementation Plan 
Development, Transportation Conformity, General Conformity, and 
Other Purposes,'' November 2020, 7, 8; EPA, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, ``Emissions 
Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate 
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional 
Haze Regulations,'' May 2017, 27, 28; and memorandum dated January 
18, 2002, from John Seitz, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards and Margo Oge, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 
EPA, ``Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and 
Transportation Conformity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, the EPA has considered information regarding the 
differences between the EMFAC2014 and EMFAC2017 emissions estimates 
that has become available since our proposal. On November 8, 2021, CARB 
submitted a SIP revision to address the CAA requirements for the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.\26\ The submission included CARB's 
``Staff Report, Proposed SIP Revision for the 15 [micro]g/m\3\ Annual 
PM2.5 Standard for the San Joaquin Valley'' (``CARB Staff 
Report''), which includes a comparison of estimated annual 
NOX and PM2.5 emissions in the San Joaquin Valley 
in the 2013 base year.\27\ CARB determined that PM2.5 
emissions estimates for 2013 derived using EMFAC2017 are approximately 
six percent higher than estimates derived using EMFAC2014, and that 
NOX emissions estimates for 2013 derived using EMFAC2017 are 
seven percent lower than the emissions estimates derived using 
EMFAC2014.\28\ CARB also concluded that the differences in 2013 base 
year emissions derived using EMFAC2014 and EMFAC2017 are not 
significant enough to affect the modeled attainment demonstration in 
the revised SIP submission. Thus, CARB's analyses support our 
conclusion that the 2013 base year emissions inventories in the SJV 
PM2.5 Plan are comprehensive, accurate, and current, 
consistent with the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 
51.1008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Letter dated November 8, 2021, from Richard W. Corey, 
Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region 9.
    \27\ Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/SJV%2015%20ug%20SIP%20Revision%20Staff%20Report%20FINAL.pdf.
    \28\ The CARB Staff Report indicates that 2013 annual emissions 
derived using EMFAC2014 are 183.09 tpd of NOX and 6.45 
tpd of PM2.5, whereas 2013 annual emissions derived using 
EMFAC 2017 are 170.04 tpd of NOX and 6.83 tpd of 
PM2.5. CARB Staff Report, Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also disagrees with the commenter's claim that the base 
year emissions inventories are ``inextricably tied to the demonstration 
of attainment'' and related plan elements and that disapproval of the 
attainment demonstration thus requires disapproval of the emissions 
inventories. Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires that plans for 
nonattainment areas include ``a comprehensive, accurate, current 
inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant 
pollutant or pollutants in such area, including such periodic revisions 
as the Administrator may determine necessary to assure that the 
requirements of [part D of title I of the CAA] are met.'' Nothing in 
the text of section 172(c)(3) indicates that the EPA cannot evaluate 
the adequacy of the emissions inventories independent of other 
requirements such as RFP or attainment.
    As the EPA explained in the preamble to the EPA's PM2.5 
SIP Requirements Rule, the base year emissions inventory requirement in 
CAA section 172(c)(3) is a requirement independent of the attainment 
demonstration and related plan elements and, therefore, is not 
suspended by a determination by the EPA that the area has attained the 
NAAQS (i.e., a ``clean data determination'').\29\ For over 25 years, 
the EPA has maintained its interpretation in the ``Clean Data Policy,'' 
now codified at 40 CFR 51.1015 for PM2.5 purposes, that only 
those plan requirements that are linked by their terms to the CAA's 
requirements for attainment and RFP (e.g., the attainment 
demonstration, RFP, and contingency measures) are suspended upon a 
determination by the EPA that the area is attaining the relevant 
NAAQS.\30\

[[Page 67334]]

Consistent with this longstanding interpretation, 40 CFR 51.1015 
excludes the base year emissions inventory from the attainment-related 
requirements that are suspended upon a clean data determination for the 
PM2.5 NAAQS.\31\ The commenter provides no statutory support 
for a claim that the requirement for emissions inventories in CAA 
section 172(c)(3) is inextricably tied to the attainment demonstration 
and related plan elements. Put simply, an emissions inventory may still 
be adequate, even if other elements (e.g., a failure to evaluate and 
impose control measures on sources that would result in attainment) of 
an attainment plan are not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 81 FR 58010, 58128.
    \30\ Memorandum dated May 10, 1995, from John S. Seitz, 
Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), 
to Air Division Directors, EPA Regions I-X, Subject: ``Reasonable 
Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements 
for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard'' and memorandum dated December 14, 2004, from 
Stephen D. Page, Director, OAQPS, EPA, to Air Division Directors, 
EPA Regions I-X, Subject: ``Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''
    \31\ 40 CFR 51.1015 (stating that ``[u]pon a determination by 
the EPA that a [ ] PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained 
the PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for the state to submit 
an attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress plan, 
quantitative milestones and quantitative milestone reports, and 
contingency measures for the area shall be suspended until'' the 
area is redesignated to attainment, after which such requirements 
are permanently discharged, or the EPA determines that the area has 
re-violated the PM2.5 NAAQS, at which time the 
requirements are reinstated. See also 40 CFR 51.918, 51.1118, and 
51.1318 (similarly suspending attainment-related planning 
requirements, but not emissions inventory requirements, upon a clean 
data determination for the ozone NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also disagree with the commenter's assertion that there is no 
reason for the EPA to approve the emissions inventories if the 
remainder of the plan is being disapproved. Under CAA section 
110(k)(3), the EPA may approve any portion of a SIP submission that 
meets the requirements of the Act. For the reasons provided in the 
proposal, the EPA finds that the 2013 base year emissions inventories 
in the SJV PM2.5 Plan are consistent with the requirements 
of the CAA, as interpreted in the EPA's regulations and guidance.
    Earthjustice's claim that in a new attainment plan for the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley the State 
``cannot rely on the 2013 base year inventory that EPA proposes to 
approve'' is outside of the scope of this rulemaking. The EPA will 
review the revised attainment plan submitted by the State on November 
8, 2021, for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and the EPA's 
regulations and will determine, following notice-and-comment 
rulemaking, whether the submission satisfies all applicable CAA 
requirements. We encourage Earthjustice to resubmit these comments as 
appropriate during such a future rulemaking.
    Finally, Earthjustice is correct that because the transportation 
conformity grace periods for use of EMFAC2014 have expired, the State 
must use EMFAC2017 in any new regional emissions analyses that begin on 
or after August 16, 2021,\32\ unless and until the EPA approves a new 
version of EMFAC. This means that all new hydrocarbon, NOX, 
PM10, PM2.5, and CO regional conformity analyses 
started after the end of the two-year grace period must be based on 
EMFAC2017, even if the SIP is based on an earlier version of the EMFAC 
model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The grace period for use of EMFAC2014 in conformity 
determinations for projects ended on August 17, 2020 and the grace 
period for use of EMFAC2014 in regional plan and TIP conformity 
determinations ended on August 16, 2021. 84 FR 41717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment B.2: Earthjustice states that it agrees with the EPA's 
proposal to disapprove the precursor demonstration in the SJV 
PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS but 
asserts that the EPA's reasoning necessitates certain other findings by 
the EPA. Earthjustice describes the EPA's reasoning in the proposed 
rule \33\ as tying the precursor demonstration to the attainment 
demonstration and asserts that if the attainment demonstration has 
proven to be wrong, then the precursor demonstration must necessarily 
also be wrong, both for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and for 
the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Earthjustice states that the 
``defects'' in the precursor demonstration for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS also ``infect the precursor demonstration for 
the 1997 24-hour standard plan'' and that the EPA should disapprove 
that demonstration as well ``to make it clear to the District and CARB 
that a new analysis for both standards will be required.'' Earthjustice 
also reiterates its concerns with the precursor demonstration that it 
raised previously in comments on the EPA's approval of the plan for the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, such as the failure to properly 
account for NOX emissions from soil and the refusal to 
consider the cost-effectiveness of ammonia controls as compared to 
NOX controls. The commenter asserts that should the EPA 
decide to approve the precursor demonstration despite the failure of 
the attainment demonstration, the EPA must issue a new proposal that 
explains the EPA's rationale and offers the public the opportunity to 
review and comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 86 FR 38652, 38660.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response B.2: The EPA acknowledges Earthjustice's support for 
disapproving the precursor demonstration but does not agree with the 
commenter's characterization of the EPA's rationale for the 
disapproval. As we explained in the proposed rule, the EPA proposed to 
disapprove the attainment demonstration and related elements in the SJV 
PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based 
on ambient monitoring data that show that the Plan was insufficient to 
achieve attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 
December 31, 2020, the State's projected attainment date.\34\ We 
further explained that ``[g]iven that we are proposing to disapprove 
the attainment demonstration, and given that the precursor 
demonstration for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS largely relies 
on the technical analyses and assumptions that provide the basis for 
the attainment demonstration, we are also proposing to disapprove the 
precursor demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id. at 38665-38666.
    \35\ Id. at 38660.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is not taking the position that disapproval of an 
attainment demonstration necessarily renders the associated precursor 
demonstration deficient in all cases. Nothing in the CAA, the 
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule,\36\ or in the EPA's guidance on 
PM2.5 precursor demonstrations (hereafter ``PM2.5 
Precursor Guidance'') \37\ indicates that approval of a precursor 
demonstration is necessarily contingent upon approval of the associated 
attainment demonstration. Where the modeled attainment demonstration 
and the precursor demonstration are based on the same modeling 
platform, the EPA may find that fundamental flaws in that modeling 
platform render both demonstrations deficient. But the EPA evaluates 
each demonstration on its own merits, and in some cases the EPA may 
find it appropriate to approve a precursor demonstration even if the 
attainment demonstration with which it is associated is deficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 81 FR 58010.
    \37\ Memorandum dated May 30, 2019, from Scott Mathias, Acting 
Director, Air Quality Policy Division and Richard Wayland, Director, 
Air Quality Assessment Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards (OAQPS), EPA to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 
1-10, EPA, Subject: ``Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 
Precursor Demonstration Guidance,'' attaching ``PM2.5 
Precursor Demonstration Guidance,'' EPA-454/R-19-004, May 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, we find that the modeling platform used in the SJV 
PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS is 
adequate to support both the attainment demonstration and the precursor 
demonstration for the 1997 annual PM2.5

[[Page 67335]]

NAAQS. Although we are disapproving the attainment demonstration for 
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on ambient air quality 
monitoring data that show that the area failed to attain these NAAQS by 
the end of 2020, our disapproval does not rest on a conclusion that the 
modeling platform is fundamentally flawed. In our discussion about the 
modeling platform in the proposal, we stated that ``[t]he magnitude and 
timing of predicted concentrations of total PM2.5 [in the 
San Joaquin Valley] . . . generally match the occurrence of elevated 
PM2.5 levels in the measured observations'' and ``[a] 
comparison to other recent modeling efforts shows good model 
performance on bias, error, and correlation with measurements, for 
total PM2.5 and for most of its chemical components.'' \38\ 
The same modeling platform provides the basis for California's Serious 
area plan for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San 
Joaquin Valley that the EPA approved on July 22, 2020,\39\ the Moderate 
area plan for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin 
Valley that the EPA proposed to approve on September 1, 2021,\40\ and 
the Serious area and CAA section 189(d) plan for the 1997 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley that the EPA proposed 
to approve on September 24, 2021.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 86 FR 38652, 38664.
    \39\ 85 FR 44192. See also EPA, ``Technical Support Document, 
EPA Evaluation of Air Quality Modeling, San Joaquin Valley 
PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 
February 2020 (``2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Modeling TSD''), 
section J (``Air Quality Model Performance'').
    \40\ 86 FR 49100.
    \41\ 86 FR 53150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We acknowledge that the modeling erroneously projected that the San 
Joaquin Valley would attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 
the end of 2020. There are a number of factors other than flaws in the 
modeling itself that may result in model predictions not matching 
monitored values, including meteorology in the attainment year that 
differs substantially from meteorology in the modeling platform base 
year, and actual emissions levels in the attainment year that differ 
substantially from projected emissions levels. The modeling platform 
uses 2013 as a base year, with emissions and meteorology from 2013 as 
inputs, and with performance validated against 2013 monitored 
concentrations. If the meteorological conditions in 2020 were more 
conducive to PM2.5 formation than those in 2013, then the 
2020 design value would be higher than predicted by the modeling with 
its 2013 base case, even if the model itself is performing well. 
Natural variability in meteorological conditions can cause model 
predictions based on one year to overestimate or underestimate 
concentrations for a different year.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The differences in modeled conduciveness to 
PM2.5 formation in 2020 versus 2013 is not the result of 
the State choosing an unusually favorable base year. As explained in 
the Plan's modeling protocol, the State chose the 2013 base year as 
representative of conditions conducive to poor air quality based on 
meteorology-adjusted trends. 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix L, 
L-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, unpredictable emissions differences can lead to 
differences between modeled and observed concentrations. There were 
high particulate and precursor emissions in the years 2018 and 2020 
from unexpected wildfires in the areas surrounding the San Joaquin 
Valley during the summer and fall months. Wildfires were not included 
in the State's modeling emissions inventory, but base period wildfire 
emissions can indirectly affect predicted future concentrations when 
they are estimated using Relative Response Factors (RRFs), as 
recommended in the EPA's ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating 
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and 
Regional Haze'' (``Modeling Guidance'').\43\ We note that wildfires 
were much less prevalent during the 2010-2014 period that was used to 
estimate the base design value,\44\ compared to the number and severity 
of wildfires in and around the San Joaquin Valley during the 2018-2020 
period used to calculate the 2020 monitored design value.\45\ While 
they likely were not the sole factor, the 2018-2020 wildfires may have 
contributed to the State's underestimated design value projection for 
2020, even though the model was not deficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for 
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,'' EPA-454/R-18-009, 
November 2018, 100. Available at https://www.epa.gov/scram/state-implementation-plan-sip-attainment-demonstration-guidance. Modeled 
RRFs represent the model concentration response to emissions changes 
between the base year and future year and are multiplied by base 
design values to estimate future concentrations. The base design 
values are estimated from several years of monitored concentrations 
and reflect wildfire emissions present in the base period. Note, 
however, that the base design value would not reflect wildfire-
influenced monitor data excluded via the Exceptional Events Rule 
process (see 40 CFR 50.1(j), (k), (l); 50.14(a)(1)(i); 51.930) or as 
otherwise modified to exclude data unrepresentative for modeling 
purposes. The only data that CARB excluded for the base design value 
period 2010-2014 was for high wind fugitive dust events on April 11, 
2010 and May 5, 2013 at the Bakersfield-Planz site. CARB's ``Staff 
Report, Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2018 Plan for the 1997, 
2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards,'' release date December 
21, 2018, Appendix C1 and C2.
    \44\ The average number of acres burned in wildfires in 
California during 2010-2014 was 484,000; 2010 had the highest 
acreage burned, 913,000, and 2013 had 602,000. By contrast, the 
2018-2020 average was 2,062,000; 2020 had the highest acreage 
burned, 3,950,000. California Department of Forestry and Fire 
Protection (CAL FIRE), CAL FIRE Stats and Events, https://www.fire.ca.gov/stats-events/, accessed October 4, 2021.
    \45\ Wildfire-influenced monitor data during August 20-24, 2020 
were excluded under the Exceptional Events Rule for the 1997 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS, but this exclusion did not affect the design 
value for the annual 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Letter dated July 
13, 2021 from Elizabeth J. Adams, Director, Air and Radiation 
Division, EPA Region IX, to Michael Benjamin, Division Chief, Air 
Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the State's technical findings in the precursor 
demonstration analysis support the EPA's disapproval of it for purposes 
of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. To support the precursor 
demonstration, the State used the modeling platform discussed above to 
assess the sensitivity of PM2.5 concentrations to reductions 
in precursor concentrations. The State modeled precursor emissions 
reductions and compared the resulting changes in PM2.5 
concentrations to 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), the 
EPA's recommended contribution threshold for the annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS.\46\ The modeled PM2.5 responses to a 
30 percent ammonia emissions reduction for the 2013 base year ranged 
from 0.20 to 0.72 [micro]g/m\3\, exceeding the 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ 
contribution threshold at 14 of 15 monitoring sites.\47\ For the 2020 
future year, the modeled PM2.5 responses to a 30 percent 
ammonia emissions reduction ranged from 0.12 to 0.42 [micro]g/m\3\, 
exceeding the 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ contribution threshold at 9 of 15 
monitoring sites. For the 2024 future year, the response ranged from 
0.08 to 0.26 [micro]g/m\3\; exceeding 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\ at two 
monitoring sites.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ PM2.5 Precursor Demonstration Guidance, 17.
    \47\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix G, Table 2.
    \48\ Id. at Table 4 and Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the approval of the precursor demonstration for the 2006 24-
hour NAAQS,\49\ and for the proposed approvals of the precursor 
demonstration for the 1997 24-hour NAAQS \50\ and the 2012 annual 
NAAQS,\51\ the EPA partly relied on model estimates of ammonia 
sensitivity from the 2024 future year. There is evidence that 
NOX emissions reductions that are projected to occur by 2024 
result in the modeling for 2024 being more representative of current 
ambient conditions, as reflected in monitoring studies of nitrate and 
ammonia.\52\ For 2024, all monitoring sites were projected to have 24-
hour PM2.5

[[Page 67336]]

responses below the 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ contribution threshold. In 
addition, the 24-hour modeled PM2.5 responses are below the 
threshold at all but one site in 2020, and there were no monitored 
violations of the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 2020. Thus, 
the EPA concluded that ammonia is not contributing to PM2.5 
levels above the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2020 
attainment year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 85 FR 44192.
    \50\ 86 FR 53150.
    \51\ 86 FR 49100.
    \52\ 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Modeling TSD, 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, certified 
ambient air quality data show that the San Joaquin Valley recorded 
PM2.5 levels exceeding the NAAQS in 2020, so the monitoring 
data alone do not support a conclusion that ammonia emissions do not 
contribute significantly to levels exceeding the NAAQS. Also, the 
modeling results indicate that annual average PM2.5 
concentrations are more sensitive than 24-hour average PM2.5 
concentrations to ammonia reductions. The evidence that modeling for 
2024 is representative of current ambient conditions supports giving 
relatively less weight to the 2020 results. However, for the annual 
NAAQS there are 9 sites out of 15 above the contribution threshold in 
2020, too many to discount. Furthermore, even the 2024 results show two 
sites above the contribution threshold. The combined results for 2020 
and 2024 contradict a conclusion that ammonia emissions do not 
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
    With respect to Earthjustice's claim that the ``defects'' in the 
precursor demonstration for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS also 
necessitate disapproval of the precursor demonstration for the 1997 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS, we note that these comments are outside 
the scope of this rulemaking, as our action today pertains only to the 
Serious area and CAA section 189(d) plan for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ The EPA has separately proposed action on the Serious area 
and CAA section 189(d) plan for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. 86 FR 53150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Earthjustice's statement that it previously raised 
concerns about the precursor demonstration in comments on the EPA's 
separate approval of the attainment plan for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS, e.g., concerning failure to account for 
NOX emissions from soil and to consider the cost-
effectiveness of ammonia controls as compared to NOX 
controls, the EPA responded to those comments in the ``Response to 
Comments Document for the EPA's Final Action on the San Joaquin Valley 
Serious Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' dated June 
2020, which is available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0318 (see Response 6.P-1 and Response 6.Q).
    Finally, we do not dispute the commenter's assertion that we could 
not approve the precursor demonstration without issuing a new proposal 
that explains our rationale and provides an opportunity for public 
comment.
    Comment B.3: Earthjustice supports the EPA's proposal to disapprove 
the Plan's BACM demonstration. Earthjustice also states that, even if 
the EPA were to approve the precursor demonstration in the Plan, the 
EPA could not finalize an approval of the BACM demonstration without a 
new proposal, and that any action to approve the plan's BACM 
demonstration must provide an analysis of the issues pertaining to 
control measures that the commenter identified in prior comments 
submitted to the EPA and offer commenters the ability to review that 
analysis.
    Response B.3: We are finalizing our proposal to disapprove both the 
precursor demonstration and the BACM demonstration in the SJV 
PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and, 
therefore, do not provide specific responses to these comments. When 
the EPA proposes to take action on a new or revised BACM demonstration 
submitted by the State to satisfy CAA requirements applicable to the 
San Joaquin Valley area for these NAAQS, the EPA will provide a full 
analysis to support its proposal and will provide a minimum 30-day 
period for public comments on that proposal, consistent with the 
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act requires 
that federal agencies provide general notice of proposed rulemaking 
by publication in the Federal Register and to ``give interested 
persons an opportunity participate in the rule making through 
submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without 
opportunity for oral presentation.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c). See also 
CAA section 307(h) (requiring, consistent with the policy of 
subchapter II of chapter 5 of Title 5, that the EPA ``ensure a 
reasonable period for public participation of at least 30 days'' in 
promulgating any regulation under title I of the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment B.4: Earthjustice states that it agrees with the EPA's 
proposal to disapprove the five percent annual emissions reduction 
demonstration, asserting that because the SJV PM2.5 Plan 
``failed to show 5 percent reductions beyond the 2020 attainment date, 
and the area has still not attained, the 5 percent demonstration is 
deficient on its face.'' The commenter further claims that the five 
percent annual reductions demonstration must be disapproved because it 
relies on a ``flawed emission inventory built with an outdated EMFAC 
model.'' The commenter requests clarification regarding the EPA's 
statement that greater than the required five percent annual emissions 
reductions have been achieved and removal of Table 3 in the proposal 
because the commenter asserts that the five percent requirement cannot 
be assessed without a ``valid current and accurate inventory.''
    Response B.4: We agree with the commenter that the EPA cannot 
approve the five percent annual emissions reduction demonstration in 
the SJV PM2.5 Plan given that the Plan demonstrates 
reductions only through 2020, the area did not attain by 2020, and 
therefore the Plan does not meet the requirement to demonstrate five 
percent reductions per year until attainment. We are, therefore, 
disapproving the five percent emissions reduction demonstration in the 
Plan. However, we disagree with the commenter's claim that the EPA must 
also disapprove the five percent demonstration specifically ``because 
it relies on a flawed emission inventory built with an outdated EMFAC 
model.'' See Response B.1.
    With respect to Earthjustice's assertion that Table 3 in our 
proposed rule should be removed, we note that this table simply 
summarizes the State's submission \55\ and does not constitute an 
approval of the submitted five percent annual emissions reduction 
demonstration, in any respect. Earthjustice also requests that the EPA 
clarify its statement in the proposed rule that ``NOX 
emissions reductions are greater than the required five percent per 
year.'' \56\ We explained in the proposed rule that ``[t]he State's 
methodology for calculating the five percent emission reduction targets 
for the years 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 is consistent with CAA 
requirements as interpreted in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements 
Rule, and the Plan shows that NOX emissions reductions from 
2017 to 2020 are greater than the required five percent per year.'' 
\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 86 FR 38652, 38663.
    \56\ Id. at 38662.
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We included these statements in the proposed rule to explain how we 
were evaluating the State's submitted five percent annual emissions 
reduction demonstration, and to distinguish those portions of the 
submitted analysis that appear to meet CAA requirements from those 
portions that do not. The State's identification of 2013 as the 
starting point for the calculation of the five

[[Page 67337]]

percent reduction required under CAA section 189(d) is appropriate 
because 2013 is one of the three years for which the EPA evaluated 
monitored air quality data to determine that the San Joaquin Valley had 
failed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS \58\ and, thus, may be 
treated as the ``the most recent inventory'' for this purpose.\59\ The 
State's identification of 2017 as the first year during which the Plan 
must provide for the required five percent reduction from base year 
emissions levels is appropriate because the due date for the section 
189(d) plan was December 31, 2016.\60\ Thus, if the five percent annual 
reduction calculation is based on an approvable base year emissions 
inventory and the Plan provides for the calculated level of reduction 
each year beginning after the due date for the section 189(d) plan, the 
calculation itself is consistent with the EPA's interpretation of the 
section 189(d) requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ The EPA determined on November 23, 2016, that the San 
Joaquin Valley had failed to attain the 1997 annual and 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS. 81 FR 84481.
    \59\ 81 FR 58010, 58099 (stating that, for purposes of 
calculating the emission reductions necessary to satisfy the five 
percent annual reduction criterion of CAA section 189(d), ``the EPA 
strongly recommends that the inventory year be one of the 3 years 
from which monitored air quality data were used to determine that 
the area failed to attain'' the relevant PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \60\ Id. at 58101 (stating that ``[t]he requirement for a 5 
percent annual reduction in any one pollutant, calculated based on 
the emissions levels in the most recent inventory, must then be 
achieved every year between the CAA section 189(d) plan submission 
date and the new projected attainment date for the area'') (emphasis 
added) and 83 FR 62720 (identifying December 31, 2016 deadline for 
submission of 189(d) plan for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for 
the San Joaquin Valley).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we explained in the proposed rule, however, the Plan fails to 
satisfy CAA section 189(d) requirements because the December 31, 2020 
attainment date identified in the Plan is not the ``applicable 
attainment date,'' and the Plan therefore does not provide annual 
reductions of at least five percent each year from the date of plan 
submission ``until the applicable attainment date approved by the 
EPA.'' \61\ Because we are disapproving the five percent annual 
emissions reduction demonstration in the Plan, the State is required to 
submit a revised plan that satisfies the requirements of section 
189(d). The EPA will evaluate any revised plan submitted by the State 
for compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements and will 
provide the public an opportunity to comment on the EPA's proposed 
action on any such submission, consistent with the requirements of the 
Administrative Procedure Act.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 40 CFR 51.1000 (defining ``applicable attainment date'' as 
the latest statutory date by which an area is required to attain a 
particular PM2.5 NAAQS or the attainment date approved by 
the EPA as part of an attainment plan for the area). See also 86 FR 
38652, 38663 (explaining that the December 31, 2020 attainment date 
projected by the State is not the ``applicable attainment date'' for 
purposes of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in this area 
because the EPA is proposing to disapprove the attainment 
demonstration).
    \62\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment B.5: Earthjustice states that it agrees that the EPA cannot 
approve the modeling demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 Plan 
because design values in the San Joaquin Valley in 2020 were above the 
NAAQS at half of the monitoring sites. The commenter notes that the EPA 
has not provided a full evaluation of the attainment demonstration and 
that if the EPA should change course and decide to approve the 
attainment demonstration, it must repropose the action and provide a 
full evaluation. Finally, referencing a previous comment letter 
submitted to the EPA, the commenter asserts that the State and District 
cannot claim to have met the statutory obligation to demonstrate 
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously 
as practicable because the Plan does not meet the requirements for BACM 
and MSM.
    Response B.5: We are finalizing our proposal to disapprove the 
attainment demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS and, therefore, do not provide specific 
responses to these comments. When the EPA proposes to take action on a 
new or revised attainment demonstration for the San Joaquin Valley area 
for these NAAQS, the EPA will provide a full analysis to support its 
proposal and will provide a minimum 30-day period for public comments 
on that proposal, consistent with the requirements of the 
Administrative Procedure Act.\63\ We respond to Earthjustice's claim 
that the Plan fails to include BACM and MSM in Response B.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment B.6: Earthjustice supports the EPA's proposal to disapprove 
the RFP and quantitative milestone elements of the SJV PM2.5 
Plan based on the EPA's proposal to disapprove the attainment 
demonstration, stating that ``if the plotted trajectories fail as an 
empirical fact to lead to attainment, they cannot reasonably be 
approved as meeting the Act's requirements.'' Earthjustice asserts that 
the EPA must also disapprove the RFP and quantitative milestone 
demonstrations due to the absence of an approved precursor 
demonstration and because the base year emissions inventory was 
developed using models that are ``known to be flawed.''
    Response B.6: We agree with the commenter's claim that our 
disapproval of the attainment demonstration and precursor demonstration 
in the SJV PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS necessitate disapproval of the RFP and quantitative milestone 
elements of the Plan for these NAAQS as well. In the absence of an 
approved precursor demonstration, the RFP and quantitative milestone 
demonstrations, which address only direct PM2.5 and 
NOX emissions, are not approvable. However, as explained in 
Response B.1, we disagree with the commenter's claim that the EPA must 
disapprove the base year emissions inventories in the SJV 
PM2.5 Plan because the State developed them using flawed 
models. Therefore, we disagree with the commenter's claim we must cite 
alleged flaws in the 2013 base year emissions inventories as an 
additional basis for disapproving the RFP and quantitative milestones.
    Comment B.7: Earthjustice states that it agrees with the EPA's 
proposal to disapprove the contingency measure element of the SJV 
PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS but 
asserts that there are additional fundamental flaws that the EPA did 
not identify in the proposal. The commenter claims that the contingency 
measures as submitted would not provide for one year's worth of 
emissions reductions, that quantification of the reductions needed to 
meet one year's worth of RFP is not possible in the absence of an 
approved attainment demonstration and accurate emissions inventory, and 
that the measures outlined in the plan cannot be implemented within 60 
days of an EPA determination that the area failed to meet RFP or to 
attain by the attainment date. The commenter further asserts that the 
EPA should not approve a commitment to adopt additional measures or 
adopt a measure that consists only of enhanced enforcement as 
sufficient to meet contingency measure requirements. Earthjustice 
states that in this particular case, a commitment to enhance 
enforcement is ``particularly egregious as a contingency measure 
because there is no assurance of actual emission reductions, no 
concrete means of enforcing th[e] commitment, and no way to suggest 
these emission reductions are surplus to the reductions provided by 
control measures already part of the attainment demonstration.''

[[Page 67338]]

    Citing its prior comments on the EPA's proposal to approve the 
State's attainment plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San 
Joaquin Valley, Earthjustice argues that the ``hot spot'' approach in 
Rule 4901 also does not meet the basic control measure requirements of 
the CAA and that therefore, the State cannot expand the geographic 
applicability of the rule to achieve additional reductions to meet the 
contingency measures requirement. The commenter asserts that rather 
than sever the contingency measure provisions (i.e., section 5.7.3) 
from the rule, the EPA should partially disapprove Rule 4901 for 
failing to require controls on all sources.
    Lastly, Earthjustice recommends that the EPA clearly state that 
addressing the identified deficiencies in Rule 4901 would not result in 
an approvable contingency measure.
    Response B.7: As the commenter correctly notes, the EPA's proposal 
does not assess whether the amount of emissions reductions provided by 
the contingency measures in the SJV PM2.5 Plan is sufficient 
because, as discussed in the EPA's proposal, it is not possible to 
determine whether the measures go beyond what is required for RFP or 
attainment purposes in the first instance, let alone whether the amount 
of emissions reductions from the measures is sufficient, in the absence 
of an approved attainment demonstration.\64\ The EPA disagrees, 
however, with the commenter's assertion that quantification of the 
amount of emissions reductions needed to meet the contingency measures 
requirement is not possible because the emissions inventories are 
allegedly inaccurate. For the reasons discussed in our proposal and in 
Response B.1 of this notice, we have determined that the 2013 base year 
emissions inventories in the SJV PM2.5 Plan are 
comprehensive, accurate, current inventories of actual emissions 
consistent with the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 86 FR 38652, 38669.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earthjustice did not explain the basis for its assertion that 
``[n]one of the measures outlined in the plan can be fully implemented 
within 60 days of'' an EPA determination of failure to meet RFP or 
failure to attain by the attainment date. As we explained in our 
proposed rule, section 5.7.3 of Rule 4901 identifies a specific 
triggering mechanism (i.e., the EPA's final determination that the San 
Joaquin Valley has failed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by 
the applicable attainment date) and specifies a timeframe within which 
its requirements become effective after a failure-to-attain 
determination (i.e., 60 days from the effective date of the EPA's final 
determination), and would take effect with minimal further action by 
the State or the EPA.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Id. Specifically, the contingency measure in Rule 4901 
provides for the application of lower wood burning curtailment 
thresholds in certain counties ``on and after sixty days following 
the effective date of EPA final rulemaking.'' Rule 4901, as amended 
June 20, 2019, section 5.7.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As also discussed in our proposal, however, section 5.7.3 of Rule 
4901 fails to satisfy the requirements for contingency measures 
because, among other deficiencies, it does not address three of the 
four required triggers for contingency measures in 40 CFR 51.1014(a), 
i.e., failure to meet a quantitative milestone, failure to submit a 
quantitative milestone report, and failure to meet an RFP 
requirement.\66\ Because we are disapproving the contingency measure 
provision in Rule 4901 for the reasons provided in our proposed rule, 
we provide no further response to this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 86 FR 38652, 38669.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the commenter's statement that the EPA should not 
approve a commitment to adopt additional measures or enhance 
enforcement as sufficient to meet contingency measure requirements is 
outside of the scope of this rulemaking. The EPA did not propose to 
approve any commitments by the State or District for purposes of 
meeting the contingency measure requirements for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. The contingency measure at issue in this 
rulemaking (i.e., section 5.7.3 of Rule 4901) is not a commitment to 
adopt an additional measure but rather has already been adopted by the 
State. We are disapproving this particular measure because of the 
deficiencies discussed in our proposed rule. Furthermore, because CARB 
withdrew the ``State Implementation Plan Attainment Contingency 
Measures for the San Joaquin Valley 15 [mu]g/m\3\ Annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS'' \67\ SIP revision that included an enhanced 
enforcement contingency measure, that measure is no longer before the 
EPA for consideration and is not at issue in this rulemaking.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Letter dated October 23, 2017, from Richard W. Corey, 
Executive Officer, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region 9.
    \68\ Letter dated March 19, 2021, from Richard W. Corey, 
Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region 9, transmitting CARB Executive Order S-21-
004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with the commenter's claim that the District's ``hot 
spot'' approach to regulation under Rule 4901 does not meet the basic 
control measure requirements of the CAA and that the EPA should 
partially disapprove Rule 4901 for failing to require available 
controls on all sources in the nonattainment area, instead of merely 
``severing'' section 5.7.3. On July 22, 2020, the EPA approved the 
District's June 20, 2019 revisions to Rule 4901 into the California SIP 
based on a determination that the rule meets the requirements of CAA 
sections 110(a)(2), 110(l) and 193.\69\ Also on July 22, 2020, the EPA 
determined that Rule 4901, as amended June 20, 2019, meets the 
requirements for BACM/BACT and MSM for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 
in the San Joaquin Valley.\70\ The EPA took these actions after 
considering and responding to comments pertaining to the District's 
``hot spot'' approach to regulation under Rule 4901 that Earthjustice 
submitted during those prior rulemakings, among other comments.\71\ In 
this action, we are evaluating only the contingency measure provision 
in Rule 4901, section 5.7.3, for compliance with the requirements for 
contingency measures in CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. 
Comments pertaining to other provisions of Rule 4901 are, therefore, 
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 85 FR 44206.
    \70\ 85 FR 44192.
    \71\ EPA Region IX, ``Response to Comments Document for the 
EPA's Final Action on the San Joaquin Valley Serious Area Plan for 
the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS,'' June 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the deficiencies we have identified in section 5.7.3 of 
Rule 4901, we are disapproving the contingency measure element of the 
SJV PM2.5 Plan, including section 5.7.3 of Rule 4901. 
Because section 5.7.3 of Rule 4901 is severable from the rest of the 
rule, we are removing it from the SIP.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ The EPA's prior incorporation of section 5.7.3 of Rule 4901 
into the SIP was in error, as this specific provision is severable 
from the rest of the rule and the EPA did not evaluate it for 
compliance with the applicable CAA requirements for contingency 
measures. 85 FR 44206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment B.8: Earthjustice states that it agrees that the motor 
vehicle emissions budgets in the SJV PM2.5 Plan must be 
revised because the San Joaquin Valley area did not attain by the 
projected attainment date. The commenter argues that the inadequacy of 
the RFP and five percent annual reduction elements of the Plan also 
demonstrate the inadequacy of the budgets. Lastly, the commenter 
asserts that the budgets must be revised because they were developed 
using the EMFAC2014 model, which is no longer ``current and accurate.''
    Response B.8: As discussed in our proposal, we are disapproving the 
motor vehicle emissions budgets in the SJV PM2.5 Plan 
because they cannot be

[[Page 67339]]

consistent with the applicable requirements for RFP and attainment of 
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS given that we are disapproving 
the attainment-related elements of the Plan (including the attainment, 
RFP, and five percent annual reductions demonstrations).\73\ Thus, the 
budgets are inadequate because they do not meet the applicable 
statutory and regulatory requirements.\74\ We did not propose to 
disapprove the budgets on the basis that they were developed using 
EMFAC2014 because EMFAC2014 was the most current mobile source model 
available when the State and District were developing the SJV 
PM2.5 Plan (see Response B.1).\75\ The commenter's claim 
that the budgets must be revised in a new plan raises issues that are 
outside the scope of this rulemaking. The EPA will evaluate the motor 
vehicle emissions budgets submitted with the State's revised Serious 
area and section 189(d) plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 
in the San Joaquin Valley \76\ and determine, through notice-and-
comment rulemaking, whether the submitted budgets satisfy the 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 86 FR 38652, 38672.
    \74\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv).
    \75\ 40 CFR 93.111(a).
    \76\ CARB submitted this revised plan for the 1997 annual NAAQS 
on November 8, 2021. Letter dated November 8, 2021, from Richard W. 
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment B.9: Earthjustice states that CARB has advised San Joaquin 
Valley residents that the State and District are under no obligation to 
implement contingency measures because the EPA has not issued a formal 
notice of failure to attain, and that the EPA ``must direct the State 
and District to immediately implement additional emission reduction 
measures pursuant to [CAA] section 172(c)(9).'' According to 
Earthjustice, nothing in CAA section 172(c)(9) requires a formal notice 
or otherwise references the finding of failure to attain mandated by 
section 179(c). Instead, Earthjustice claims, ``the statute is clear 
that contingency measures must take effect `if the area fails . . . to 
attain,' which it has as an indisputable fact, `without further action 
by the State or the Administrator.'''
    Earthjustice further claims that, while a finding of failure to 
attain is not required to trigger contingency measures, it is a 
prerequisite for triggering the other consequences outlined in section 
179(d). According to Earthjustice, the EPA had a statutory obligation 
under CAA section 179(c)(1) to determine whether or not the area 
attained no later than June 30, 2021, and the EPA's proposed rule 
satisfies the requirement in CAA section 179(c)(2) to publish notice in 
the Federal Register. Thus, Earthjustice claims, the ``EPA should 
notify the State and District, and confirm with the public, that the 
[July 22, 2021] notice published in the Federal Register satisfied the 
statutory obligation in section 179(c)(2), and triggered the clocks 
outlined in section 179(d).'' Earthjustice asserts that ``[t]o conclude 
otherwise is to flout the statutory deadlines and the agency's public 
health protection obligations.''
    Response B.9: We disagree with these comments. First, the EPA has 
provided by rule that contingency measures for the PM2.5 
NAAQS apply only upon a ``determination'' by the EPA that one of four 
types of failures has occurred. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.1014(a) states 
that contingency measures ``shall take effect with minimal further 
action by the state or the EPA following a determination by the 
Administrator that the area has failed: (1) To meet any RFP requirement 
in an attainment plan approved in accordance with Sec.  51.1012; (2) To 
meet any quantitative milestone in an attainment plan approved in 
accordance with Sec.  51.1013; (3) To submit a quantitative milestone 
report required under Sec.  51.1013(b); or, (4) To attain the 
applicable PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.'' 
In the preamble to the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, the EPA 
noted its intent ``to notify the state of a failure to meet RFP or to 
attain the NAAQS by publication of its determination in the Federal 
Register,'' after which ``[t]he state should ensure that the 
contingency measures are fully implemented as expeditiously as 
practicable[.]'' \77\ Moreover, the EPA's longstanding practice has 
been to require state and local agencies to implement contingency 
measures for failure to attain (``attainment contingency measures'') 
only after the EPA has determined, through notice-and-comment 
rulemaking, that the area failed to attain the NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date. Thus, the EPA disagrees with the commenter's claim 
that attainment contingency measures must be self-effectuating before 
the EPA has made a determination concerning attainment under CAA 
section 179(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 81 FR 58010, 58066 (contingency measure requirements for 
Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas) and 58093 
(contingency measure requirements for Serious PM2.5 
nonattainment areas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we disagree with Earthjustice's claim that the EPA had a 
June 30, 2021 statutory deadline under CAA section 179(c)(1) to 
determine whether or not the San Joaquin Valley attained the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 179(c)(1) of the CAA requires 
the EPA to determine, as expeditiously as practicable after the 
``applicable attainment date'' for any nonattainment area but no later 
than six months after such date and based on the area's air quality 
data as of the attainment date, whether the area attained the NAAQS by 
that date. The EPA has defined ``applicable attainment date,'' in 
relevant part, to mean ``the latest statutory date by which an area is 
required to attain a particular PM2.5 NAAQS, unless the EPA 
has approved an attainment plan for the area to attain such NAAQS, in 
which case the applicable attainment date is the date approved under 
such attainment plan.'' \78\ Because the EPA has not yet approved an 
attainment plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the San 
Joaquin Valley that satisfies the requirements of CAA section 189(d), 
the ``applicable attainment date'' is the latest statutory date by 
which the area is required to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 40 CFR 51.1000 (definitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we explained in our October 6, 2016 proposal to find that the 
area had failed to attain the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS, the statutory attainment date for a state subject to the 
requirement for a CAA section 189(d) plan for the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS is set by CAA section 179(d)(3), which in turn relies upon 
section 172(a)(2) for the establishment of a new statutory attainment 
date, but with a different starting point than provided in section 
172(a)(2).\79\ Under section 179(d)(3), the new attainment date is the 
date by which the nonattainment area can attain the NAAQS as 
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date 
of the final determination of failure to attain, except that the EPA 
may extend the attainment date for a period no greater than 10 years 
from the final determination, considering the severity of nonattainment 
and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures.\80\ 
The EPA's determination that the San Joaquin Valley area failed to 
attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS published in the Federal 
Register on November 23, 2016.\81\ Thus, under CAA section 179(d)(3), 
the relevant latest statutory attainment date for purposes of the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley is November 23, 
2021, except that the EPA may extend the attainment

[[Page 67340]]

date to November 23, 2026, considering the severity of nonattainment 
and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures. On 
November 8, 2021, the State submitted a revised attainment plan to 
correct the deficiencies in the SJV PM2.5 Plan identified in 
this final action. We note that the EPA may elect to approve a new 
attainment date that is as expeditiously as practicable, but not later 
than November 23, 2026, if the statutory criteria in section 172(a)(2) 
are met. In the meantime, the ``applicable attainment date'' for the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley is 
November 23, 2021, and the EPA does not have a mandatory duty under 
section 179(c)(1) to determine whether the area attained by that date 
until May 23, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 81 FR 69448, 69453-69454.
    \80\ Id.
    \81\ 81 FR 84481.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, we disagree with Earthjustice's claim that the EPA's July 
22, 2021 proposed rule constitutes a finding of failure to attain under 
CAA section 179(c)(2) that triggers the consequences outlined in CAA 
section 179(d). Section 179(d) of the CAA requires a state to submit a 
revised plan meeting the requirements of section 179(d)(2) ``[w]ithin 1 
year after the Administrator publishes the notice under [section 
179(c)(2)] (relating to notice of failure to attain). . . .'' The EPA's 
proposed rule is not a final agency action and does not constitute 
notice of a determination under CAA section 179(c) as to whether the 
area attained the NAAQS. Accordingly, the proposed rule alone does not 
trigger any obligation on the State to submit a revised plan under CAA 
section 179(d). If and when the EPA takes final action to determine, 
through notice-and-comment rulemaking, that the San Joaquin Valley has 
failed to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, that final 
action will, upon publication in the Federal Register, trigger the 
obligation on the State to submit a revised plan under CAA section 
179(d) within one year.
    Comment B.10: Earthjustice notes that the EPA outlined the 
sanctions consequences that would result if the proposed disapproval is 
finalized but asserts that the EPA did not accurately describe the 
status of the sanctions related to the December 2018 finding of failure 
to submit or the consequences if the State were to withdraw the Plan. 
The commenter asserts that the EPA never made an affirmative 
completeness finding on the SJV PM2.5 Plan, that the area 
should therefore already be subject to offset and highway sanctions, 
and that withdrawal of the Plan would require immediate imposition of 
sanctions.
    Additionally, the commenter states that it expects that the 
``District and State will quickly adopt a new plan, based on the 
defective 2013 base year inventory and outdated EMFAC2014 model, that 
includes no new control measures or contingency measures, and claim 
that its submittal should turn off sanctions'' but that sanctions 
cannot be stayed until the EPA has affirmatively found the plan 
complete. Citing the EPA's SIP Processing Manual, the commenter adds 
that the EPA cannot make an affirmative completeness determination if 
the required elements are missing or inadequate on their face.
    Response B.10: The commenter's claim that the EPA never made an 
affirmative completeness finding on the SJV PM2.5 Plan and 
that the area should therefore already be subject to offset and highway 
sanctions is incorrect. As we explained in our proposed rule, following 
the EPA's December 2018 finding that the State had failed to submit a 
complete section 189(d) attainment plan for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS, among other required SIP submissions, for the 
San Joaquin Valley, CARB submitted the SJV PM2.5 Plan for 
these NAAQS (among other submissions) on May 10, 2019, and ``[o]n June 
24, 2020, the EPA issued a letter finding the [SJV PM2.5 
Plan] complete and terminating the sanctions clocks under CAA section 
179(a).'' \82\ Thus, mandatory sanctions currently do not apply for 
purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ 86 FR 38652, 38653-38654 (citing letter dated June 24, 
2020, from Elizabeth J. Adams, Director, Air and Radiation Division, 
EPA Region IX, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, 
Subject: ``RE: Completeness Finding for State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Submissions for San Joaquin Valley for the 1997, 2006, and 
2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Termination of Clean Air Act (CAA) 
Sanctions Clocks''). The letter is available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree, however, with Earthjustice that if the State were to 
withdraw the SJV PM2.5 Plan, mandatory sanctions would apply 
immediately in the San Joaquin Valley, given that withdrawal of the 
required SIP submission would eliminate the EPA's basis for terminating 
the sanctions clocks under CAA section 179(a). The EPA's December 2018 
findings of failure to submit became effective on January 7, 2019, 
triggering clocks under CAA section 179(a) for the application of 
emissions offset sanctions 18 months after the finding and highway 
funding sanctions 6 month thereafter, unless the EPA affirmatively 
determines that the State has submitted a complete SIP addressing the 
identified deficiencies.\83\ Because these clocks have now expired, 
withdrawal by the State of the SIP submission that provided the basis 
for the EPA's termination of the sanctions clocks would result in 
immediate application of mandatory sanctions under 40 CFR 52.31(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Id. at 38653.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not respond to Earthjustice's additional comments regarding a 
new plan and related sanctions consequences as these comments are 
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    Comment B.11: Earthjustice states that the EPA has known since 
December 2018 that it had two years to promulgate a federal 
implementation plan (FIP), and that it was clear from available air 
quality data that the SJV PM2.5 Plan would fail to bring the 
San Joaquin Valley into attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 
by the end of 2020. And yet, according to Earthjustice, the EPA has 
instead focused on justifying and defending the repeated failures of 
the State and District. Earthjustice states that California is the only 
state in the nation that continues to violate ozone and particulate 
matter standards adopted over 20 years ago. Earthjustice notes that the 
EPA is already subject to a statutory deadline to promulgate a FIP, 
that ``[i]t is beyond time for EPA to intercede and outline the 
elements of a FIP or SIP that would be adequate to attain the national 
standards,'' and that ``Valley Residents would be more than willing to 
assist in that exercise.'' According to Earthjustice, ``[a]t a minimum, 
such a plan would close loopholes for oil and gas operations, require 
real emission reductions at mobile source magnet facilities, impose 
meaningful controls at industrial agricultural facilities (including 
controls on ammonia emissions), address emissions from gas-fired 
appliances, and require feasible controls on wood burning across the 
Valley.'' Earthjustice urges the EPA to ``use this disapproval to 
finally change course and direct its resources to solving, instead of 
excusing, the Valley's air quality problems.''
    Response B.11: As we explained in the proposed rule, as a result of 
the EPA's December 6, 2018 determination, effective January 7, 2019, 
that California had failed to submit the required attainment plan for 
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, among other required SIP 
submissions for the San Joaquin Valley, the EPA is already subject to a 
statutory deadline to promulgate a FIP for this purpose no later than 
two years after the effective date of that determination--i.e., by 
January 7, 2021.\84\ We intend to work with the State, the District, 
and stakeholders in

[[Page 67341]]

the San Joaquin Valley in the near term to either correct the 
deficiencies in the submitted Serious area and section 189(d) plan for 
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS or promulgate a FIP or FIPs, as 
appropriate and necessary to correct such deficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ 83 FR 62720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Comments From a Private Citizen

    Comment C.1: The private citizen commenter \85\ states that they 
support the EPA's disapproval of the contingency measure element of the 
SJV PM2.5 Plan, adding that the ``contingencies . . . ought 
to be triggered should the hot-spot counties of Madera, Fresno and/or 
Kern fail to attain any of the several National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards the plan seeks to address.'' The commenter claims that the 
EPA has determined that Kern County failed to attain the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS and that there are no adopted contingency 
measures in place to be triggered by the failure to attain to reduce 
emissions in Kern County. The commenter further asserts that the EPA 
does not offer a timetable for adoption of revised contingency 
measures. The commenter notes that the SJVUAPCD Governing Board has 
adopted a revised attainment plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS with a 2023 attainment date, that the EPA has proposed to extend 
the attainment date for the area, and that this revised plan does not 
contain any new control measures. The commenter recommends that the EPA 
specify a timeline for the State to submit new contingency measures, 
recommending that new measures are adopted before the next wood burning 
season. Lastly, the commenter summarizes recommendations that the EPA 
provided previously for the District's residential wood burning rule, 
and further recommends that SJVUAPCD apply the three-minute emissions 
opacity limit under Rule 4101 to residential wood burning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Comment dated August 23, 2021, from Thomas Menz, to Docket 
ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0260, with attachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response C.1: The EPA appreciates these comments regarding the 
contingency measures in the SJV PM2.5 Plan. However, as 
explained in Response B.9, the EPA has not yet made a determination as 
to whether the San Joaquin Valley attained the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Under CAA section 179(d)(3), the latest 
statutory attainment date for purposes of the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley is November 23, 2021, 
except that the EPA may extend the attainment date to November 23, 
2026, considering the severity of nonattainment and the availability 
and feasibility of pollution control measures. On November 8, 2021, the 
State submitted a revised attainment plan to correct the deficiencies 
in the SJV PM2.5 Plan identified in this final action. We 
note that the EPA may approve a new attainment date extending to 
November 23, 2026, at the latest, if the statutory criteria in section 
172(a)(2) are met. In the meantime, the ``applicable attainment date'' 
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley is 
November 23, 2021, and the EPA does not have a mandatory duty under 
section 179(c)(1) to determine whether the area attained by that date 
until May 23, 2022.
    The commenter's claim that the EPA has proposed to extend the 
attainment date for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the San 
Joaquin Valley is incorrect, and comments about provisions other than 
section 5.7.3 in Rule 4901 are outside the scope of this 
rulemaking.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ As we explained in Response B.7, the EPA previously 
approved Rule 4901, as amended June 20, 2019, as meeting the 
requirements for BACM/BACT and most stringent measures for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS (85 FR 44192) and the requirements of CAA 
sections 110(a)(2), 110(l) and 193 (85 FR 44206). In this action, we 
are evaluating only the contingency measure provision in Rule 4901, 
section 5.7.3, for compliance with the requirements for contingency 
measures in CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. Comments 
pertaining to other provisions of Rule 4901 are, therefore, outside 
the scope of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the commenter's assertion that the EPA's proposed 
action does not provide a timetable for the submission of new 
contingency measures, our proposed rule discussed the requirement for 
the State to make a new SIP submission to address the identified 
deficiencies with respect to the attainment plan for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as the consequences of a final 
disapproval and associated timelines.\87\ Upon the effective date of a 
final disapproval of the contingency measures, offset and highway 
sanctions clocks will start and sanctions will be imposed as outlined 
in section III of this notice, unless the State submits, and we 
approve, SIP revisions meeting the applicable requirements prior to 
implementation of the sanctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ 86 FR 38652, 38672-38673.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    For the reasons discussed in our proposed action and herein, the 
EPA is taking final action to approve in part and disapprove in part 
the SJV PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS. We are approving the 2013 base year emissions inventories as 
meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008. 
We are disapproving the precursor demonstration, five percent annual 
emissions reductions demonstration, BACM demonstration, attainment 
demonstration, RFP demonstration, quantitative milestones, motor 
vehicle emissions budgets, and contingency measures for failure to meet 
applicable CAA requirements. We are also removing from the California 
SIP the contingency provision of Rule 4901 (section 5.7.3) because this 
provision does not satisfy CAA requirements for contingency measures 
and is severable from the remainder of the rule.
    As a result of these final disapprovals, the offset sanction in CAA 
section 179(b)(2) will apply in the San Joaquin Valley area 18 months 
after the effective date of this final action. For new or modified 
major stationary sources in the area, the ratio of emissions reductions 
to increased emissions shall be two to one. The highway funding 
sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) will apply in the area six months 
after the offset sanction is imposed. These sanctions will not apply if 
California submits, and we approve, a SIP submission or submissions 
meeting the applicable CAA requirements prior to the implementation of 
sanctions.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See 40 CFR 52.31, which sets forth in detail the sanctions 
consequences of a final disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the sanctions, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that 
the EPA must promulgate a FIP addressing any disapproved elements of 
the attainment plan two years after the effective date of the final 
disapproval, unless the State submits, and the EPA approves, a SIP 
submission or submissions to cure the identified deficiencies. As a 
result of the EPA's December 6, 2018 determination, effective January 
7, 2019, that California had failed to submit the required attainment 
plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, among other required 
SIP submissions for the San Joaquin Valley,\89\ the EPA is already 
subject to a statutory deadline to promulgate a FIP for purposes of 
these NAAQS no later than two years after the effective date of that 
determination.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ 83 FR 62720.
    \90\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, upon the effective date of this final action, a 
conformity freeze will take effect in the San Joaquin Valley 
nonattainment area. A conformity freeze means that only projects in the 
first four years of the most recent regional transportation plan (RTP) 
and transportation improvement program (TIP) can proceed. During a

[[Page 67342]]

freeze, no new RTPs, TIPs, or RTP/TIP amendments can be found to 
conform.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ 40 CFR 93.120(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as a result of this final action, California is required 
to develop and submit a revised attainment plan for the San Joaquin 
Valley area that addresses the applicable CAA requirements, including 
the Serious area plan requirements and the requirements of CAA section 
189(d) for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In accordance with 
sections 179(d)(3) and 172(a)(2) of the CAA, the revised plan must 
demonstrate attainment of these NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable 
and no later than 5 years from the date of the EPA's prior 
determination that the area failed to attain (i.e., by November 23, 
2021), except that the EPA may extend the attainment date to a date no 
later than 10 years from the date of this determination (i.e., to 
November 23, 2026), considering the severity of nonattainment and the 
availability and feasibility of pollution control measures.\92\ We note 
that on November 8, 2021, California submitted a SIP revision to 
address the CAA requirements for the 1997 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS. The EPA intends to evaluate and act on the revised SIP 
submission through subsequent rulemakings, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ 81 FR 84481, 84482 (final EPA action determining that the 
San Joaquin Valley had failed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS by the December 31, 2015 Serious area attainment date).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is amending regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. As explained in section III of this 
document, the EPA is removing section 5.7.3 of SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 as 
amended on June 20, 2019 from the California State Implementation Plan, 
which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements 
of 1 CFR part 51. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these 
documents available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 
Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more 
information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the PRA because this SIP disapproval does not in-and-of-itself create 
any new information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain 
state requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This SIP 
disapproval does not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but 
simply disapproves certain state requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. This action disapproves pre-existing requirements 
under state or local law and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, 
no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the 
private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revision that the EPA is 
disapproving would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any 
other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on 
tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 
does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because this SIP disapproval does not in-and-of 
itself create any new regulations but simply disapproves certain state 
requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA 
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be 
inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 
justice in this rulemaking.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by January 25, 2022. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of

[[Page 67343]]

such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see CAA section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: November 17, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends Chapter I, 
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(535)(i)(A)(1) 
and adding paragraph (c)(537)(ii)(B)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (535) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) Rule 4901, ``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning 
Heaters,'' except section 5.7.3, amended on June 20, 2019.
* * * * *
    (537) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (5) 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 
Standards (``2018 PM2.5 Plan''), adopted November 15, 2018, 
portions of Appendix B (``Emissions Inventory'') pertaining to the 2013 
base year emissions inventories as they relate to the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS only.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 52.237 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(11) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.237  Part D disapproval.

    (a) * * *
    (11) The following portions of the ``2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, 
and 2012 PM2.5 Standards'' as they pertain to the 1997 
annual PM2.5 standards in the San Joaquin Valley are 
disapproved because they do not meet the requirements of Part D of the 
Clean Air Act: Comprehensive precursor demonstration, five percent 
annual emissions reductions, best available control measures/best 
available control technology demonstration, attainment demonstration, 
reasonable further progress demonstration, quantitative milestones, 
motor vehicle emissions budgets, and contingency measures.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-25617 Filed 11-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P