Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0636-0173
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; San Joaquin Valley; Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Posted Date: 2016-08-31T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59876-59901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20413]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0636; FRL-9951-42-Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation 
Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving 
elements of the state implementation plan revisions (SIP) submitted by 
California to address Clean Air Act requirements for the 2006 fine 
particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards in the San Joaquin Valley Moderate PM2.5 
nonattainment area. These SIP revisions are the 2012 PM2.5 
Plan, submitted March 4, 2013, the 2014 Supplement, submitted November 
6, 2014, and the

[[Page 59877]]

motor vehicle emission budgets for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 
submitted November 13, 2015. The EPA is disapproving interpollutant 
trading ratios identified in the SIP submission for nonattainment new 
source review permitting purposes because the ratios are not supported 
by a sufficient technical demonstration.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 30, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0636. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the For 
Further Information Contact section for additional availability 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, (415) 947-
4192, tax.wienke@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Proposed Action

    On January 13, 2015, we proposed to approve SIP revisions submitted 
by California to address Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act'') 
requirements for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour 
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or 
``standards'') in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) PM2.5 
nonattainment area.\1\ These SIP revisions are the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan, submitted March 4, 2013, and the ``Supplemental 
Document, Clean Air Act Subpart 4: The 2012 PM2.5 Plan for 
the 2006 PM2.5 Standard, and District Rule 2201 (New and 
Modified Stationary Source Review)'' (2014 Supplement), submitted 
November 6, 2014. We also proposed to approve, through parallel 
processing, the proposed motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS submitted on November 6, 2014, which 
California submitted in final form on December 29, 2014, and the 
related trading mechanism for transportation conformity purposes. We 
refer to these submissions collectively herein as ``the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan'' or simply ``the Plan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 80 FR 1816 (January 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed to approve the following elements of the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan as satisfying applicable CAA requirements: (1) 
The 2007 base year emissions inventories, (2) the demonstration that 
attainment by the Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015 is 
impracticable, (3) the reasonably available control measures/reasonably 
available control technology (RACM/RACT) demonstration, (4) the 
reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration, (5) the San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District's (SJVUAPCD's or 
``District's'') commitments to adopt and implement specific rules and 
measures by specific dates, and (6) the 2014 and 2017 MVEBs for direct 
PM2.5 and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). The EPA also 
proposed to determine that volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions 
do not contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that 
exceed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV but to find the 
State's and District's demonstration concerning ammonia emissions 
insufficient to rebut the regulatory presumption for ammonia.
    The EPA proposed to disapprove interpollutant trading ratios 
identified in these SIP submittals for nonattainment new source review 
(NNSR) permitting purposes. Finally, the EPA proposed to reclassify the 
SJV area, including Indian country within it, as a Serious 
nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, based on the 
EPA's determination that the area could not practicably attain these 
standards by the applicable Moderate area attainment date of December 
31, 2015.

B. Final Reclassification of the SJV Area From Moderate to Serious for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

    On December 22, 2015, we finalized our January 13, 2015 proposal to 
reclassify the SJV area from Moderate to Serious for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS.\2\ As a result of that action, by August 21, 
2017, California is required to submit additional SIP revisions to 
satisfy the statutory requirements that apply to Serious 
PM2.5 nonattainment areas, including the requirements of 
subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act. The Serious area plan must 
provide for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV 
area as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 
2019, in accordance with the requirements of part D of title I of the 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 81 FR 2993 (January 20, 2016) (final rule) and 81 FR 42263 
(June 29, 2016) (correcting amendment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan

    As part of our January 13, 2015 proposed action, we proposed to 
approve the proposed 2014 and 2017 MVEBs for the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on 
November 6, 2014 with a request for parallel processing. CARB formally 
submitted the final budgets to the EPA on December 29, 2014.\3\ On 
April 1, 2016, we found the NOX and direct PM2.5 
budgets in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement, as 
submitted December 29, 2014, to be adequate for conformity purposes.\4\ 
On November 13, 2015, CARB submitted a SIP revision to replace several 
previously-submitted MVEBs developed using EMFAC2011 with revised MVEBs 
developed using EMFAC2014.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Letter dated December 29, 2014, from Richard W. Corey, 
Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosures.
    \4\ Letter dated April 1, 2016, from Deborah Jordan, Director, 
Air Division, EPA Region 9, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, 
CARB, and 81 FR 22194 (April 15, 2016).
    \5\ Letter dated November 13, 2015, from Richard W. Corey, 
Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 18, 2016, we proposed to approve the revised MVEBs submitted 
on November 13, 2015, which address the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, 
the 2006 PM2.5 standards, and the 1987 coarse particulate 
matter (PM10) standard for the SJV area.\6\ We received no 
public comments on this proposal. Today, we are finalizing action only 
on the revised 2017 MVEBs addressing the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 
the SJV, as submitted November 13, 2015.\7\ These NOX and 
direct PM2.5 budgets were revised using EMFAC2014, the most 
recent version of California's motor vehicle emission factor model 
approved by the EPA for use in SIPs and conformity analyses.\8\ The 
revised budgets, presented in Table 1 below, were developed in 
consultation with the

[[Page 59878]]

SJVUAPCD, the eight SJV metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), the 
EPA and CARB. These budgets replace the NOX and direct 
PM2.5 budgets submitted on December 29, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 81 FR 31212 (May 18, 2016).
    \7\ The EPA took final action on the revised ozone and 
PM10 budgets at 81 FR 53294 (August 12, 2016). Although 
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan contained MVEBs for both 2014 and 
2017, MVEBs for 2014 are no longer relevant for conformity analyses 
since that year has passed.
    \8\ 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015).

  Table 1--San Joaquin Valley Revised Budgets Developed Using EMFAC2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  2017 (tons per winter
                                                          day)
                    County                     -------------------------
                                                   PM2.5         NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno........................................          1.0         32.1
Kern (SJV)....................................          0.8         28.8
Kings.........................................          0.2          5.9
Madera........................................          0.2          6.0
Merced........................................          0.3         11.0
San Joaquin...................................          0.6         15.5
Stanislaus....................................          0.4         12.3
Tulare........................................          0.4         11.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: CARB calculated the revised PM2.5 budgets by taking the sum of the
  county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJV-
  wide total up to the nearest whole ton for NOX and to the nearest
  tenth of a ton for direct PM2.5, then reallocating to the individual
  counties based on the ratio of each county's contribution to the
  total, and then rounding each county's emissions to the nearest tenth
  of a ton using the conventional rounding method. The existing adequate
  PM2.5 budgets submitted December 29, 2014 were calculated in the same
  manner.

    As part of our January 13, 2015 proposed action, the EPA also 
proposed to approve, in accordance with 40 CFR 93.124, the trading 
mechanism as described on p. C-32 in Appendix C of the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan as an enforceable component of the transportation 
conformity program for the SJV for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 
with the condition that trades are limited to substituting excess 
reductions in NOX for increases in PM2.5. This 
trading mechanism was not revised by the November 13, 2015 MVEB 
submittal.\9\ We are finalizing our proposal to approve the trading 
mechanism identified in the Plan for transportation conformity 
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The budgets that the EPA is approving herein relate to the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS only, and our approval of them does not affect 
the status of the previously-approved MVEBs for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS and related trading mechanism, which remain in 
effect for that PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses

    The EPA provided a 45-day period for the public to comment on our 
proposed rule. During this comment period, which ended on February 27, 
2015, we received two sets of public comments, one from the SJVUAPCD 
and another from Earthjustice on behalf of the Central Valley Air 
Quality Coalition, Greenaction, the Association of Irritated Residents, 
the Sierra Club--Tehipite Chapter, and Global Community Monitor 
(Earthjustice).\10\ Copies of these comment letters can be found in the 
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See letter dated February 27, 2015 from Sheraz Gill, 
Director of Strategies and Incentives at SJVAPCD, to Wienke Tax, EPA 
Region 9, ``Re: Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0636, Comments on 
Proposed Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; 
San Joaquin Valley Moderate Area Plan and Reclassification as 
Serious Nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' and 
letter dated February 27, 2015 from Paul Cort and Adenike Adeyeye, 
Earthjustice, to Ms. Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our December 22, 2015 final action to reclassify the SJV area as 
a ``Serious'' PM2.5 nonattainment area, we summarized and 
responded to public comments pertaining to the reclassification and its 
consequences and stated that we would, in a separate rulemaking, 
respond to comments pertaining to our proposed action on the submitted 
plan.\11\ In our April 15, 2016 notice of adequacy, we responded to a 
public comment pertaining to the adequacy of the budgets.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 81 FR 2993 (January 20, 2016).
    \12\ 81 FR 22194 (April 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We summarize below and provide our responses to all remaining 
public comments on our proposed action on the 2012 PM2.5 
Plan.

A. Comment Regarding Emissions Inventories

    Comment 1: Earthjustice comments on the importance of emissions 
inventories, noting that CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that 
nonattainment plans ``include a comprehensive, accurate, current 
inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant 
pollutant or pollutants in such area'' (emphasis by commenter). 
Earthjustice argues that the EPA's proposed determination that the 2012 
PM2.5 inventories ``are based on the most current and 
accurate information available to the State and District at the time 
the Plan and its inventories were being developed,'' does not satisfy 
the requirements of section 172(c)(3) that the inventory be accurate 
and current. While acknowledging that it is unaware of information 
calling into question the inventories used in the Plan, Earthjustice 
asserts that the EPA must take further steps to confirm that the 
inventories ``are'' (i.e., remain) current and accurate before it 
approves the inventories. Citing Sierra Club v. United States EPA, 671 
F.3d 955, 968 (9th Cir. 2012), Earthjustice states that the EPA's 
failure to confirm that the inventories are current and accurate 
``undermines the rational basis for the approval.''
    Response 1: The EPA does not dispute the importance of emissions 
inventories. We evaluated the emissions inventories in the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan to determine whether they satisfy the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and adequately support the Plan's 
RACM, RFP, and impracticability demonstrations. Based on this 
evaluation, we have concluded that the Plan's 2007 base year emissions 
inventory was based on the most current and accurate information 
available to the State and District at the time the Plan was developed 
and submitted, and that it comprehensively addresses all source 
categories in the SJV area, consistent with applicable CAA requirements 
and EPA guidance.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 80 FR 1816 at 1819-1820; see also ``General Preamble for 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 
57 FR 13498, 13502 (April 16, 1992) (``General Preamble'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(b) provides that a state containing a nonattainment 
area shall submit a plan or plan revision (including the plan items) 
meeting the applicable requirements of CAA section 172(c) and section 
110 on the schedule established by the EPA. Section 172(c) contains, 
inter alia, the requirement that nonattainment area plans include a 
``comprehensive, accurate, current inventory'' of actual emissions from 
all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the area. We 
believe it is reasonable to read these provisions together as requiring 
that the state submit an inventory that is comprehensive, accurate, and 
current at the time the state submitted it to the EPA, rather than 
requiring that the state continually revise its plan as new emissions 
data become available.\14\ Air quality planning is an iterative process 
and states and the EPA must rely on the best available data at the time 
the plans are created. Nothing in the Sierra Club decision cited by the 
commenters (671 F.3d 955, 9th Cir. 2012) compels the EPA to alter this 
longstanding interpretation of the CAA.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), 
``Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for State Implementation 
Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes,'' 
December 2009; see also Memorandum from John Seitz, EPA, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards and Margo Oge, OTAQ, ``Policy 
Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and 
Transportation Conformity,'' January 18, 2002.
    \15\ In Sierra Club v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2012), the 
Ninth Circuit remanded the EPA's final action approving an ozone 
plan for the SJV on the ground that the EPA's failure to consider 
new inventory data submitted by CARB long before the EPA's action on 
the plan was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative 
Procedure Act. See 671 F.3d at 966 (``EPA stands on shaky legal 
ground relying on significantly outdated data, given the amount of 
time that EMFAC2007 was available and authorized for use before the 
EPA approved the 2004 SIP''). The decision did not disturb the EPA's 
longstanding policy of requiring states to use the most current 
emissions estimate models available at the time of SIP development.

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

[[Page 59879]]

B. Comments Regarding Precursors

    Comment 2: The SJVUAPCD argues that ammonia is not a significant 
precursor for PM2.5 and that additional ammonia controls are 
not required. The District asserts that the EPA's proposal to reject 
these findings is based on ``technical assertions not supported by the 
extensive scientific research and modeling'' conducted for the Plan, 
and that the technical analyses in the Plan demonstrate that ammonia 
reductions are ineffective for attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS. 
Although the District recognizes that ammonia is an integral component 
of ammonium nitrate, which contributes substantially to wintertime 
PM2.5 mass in the SJV, it argues that its scientific 
evaluations in the Plan provide ``sufficient substantiation that 
controls on ammonia are known to be very insensitive to reducing 
ammonium nitrate mass concentrations.'' The District also comments that 
the EPA did not provide references or support for statements in its 
technical support document that ``a detailed evaluation of the modeling 
shows that ammonia controls can be effective at reducing ambient 
PM2.5 in some locations,'' and that ``[i]n the various 
studies, when ammonia emissions were reduced by up to 50 percent, 
ambient ammonium nitrate decreased by 5 to 25 percent, depending on the 
episode modeled and the geographic location evaluated . . . . These 
percentages for ammonia benefits are generally smaller than those for 
NOX reductions, but these modeling results show that 
reductions in ammonia emissions under certain circumstances can 
effectively reduce ambient PM2.5'' (internal citations 
omitted). The District argues that these statements are contrary to the 
Plan's Weight of Evidence Analysis in Appendix G of the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan.
    Response 2: We disagree with the District's claim that we did not 
provide support for our conclusions about ammonia impacts in the SJV. 
As stated on pg. 56 of the EPA's technical support document (TSD) for 
the proposed rule (hereafter ``Proposal TSD''),\16\ the EPA's 
conclusion that ammonia controls can be effective at reducing ambient 
PM2.5 in some locations in the SJV is based on (1) 
sensitivity to ammonia reductions in the air quality modeling and 
Weight of Evidence Analysis in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, (2) a 
number of peer-reviewed journal papers cited in the Plan showing 
ammonium nitrate reductions of up to 25 percent when ammonia emissions 
are reduced by 50 percent, and (3) the severity of PM2.5 
nonattainment in the area.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA, Region 9, Air Division, Technical Support Document, 
``Proposed Action on the San Joaquin Valley 2012 PM2.5 
State Implementation Plan and 2014 Supplemental Document and 
Proposed Reclassification of the San Joaquin Valley as Serious 
Nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 Standard,'' December 
2014 [``Proposal TSD''].
    \17\ Id. at p. 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: The SJVUAPCD recognizes that ammonia is a large 
component of ammonium nitrate and that ammonium nitrate contributes 
substantially to wintertime PM2.5 mass, but asserts that 
this does not necessarily mean that reductions in ammonia emissions are 
effective in reducing PM2.5 concentrations in the SJV. 
Similarly, the District acknowledges that ammonia is found in the SJV 
at higher wintertime concentrations than NOX but states that 
ammonia's physical abundance does not solely determine its significance 
as a precursor. The District cites language in the EPA's Proposal TSD 
stating that the EPA reviews a determination to exclude a 
PM2.5 precursor by considering both ``the magnitude of the 
precursor's contribution to ambient PM2.5 concentrations'' 
and ``the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the 
area to reductions in emissions of that precursor.'' The District 
interprets this language to establish two necessary elements for 
precursor significance: (1) A ``relatively high contribution'' to 
overall PM2.5 mass, and (2) availability of control 
mechanisms for the precursor that demonstrate a ``reasonable rather 
than negligible'' reduction in PM2.5 mass. The District 
asserts that PM2.5 concentrations in the SJV are highly 
insensitive to ammonia controls, particularly when compared to 
alternative controls on NOX, which it claims is the limiting 
precursor for ammonia nitrate formation. While the District agrees with 
the EPA that the decision of whether to require reductions of a 
precursor should not be based solely on the control effectiveness of 
the precursor relative to other precursors, the District comments that 
an ``additional key issue that must also be taken under consideration 
is the development and implementation of effective emission reductions 
strategies for reducing ambient PM2.5 and bringing the [SJV] 
into attainment.''
    Response 3: The EPA generally agrees with the District's statement 
that both the contribution of a precursor to PM2.5 
concentrations in the area and the area's sensitivity to reductions in 
emissions of the precursor may be relevant for assessing the level of 
contribution of a PM2.5 precursor to ambient 
PM2.5 levels. The EPA also agrees with the District's 
conclusion that ambient PM2.5 concentrations are more 
sensitive to NOX emission reductions than to ammonia 
emission reductions. We disagree, however, with the District's 
suggestion that the effectiveness of reductions of a particular 
precursor in improving PM2.5 air quality relative to a 
different precursor may support a conclusion that a given precursor 
does not contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels 
that exceed the NAAQS. We also disagree with the District's suggestion 
that the ``availability of control mechanisms for the precursor that 
demonstrate a `reasonable rather than negligible' reduction in 
PM2.5 mass'' is a necessary consideration in determining 
whether a particular PM2.5 precursor is subject to control 
evaluation under subpart 4.
    As explained in our proposed rule, ammonia is a precursor to the 
formation of PM2.5 and is, therefore, presumptively 
regulated under subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act.\18\ Thus, CARB 
and the District must evaluate ammonia emissions for potential controls 
unless the State submits a demonstration adequate to rebut the 
regulatory presumption in the SJV area. The pertinent question in a 
demonstration to rebut the regulatory presumption for ammonia is 
whether ammonia emission sources ``contribute significantly'' to 
PM2.5 levels that exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS in the 
SJV, not whether existing emission control measures can achieve a 
specified amount of emission reductions in the area or how effective 
ammonia reductions are compared to reductions of other PM2.5 
precursors.\19\ More specifically, with respect to the sensitivity-
based contribution analysis, the pertinent question is whether 
PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area are 
``insensitive'' to emissions reductions of the precursor.\20\ We note 
that the EPA may, in some cases, require a state to identify and 
evaluate potential control measures to reduce emissions of a particular 
PM2.5 precursor from existing sources as part of a 
sensitivity-based contribution analysis, i.e., in order to adequately 
demonstrate that regulation of the precursor would not

[[Page 59880]]

provide meaningful improvements in ambient air quality.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 80 FR 1816, 1821 (January 13, 2015) (citing NRDC v. EPA, 
706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013)).
    \19\ CAA section 189(e).
    \20\ See EPA, Final Rule, ``Fine Particulate Matter National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 
Requirements,'' July 29, 2016 (pre-publication notice) at Section 
III.C.3.d, pp. 50-54 (discussing technical issues associated with 
sensitivity-based contribution analysis).
    \21\ See EPA, Final Rule, ``Fine Particulate Matter National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 
Requirements,'' July 29, 2016 (pre-publication notice) at 40 CFR 
51.1009(a)(2)(ii). Although this regulatory text is not yet 
effective, it reflects the EPA's interpretation of the statutory 
requirements. See also EPA, Response to Comments on the Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State 
Implementation Plan Requirements, July 29, 2016, at p. 23 (noting 
that ``while a valid sensitivity-based precursor demonstration 
generally will not require an evaluation of available controls, the 
EPA may determine, based on the facts and circumstances of the area, 
that the state needs to conduct a control measure evaluation for the 
relevant precursor to adequately demonstrate that regulation of the 
precursor would not provide meaningful reductions in ambient air 
quality'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the severity of PM2.5 nonattainment in the SJV 
area, the ambient contribution of ammonia emissions, the area's 
demonstrated sensitivity to ammonia control,\22\ and our finding that 
the precursor demonstration in the Plan is insufficient to rebut the 
regulatory presumption for ammonia, we conclude that ammonia emissions 
contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed 
the PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area and that the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan must, therefore, contain an evaluation of 
potential ammonia controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Proposal TSD at p. 57; see also 80 FR 1816, 1825 (January 
13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: Earthjustice challenges the EPA's method for identifying 
PM2.5 precursors subject to regulation by the Plan. 
Specifically, Earthjustice objects to the EPA's consideration of ``both 
the magnitude of the precursor's contribution to ambient 
PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment areas and the 
sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the area to 
reductions in emissions of that precursor.'' Earthjustice argues that 
this language differs from CAA section 189(e), which provides that 
control requirements shall apply to major stationary sources of 
particulate matter (PM) precursors unless the EPA finds that these 
sources ``do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which exceed 
the standard in the area.'' Thus, according to Earthjustice, ``the 
statute allows for consideration only of the significance of the 
contribution'' and does not allow for consideration of the 
effectiveness of controls in determining whether a precursor must be 
subject to control.
    Earthjustice also characterizes the EPA's consideration of the 
sensitivity of ambient concentrations to precursor emissions reductions 
as a ``bad'' policy assessment and argues that ``looking merely at the 
sensitivity ratios ignores the fact that pollutants like ammonia have 
been historically under-regulated and very well may represent the 
cheapest opportunities for emission reductions.'' Earthjustice argues 
that even if much larger amounts of ammonia reductions would be 
required to achieve the benefits of a few tons of NOX 
reductions, ammonia controls may still be the ``best'' policy option 
because incremental NOX emissions, which have already been 
heavily regulated, may be much more expensive. Earthjustice claims that 
the EPA's sensitivity test is a policy-based test but that it is not a 
rational policy test, because it does not consider the full regulatory 
context. According to Earthjustice, ``decisions on how to balance 
controls on sources of ammonia versus sources of NOX are for 
the control strategy of the Plan,'' and that if additional reductions 
beyond those achieved through the required RACM or BACM controls are 
necessary, ``that is where the `effectiveness' of the controls can and 
should be considered--not in the determination of whether a pollutant 
is a precursor subject to control under the Act.''
    Earthjustice states that the EPA has correctly proposed to 
determine that ammonia emissions ``contribute significantly'' to 
PM2.5 nonattainment in the SJV given that ammonium nitrate 
is the largest component of the Valley's PM2.5 levels. Thus, 
according to Earthjustice, ammonia controls are mandated under CAA 
section 189(e) regardless of the relative sensitivity of ambient 
concentrations to emission reductions.
    Response 4: We disagree with the commenter's characterization of 
the legal test for determining whether or not a particular 
PM2.5 precursor must be subject to control evaluation. With 
respect to ammonia emissions, however, this issue does not affect our 
action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan because the EPA is not 
determining that ammonia emission sources ``do not contribute 
significantly'' to PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area. Instead, the EPA has concluded 
that the State's and District's demonstration concerning ammonia 
emissions in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement is 
insufficient to rebut the regulatory presumption under subpart 4 and 
that ammonia is, therefore, a PM2.5 precursor subject to 
control evaluation for purposes of attaining the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS in the SJV.
    As explained in our proposed rule, section 189(e) of the Act 
requires that the control requirements for major stationary sources of 
direct PM10 also apply to major stationary sources of 
PM10 precursors, except where the Administrator determines 
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM10 
levels that exceed the standard in the area. Section 189(e) contains 
the only express exception to the control requirements under subpart 4 
(e.g., requirements for RACM and RACT, best available control measures 
(BACM) and best available control technology (BACT), most stringent 
measures, and NSR) for sources of direct PM2.5 and 
PM2.5 precursor emissions. Although section 189(e) 
explicitly addresses only major stationary sources, the EPA interprets 
the Act as authorizing it also to determine, under appropriate 
circumstances, that regulation of specific PM2.5 precursors 
from other source categories in a given nonattainment area is not 
necessary. For example, under the EPA's longstanding interpretation of 
the control requirements that apply to stationary, area, and mobile 
sources of PM10 precursors area-wide under CAA section 
172(c)(1) and subpart 4 (see General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13539-
42), a state may demonstrate in a SIP submittal that control of a 
certain precursor pollutant is not necessary in light of its 
insignificant contribution to PM10 levels in the 
nonattainment area.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 80 FR 1816, 1821-1822 (January 13, 2015). Courts have 
upheld this approach to the requirements of subpart 4 for 
PM10. See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, et 
al., 423 F.3d 989, 997 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting discretion vested in 
the EPA to consider various factors in determining whether a 
precursor ``contributes significantly'' to PM10 levels).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We evaluated the SJV PM2.5 Plan in accordance with the 
presumption embodied within subpart 4 that all PM2.5 
precursors must be addressed in the state's evaluation of potential 
control measures, unless the state adequately demonstrates that 
emissions of a particular precursor do not ``contribute significantly'' 
to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the PM2.5 
NAAQS in the nonattainment area. Both the magnitude of a precursor's 
contribution to ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the 
nonattainment area and the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 
concentrations in the area to reductions in emissions of that precursor 
may be relevant to an assessment of whether the precursor contributes 
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the area. As explained in the preamble to the 
EPA's July 29, 2016 final rule to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS:

The EPA . . . believes that a sensitivity-based contribution 
analysis is consistent with the language and intent of CAA section 
189(e). As applied to attainment plans, CAA section 189(e) allows 
states to evaluate whether PM2.5 precursors significantly

[[Page 59881]]

contribute to levels which exceed the standard in the area. The 
intent of CAA section 189(e) in applying control requirements to 
PM2.5 precursors is to ensure expeditious attainment of 
the standard. However, if conditions in a particular area are such 
that control of sources of one or more precursors does not reduce 
PM2.5 concentrations in the area, then those controls 
will not help the area attain (expeditiously or otherwise). 
Therefore, the EPA disagrees with commenters who argue that 
sensitivity-based contribution analyses are not appropriate for 
determining if precursors do not significantly contribute to 
PM2.5 levels in the area. The EPA believes that 
sensitivity-based contribution analyses can be useful for 
determining whether adoption of control requirements for sources of 
a particular precursor would be effective in reducing 
PM2.5 concentrations, and can be useful for determining 
whether potential emissions increases under the NNSR program would 
lead to insignificant air quality changes. For this reason, the 
final rule allows states to conduct sensitivity-based contribution 
analyses for the comprehensive, major stationary source, and NNSR 
precursor demonstrations.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ EPA, Final Rule, ``Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements,'' 
July 29, 2016 (pre-publication notice) at Section III.C, p. 59.

    Based on our evaluation of the precursor demonstrations in the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan, we agree with Earthjustice's claim that ammonia 
emission sources ``contribute significantly'' to PM2.5 
levels that exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and that an 
ammonia control evaluation is therefore necessary to satisfy the 
requirements of the Act for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. For the 
reasons provided in our proposed rule, however, we conclude that VOC 
emissions do not ``contribute significantly'' to ambient 
PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 
the SJV area and that a VOC control evaluation therefore is not 
necessary in this Plan. As the commenter has not raised any specific 
concern regarding our proposal on VOC emissions, we are not addressing 
these issues further with respect to VOCs.
    Comment 5: The District states that it is important to acknowledge 
the public health co-benefits of reducing NOX emissions in 
the region. The District states that ozone production in the SJV is 
limited by NOX concentrations relative to VOC 
concentrations, and that NOX reductions typically involve 
the elimination, reduction, and/or control of hydrocarbon combustion 
sources, and produce net reductions in direct particulates, metals, 
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and hazardous air pollutants. The 
District asserts that reductions in secondary ammonium nitrate are not 
accompanied by these additional co-benefits.
    Response 5: We agree with the commenter that it is important to 
reduce NOX emissions for improved public health in the San 
Joaquin Valley, because it is a precursor to both PM2.5 and 
ozone. As to the air quality benefits of reductions in secondary 
ammonium nitrate, theoretically these air quality benefits could be 
achieved by reductions in either NOX emissions or ammonia 
emissions. Reductions in secondary ammonium nitrate through 
NOX control would achieve the co-benefits identified by the 
commenter. Given that there is no atmospheric chemistry connection 
between ammonia emissions and ozone production, we agree with the 
commenter that ammonia reductions would not achieve the same co-
benefits with respect to ozone that NOX reductions achieve. 
Ammonia reductions may, however, achieve other air quality co-benefits 
depending on the specifics of the ammonia controls, which are not 
explored in the Plan but may be uncovered by additional analysis. In 
any case, this issue does not affect our conclusion that ammonia is a 
PM2.5 precursor subject to control evaluation for purposes 
of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.

C. Comments Regarding RACM/RACT and Adopted Control Strategy

    Comment 6: Earthjustice argues that the EPA should disapprove the 
Plan's RACM/RACT demonstration because it does not include all 
reasonably available control measures. Earthjustice asserts that the 
EPA's review of this demonstration in its proposed rule ``does little 
more than rubberstamp the District's unsupported assertions'' that all 
reasonable controls have been exhausted, and identifies six source 
categories for which it claims that existing control measures could 
reasonably be strengthened or other reasonable new control measures 
have yet to be adopted and implemented.
    Response 6: We disagree with these arguments. Section 107(a) of the 
CAA provides states with both authority and primary responsibility for 
developing SIPs that meet applicable statutory and regulatory 
requirements for attaining, maintaining, and enforcing the NAAQS. 
States have discretion in formulating their SIPs, and the EPA is 
required to approve a SIP submission that satisfies the applicable 
requirements of the Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ CAA section 110(k)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3) and 40 CFR 
52.02(a); see also Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 250 (1976); 
Train v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in our proposed rule, the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 
discusses the District's process for evaluating potential RACM/RACT in 
accordance with the EPA's recommendations in the General Preamble and 
describes each of the control measures for sources of direct 
PM2.5, NOX, SO2, and ammonia that the 
Plan relies on to satisfy the RACM/RACT requirement for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS.\26\ For the reasons provided in our proposed 
rule and further below, we conclude that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 
provides for the implementation of all RACM/RACT that could reasonably 
be implemented in the SJV by the statutory implementation deadline, as 
required by CAA sections 172(c) and 189(a)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 80 FR 1816, 1827-1830.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that, as of the date of our proposed action on the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement, which published on January 
13, 2015, it was not practicable for the state to adopt additional 
control measures for implementation by the RACM implementation deadline 
under CAA section 189(a)(1)(C), which was December 14, 2013.\27\ The 
State and District must, however, include in the Serious area plan for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which is due August 21, 2017, 
provisions to assure that the best available control measures (BACM) 
for the control of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors 
shall be implemented no later than 4 years after the date the area was 
reclassified as a Serious area, i.e., by February 19, 2020.\28\ The 
required evaluation of BACM/BACT control measures in the Serious area 
plan must address sources of direct PM2.5 and all 
PM2.5 precursors, except for any PM2.5 
precursor(s) for which the State submits and the EPA approves a 
comprehensive precursor demonstration consistent with the requirements 
of subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act. In accordance with the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(6), the Serious area plan must also 
include any additional feasible measures to control emissions of direct 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors that are necessary or 
appropriate to provide for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS as expeditiously

[[Page 59882]]

as practicable and no later than December 31, 2019.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The SJV area was designated nonattainment for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS effective December 14, 2009. 74 FR 58688 
(November 13, 2009) and 40 CFR 81.305. Therefore, the statutory 
deadline for implementation of RACM in the SJV under CAA section 
189(a)(1)(C) for this NAAQS was December 14, 2013.
    \28\ The EPA reclassified the SJV area as a Serious 
nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS effective 
February 19, 2016. 81 FR 2993 (January 20, 2016) (final 
reclassification) and 81 FR 42263 (June 29, 2016) (correcting 
amendment). Therefore, the statutory deadline for implementation of 
BACM in the SJV under CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) for this NAAQS is 
February 19, 2020.
    \29\ See EPA, Final Rule, ``Fine Particulate Matter National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 
Requirements,'' July 29, 2016 (pre-publication notice) at 40 CFR 
51.1010(a)(4)(ii). Although this regulatory text is not yet 
effective, it reflects the EPA's interpretation of the statutory 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We respond below to the specific comments pertaining to the six 
source categories highlighted by Earthjustice.
    Comment 6a: Standards for Agricultural Equipment. Earthjustice 
asserts that the District's ``replacement of more than 1,000 pieces of 
off-road equipment and agricultural equipment'' through implementation 
of incentive programs has demonstrated the feasibility of emission 
controls on off-road agricultural equipment and argues that CARB has 
the ability to create binding, enforceable regulations to reduce 
NOX emissions from off-road agricultural equipment to hasten 
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
    Response 6a: To the extent Earthjustice intended to argue that the 
replacement of off-road agricultural equipment through incentive 
programs implemented in the SJV demonstrates that NOX 
controls for such equipment are both technologically and economically 
feasible, we disagree.
    Given the commenter did not specify the types and/or sizes of off-
road equipment for which it believes NOX controls are 
feasible, we evaluated several types of off-road agricultural equipment 
replacement projects funded through the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality 
Standards Attainment Program in the SJV in recent years to determine 
the costs and technical issues associated with such replacements. We 
used the SJVUAPCD's ``Annual Demonstration Report'' data sheets for 
2013,\30\ 2014,\31\ and 2015,\32\ which the District submitted pursuant 
to SJVUAPCD Rule 9610, to determine the cost effectiveness and 
technological feasibility of off-road agricultural equipment 
replacements. We limited our analysis to projects categorized as ``off-
road'' and as ``vehicle replacements,'' and that included data for 
``cost of new equip vehicle'' \33\ and non-zero emission reductions 
values reported for NOX and/or particulate matter (PM).\34\ 
Off-road agricultural equipment encompasses a wide variety of types of 
equipment. The 1807 pieces of equipment listed in the data sheets that 
we reviewed include: Almond shakers, almond sweepers, backhoes, bale 
wagons, balers, bulk carriers, combines, cotton pickers, forage 
harvesters, forklifts, harvesters, hay haulers, loaders, silage 
baggers, sprayers, swathers, tomato harvesters, tractors, tractor 
crawlers, and wheel loaders. Additionally, as seen in Tables 2, 3, and 
4 below, the data sheets identify a wide range of equipment horsepower 
levels and capital costs of replacing agricultural off-road equipment, 
from which the EPA calculated mean and median values and cost-
effectiveness values for NOX controls.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Available at http://www.valleyair.org/MOP/docs/069610ProjectDataforPublicUNLOCKED-1-30-14.xlsx.
    \31\ Available at http://www.valleyair.org/MOP/docs/9610ProjectDataforPublicUNLOCKED-8-11-14.xlsx.
    \32\ Available at http://www.valleyair.org/MOP/docs/9610ProjectDataforPublic2015.xlsx.
    \33\ We did not evaluate the 125 projects in the 2014 Data Sheet 
categorized as ``off-road'' and as ``vehicle replacements'' for 
which the Data Sheet identified ``cost retrofit'' instead of ``cost 
of new equip vehicle'' values.
    \34\ We did not evaluate the 29 projects in the 2013 Data Sheet 
categorized as ``off-road'' and as ``vehicle replacements'' for 
which the Data Sheet identified zero NOX and PM emission 
reductions.
    \35\ We calculated the cost-effectiveness of NOX 
controls by dividing the ``Cost of New Equipment'' values by the 
``NOX Lifetime Reduced (tons)'' values for each of the 
identified projects to obtain $/ton values.

                             Table 2--Horsepower for Off-Road Agricultural Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Date of
                                                                                                     ``Annual
                                                                                                   Demonstration
                                                                    Horsepower      Project ID     Report'' data
                                                                       (HP)                            sheet
                                                                                                    identifying
                                                                                                      project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum.........................................................              28       C-21377-A            2014
Maximum.........................................................             653       C-21973-A            2014
Mean............................................................             128  ..............  ..............
Median..........................................................             105  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Minimum and maximum horsepower based on EPA review of SJVUAPCD, ``Annual Demonstration Report'' data
  sheets for 2013, 2014, and 2015. Mean and median values calculated by EPA.

                                Table 3--Cost of Off-Road Agricultural Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Date of
                                                                                                     ``Annual
                                                                                                   Demonstration
                                                                    Cost of new     Project ID     Report'' data
                                                                   equipment ($)                       sheet
                                                                                                    identifying
                                                                                                      project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum.........................................................       10,031.50       C-22064-A            2014
Maximum.........................................................      685,736.52       C-27498-A            2015
Mean............................................................       82,182.69  ..............  ..............
Median..........................................................       51,212.29  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Minimum and maximum cost based on EPA review of SJVUAPCD, ``Annual Demonstration Report'' data sheets
  for 2013, 2014, and 2015. Mean and median values calculated by EPA.

[[Page 59883]]

                 Table 4--Cost Effectiveness of NOX Control for Off-Road Agricultural Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Date of
                                                                                                     ``Annual
                                                                       Cost                        Demonstration
                                                                   effectiveness    Project ID     Report'' data
                                                                      ($/ton)                          sheet
                                                                                                    identifying
                                                                                                      project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum.........................................................        1,141.00         C-8160A            2013
Maximum.........................................................      436,140.00       C-22654-A            2014
Mean............................................................       38,687.61  ..............  ..............
Median..........................................................       18,863.95  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA, ``Agricultural Mobile Engine Projects--EPA cost-effectiveness calculations,'' July 21, 2016.

    The significant costs associated with replacing off-road 
agricultural equipment in the SJV indicate that replacement of such 
equipment without funding assistance generally is not economically 
feasible at this time. In addition, the wide variations in the sizes 
and uses of such equipment in the SJV and the available control 
technologies indicate that replacement of off-road agricultural 
equipment in the SJV may not be technically feasible for many types of 
equipment. Accordingly, we disagree with Earthjustice's suggestion that 
requirements to replace off-road agricultural equipment are required 
RACM in the SJV.
    Comment 6b: Fleet Rules. Earthjustice comments that the District 
can further reduce emissions from mobile sources by adopting additional 
``fleet'' rules to regulate emissions from publicly-owned vehicles. 
Earthjustice notes that while the District currently maintains a fleet 
rule only for school buses, the South Coast Air Quality Management 
District (SCAQMD) has adopted rules for buses; light-, medium-, and 
heavy-duty public fleet vehicles; waste collection vehicles; airport 
ground transportation such as taxis and shuttles; and street sweepers. 
Earthjustice states that the District should implement similar 
restrictions on publicly-owned vehicles.
    Response 6b: We disagree with Earthjustice's suggestion that 
adoption of additional ``fleet'' rules is necessary to satisfy the 
RACM/RACT requirement for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
    As the commenter notes, the SCAQMD has adopted several rules to 
encourage public agencies and some private entities to shift to the use 
of lower emissions vehicles,\36\ including the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The applicability of these rules was narrowed to exclude 
federal fleets and certain private fleets. See http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Regulations/Fleet-Rules/fleetruleadvisory-july202005.pdf?sfvrsn=0.

Rule 1186.1 Less-Polluting Street Sweepers, adopted August 18, 2000;
Rule 1191 Clean On-Road Light and Medium Duty Public Fleet Vehicles, 
adopted June 16, 2000;
Rule 1192 Clean On-Road Transit Buses, adopted June 16, 2000;
Rule 1193 Clean On-Road Residential and Commercial Refuse Collection 
Vehicles, adopted June 16, 2000.
Rule 1194 Commercial Airport Ground Access Vehicles, adopted August 
18, 2000;
Rule 1195 Clean On-Road School Buses, adopted April 20, 2001; and
Rule 1196 Clean On-Road Heavy-Duty Public Fleet Vehicles, adopted 
October 20, 2000.

    As explained in Appendix C of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, both 
CARB and the SJVUAPCD have adopted fleet rules to reduce emissions from 
specific types of on-road vehicle fleets, e.g., CARB's Fleet Rule for 
Public Agencies and Utilities, which addresses diesel particulate 
matter from vehicle fleets operated by public agencies and utilities, 
and SJVUAPCD Rule 9310 (School Bus Fleets), which requires replacement, 
retrofit, or repowering of older diesel-fueled school buses.\37\ The 
District acknowledges in Appendix C of the Plan that the SCAQMD is 
implementing a fleet rule that requires solid waste collection vehicle 
fleets to operate entirely on alternative fuel beginning in 2011 but 
explains that transitioning a fleet from diesel to alternative fuel can 
be costly and may not be economically feasible in the SJV.\38\ 
Additionally, according to the SJVUAPCD, the emissions benefit 
associated with such a transition is minimal given the stringent 
particulate matter requirements under CARB's Fleet Rule for Public 
Agencies, and the relatively small difference in NOX 
emissions, if any, between diesel and alternative fuel vehicles.\39\ 
The commenter provides no information to support a claim that the 
SJVUAPCD could reasonably have adopted and implemented identical or 
similar rules in the SJV prior to the RACM/RACT implementation 
deadline, which was December 14, 2013. We note that none of the SCAQMD 
fleet rules identified above has been submitted for approved into the 
California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at C-7 to C-11.
    \38\ Id. at C-8, C-9 (noting that ``establishing new alternative 
fuel infrastructure can cost millions of dollars and alternative 
fuel SWCVs generally cost $25,000 more than diesel'').
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 6c: Indirect Source Review (ISR) Improvements. Earthjustice 
comments that the District can obtain additional emissions reductions 
by expanding the applicability of its ISR rule, which Earthjustice 
notes was last updated in 2005. Earthjustice suggests that the District 
could eliminate provisions that allow businesses to mitigate their 
emissions by paying fees (or establish a minimum emission level for 
when a business may use this option), add limits for PM2.5 
emissions, and require projects to achieve greater emissions 
reductions.
    Response 6c: We disagree with the commenter's suggestion that 
revisions to SJVUAPCD Rule 9510 (``Indirect Source Review'') are 
necessary to satisfy RACM requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS in the SJV.
    SJVUAPCD Rule 9510, as adopted December 15, 2005, requires 
applicants for development projects of certain sizes and certain 
transportation or transit projects to reduce NOX and 
particulate matter (PM) emissions from the development and use of such 
projects through various on-site mitigation measures or payment of fees 
to fund off-site emission reduction projects. The EPA approved SJVUAPCD 
Rule 9510 into the California SIP at 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011) but 
explained in that action that the EPA and the District were acting 
under section 110(a)(5) of the CAA. Under that section, the EPA is 
prohibited from requiring states to include ISR programs in SIPs. 
Specifically, CAA section 110(a)(5)(A)(i) states that any State may 
include in a State implementation plan, but the Administrator may not 
require as a condition of approval of such plan under this section, any 
indirect source review program. Section 110(a)(5)(A)(i) also states 
that the Administrator may approve and enforce, as part of an

[[Page 59884]]

applicable implementation plan, an indirect source review program which 
the State chooses to adopt and submit as part of its plan.\40\ Because 
SJVUAPCD Rule 9510 constitutes an ISR program, the EPA may not require 
the District to consider revisions to this rule, for RACM purposes or 
otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Comment 6d: Fireplace Rule Improvements. Earthjustice comments that 
the District could reduce direct PM2.5 emissions by making 
SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters) 
more stringent. Earthjustice notes that this rule was updated in 2014, 
but argues that this update did not make the rule ``as stringent as it 
reasonably could,'' because it allows cleaner classes of wood-burning 
heaters to be used at ambient concentrations up to 65 microgram per 
meter cubed ([mu]g/m\3\). Earthjustice argues that a more appropriate 
threshold would be 35 [mu]g/m\3\, the attainment level for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS, and that the District should amend the rule to 
disallow use of these heaters when concentrations are expected to 
exceed this level. Earthjustice asserts that the District ``should 
prioritize making the rule as protective as possible'' to reduce direct 
PM2.5 emissions.
    Response 6d: We disagree with the commenter's suggestion that 
revisions to SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 are necessary to satisfy RACM 
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
    Consistent with the District's rule amendment commitments in the 
2012 PM2.5 Plan,\41\ the SJVUAPCD amended Rule 4901 on 
September 18, 2014, and CARB submitted the amended rule to the EPA for 
SIP action on November 6, 2014.\42\ On August 15, 2016, Acting Regional 
Administrator Alexis Strauss signed a notice of final rulemaking to 
approve SJVUAPCD Rule 4901, as amended September 18, 2014, as meeting 
applicable CAA requirements and implementing RACM/RACT for 
PM2.5 emissions from wood burning devices.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 80 FR 1816, 1832 at Table 3 (January 13, 2015); see also 
2012 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5 (``Control Strategy''), 
Section 5.3 (``New Control Measures''), p. 5-21 to 5-22.
    \42\ 80 FR 58637 (September 30, 2015).
    \43\ EPA, Final Rule, ``Approval of California Air Plan 
Revisions, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 
District,'' August 15, 2016 (pre-publication notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 6e: Interim Charbroiling Regulations. Earthjustice argues 
that the District has delayed updating its charbroiler rule even though 
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has already 
implemented regulations on under-fired charbroilers. Earthjustice 
points out that in 2012, it and other organizations asked the District 
to update the rule sooner, to include controls similar to those in the 
Bay Area and to follow up with another rule update when new 
technologies are reasonably available.
    Response 6e: We disagree with the commenter's suggestion that 
SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) fails to satisfy RACM 
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and that 
control measures for under-fired charbroilers are necessary to satisfy 
these requirements.
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, as amended September 17, 2009, applies to 
chain-driven charbroilers used in commercial meat cooking and requires 
a catalytic oxidizer or alternative controls with a control efficiency 
of at least 83 percent for PM10 emissions and 86 percent for 
VOC emissions. The rule exempts charbroilers used to cook less than 400 
pounds of meat in a calendar week, and other limited-use charbroilers 
that do not exceed weekly and rolling 12-month maximum use limits and 
that have not previously been required to comply with the rule's 
control requirements. It does not regulate under-fired 
charbroilers.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 (amended September 17, 2009), sections 
4.1, 5.1, and 5.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BAAQMD is the only air district that we are aware of that has 
adopted regulations to reduce emissions from under-fired charbroilers. 
BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 2 (Commercial Cooking Equipment),\45\ applies 
to chain-driven charbroilers in restaurants that purchase 500 pounds or 
more of beef per week, and to under-fired charbroilers in restaurants 
that purchase 1,000 pounds or more of beef per week. The rule requires 
these restaurants to control emissions using a certified control device 
and to register charbroilers and associated emission control devices 
with the BAAQMD. The rule exempts low-utilized charbroilers, including 
under-fired charbroilers used to grill less than 800 pounds of beef per 
week.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 2 (adopted December 5, 2007), 
available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/BA/CURHTML/R6-2.PDF.
    \46\ BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 2 (adopted December 5, 2007), 
sections 6-2-102, 6-2-110, 6-2-111, 6-2-300, and 6-2-400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to BAAQMD planning and compliance staff, the control 
requirements in Regulation 6, Rule 2 for under-fired charbroilers have 
not yet been implemented in practice.\47\ BAAQMD staff noted that no 
under-fired charbroilers in the Bay Area are currently registered 
pursuant to Regulation 6 Rule 2, indicating that restaurants in the Bay 
Area are operating below the thresholds that trigger the requirements. 
In addition, the BAAQMD's most recent inspections found that 
restaurants were below these thresholds.\48\ Significantly, the BAAQMD 
has not yet certified any emission control devices for under-fired 
charbroilers. BAAQMD staff explained that they are waiting to receive 
and review final test reports from the University of California at 
Riverside, Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT) 
before making certifications.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Email dated April 4, 2016, from Virginia Lau of the BAAQMD 
to Stanley Tong of EPA Region 9, regarding ``Update on Bay Area 
charbroiler registration.''
    \48\ BAAQMD staff noted that these inspections occurred during a 
period of economic recession, and that conditions may have changed 
since. Email dated April 4, 2016, from Virginia Lau of the BAAQMD to 
Stanley Tong of EPA Region 9, regarding ``Update on Bay Area 
charbroiler registration.''
    \49\ CE-CERT informed SCAQMD that charbroiler testing will be 
delayed for up to four months due to fire suppression system 
upgrades in its test kitchen. Email dated March 16, 2016 from 
Michael Laybourn of the SCAQMD to Stanley Tong of EPA Region 9, 
regarding ``Charbroiler Testing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SJVUAPCD's 2012 PM2.5 Plan summarizes PM control 
technology for under-fired charbroilers.\50\ It finds that catalytic 
oxidizers are not effective for under-fired charbroilers because the 
exhaust from these devices loses too much heat before it reaches the 
catalyst. The Plan lists High Efficiency Particulate-Arresting (HEPA) 
filtration, Electrostatic Precipitators (ESP), and Wet Scrubbers as 
potentially more effective control technology for under-fired 
charbroilers, but notes that the SJVUAPCD found these technologies were 
``unproven and extremely costly'' when it amended SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 in 
2009. During that amendment process, the District found that the 
initial costs for these controls ranged from $37,500 to $104,000, which 
results in a cost of approximately $58,200 per ton of PM2.5 
reduced. The District has estimated the total costs of installing, 
operating, and maintaining these controls to be as much as 20 to 30 
percent of a restaurant's net profits.\51\ As a result, the District 
decided not to adopt regulations for under-fired charbroilers as part 
of its rule amendments in 2009. We note that the Plan contains the 
District Governing Board's commitment to adopt control

[[Page 59885]]

measures for under-fired charbroilers in 2016.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D at D-111 to D-117.
    \51\ Action Summary Minutes, San Joaquin Unified Air Pollution 
Control District, Governing Board, August 20, 2009, page 7, 
available at http://www.valleyair.org/Board_meetings/GB/agenda_minutes/Minutes/2009/Minutes_GB_2009_Aug.pdf.
    \52\ 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5 (``Control 
Strategy''), Section 5.3 (``New Control Measures''), p. 5-21 to 5-
22, and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 2012-12-19 (December 20, 
2012), page 4; see also 80 FR 1816, 1832 at Table 3 (January 13, 
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A study conducted by the University of California at Berkeley \53\ 
arrives at a similar conclusion regarding the cost of PM controls for 
under-fired charbroilers. Using 2007 economic census data, the study 
estimates the average annual profit of restaurants in the SJVUAPCD area 
to be $23,000-$47,000 per establishment, for a profit margin of 3.5-5.9 
percent. Similarly, the study estimates the annual profit for average 
large restaurants (i.e., restaurants averaging 60 employees) to be 
approximately $110,000. The study also finds that the average capital 
cost for particulate matter (PM) emission controls such as an ESP, HEPA 
filtration, or wet scrubber can range from approximately $38,750 to 
$50,000, with average annualized costs for installation and operation 
of $11,000-$15,000. The study calculates the total costs associated 
with these controls to be approximately 10-14 percent of an average 
large restaurant's profits. The study states that ``[t]hese figures may 
appear modest . . . given that installing control technologies would 
amount to only a tenth of [large] restaurant profits. However . . . 
this figure is several times larger than the case of successful chain-
driven charbroiler regulations, where the cost of installing catalytic 
oxidizers represented just 2.2 percent of average restaurant profits.'' 
\54\ The study notes that its annualized cost estimates parallel 
SJVUAPCD's estimates, even though the data were drawn from different 
sources.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Bellisario, J., Mandel, B., Perkins, J., Ruan, Y., 
``Regulating Emissions from Under-fired Charbroilers,'' University 
of California, Berkeley, Goldman School of Public Policy, May 2012.
    \54\ Id. at p. 24.
    \55\ Id. at p. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We anticipate the CE-CERT research report will help clarify the 
cost effectiveness of various under-fired charbroiler emission control 
technologies, some of which are prototypes, which will supplement the 
earlier Berkeley study to help inform more effective rule 
development.\56\ Additionally, the District is currently undertaking 
efforts that may yield additional information relevant to whether 
additional controls for charbroilers would be appropriate and feasible 
in the SJV. To help study the technological feasibility and 
effectiveness of potential control technologies, the SJVUAPCD Governing 
Board approved $750,000 for its Restaurant Charbroiler Technology 
Partnership program to fund PM control technology demonstration 
projects for under-fired charbroilers at Valley restaurants.\57\ The 
District's funding would include the full purchase cost, installation, 
operation, maintenance, and other costs such as modifications to 
existing system configurations and structural reinforcements, and will 
help evaluate control systems operations, maintenance, and labor costs 
in the field. Completion of these research efforts will allow 
regulatory agencies to evaluate overall PM reduction strategies, which 
will help in designing economically and technically feasible 
regulations that can achieve the necessary PM reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The SCAQMD, BAAQMD, SJVUAPCD, and EPA Region 9 are part of 
a workgroup to provide input on the CE-CERT under-fired charbroiler 
testing research.
    \57\ See Restaurant Charbroiler Technology Partnership, 
available at http://valleyair.org/grants/rctp.htm, and 
``Charbroilers Come Under San Joaquin Valley Air District's 
Microscope,'' The Modesto Bee, December 27, 2015, http://www.recordnet.com/article/20160101/NEWS/160109993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these evaluations, we find that SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 
implements RACM/RACT for charbroilers for purposes of the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
    Comment 6f: Performance Standards for Flares. Earthjustice comments 
that the District could strengthen Rule 4311 (Flares) by adopting a 
performance-based standard for flaring. Earthjustice states that the 
District should assess the strength of its rule against rules in other 
areas with high oil and gas production, and suggests North Dakota as an 
example. As explained by Earthjustice, North Dakota requires operators 
to meet targets for natural gas capture that increase over time from 74 
percent in 2014 to an expected 90 percent by 2020, and allows state 
regulators to restrict oil production if the operators do not meet 
these targets. Earthjustice says that the District could ``borrow 
from'' this approach by assessing the percentage of natural gas flared 
in the San Joaquin Valley and developing regulations to reduce flaring.
    Response 6f: We disagree with the commenter's suggestion that 
revisions to SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 (Flares) are necessary to satisfy RACM 
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4311, as amended June 18, 2009, limits VOC, 
NOX, and sulfur oxides (SOX) emissions from 
industrial operations involving the use of flares. The rule includes 
general requirements for combusting waste gases, emission standards for 
ground-level enclosed flares, and performance targets for petroleum 
refinery flares. Operators of refinery flares and flares with capacity 
greater than 5.0 MMBtu/hour are required to submit flare minimization 
plans (FMPs) containing information such as detailed process diagrams, 
descriptions of upstream equipment, and evaluations of preventive 
measures to reduce flaring.\58\ The rule prohibits flaring unless it is 
done consistently with a District-approved FMP.\59\ Additionally, the 
rule includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, 
including a requirement for operators to investigate and report flaring 
events.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 (adopted June 18, 2009), sections 5.8 
and 6.5.
    \59\ Id.
    \60\ Id. at sections 6.1 and 6.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the commenter notes, North Dakota has adopted rules governing 
flaring in the oil and gas industry, through provisions of the North 
Dakota Century Code and an Order issued by the Industrial Commission of 
North Dakota. Section 38-08-06.4 of the North Dakota Century Code 
allows oil wells to flare gas during the first year of production, and 
thereafter requires wells either to be capped or to be equipped with 
approved capture or control measures that, at a minimum, reduce flared 
gas by at least 60 percent, unless the operator can demonstrate that 
such measures are not economically feasible.\61\ Industrial Commission 
Order 24665 adopts tiered gas capture goals that include a target of 74 
percent capture in 2014 and an end target of 90 percent capture in 
2020.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ North Dakota Century Code, Section 38-08-06.4, as effective 
January 2016.
    \62\ State of North Dakota, Industrial Commission Order No. 
24665 (dated July 1, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SJVUAPCD's 2012 PM2.5 Plan states that Rule 4311 is 
more stringent than flare rules in other California air districts. 
Appendix D of the Plan compares Rule 4311 to SCAQMD Rule 1118, BAAQMD 
Rules 12-11 and 12-12, and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control 
District (SBCAPCD) Rule 359.\63\ According to the District, these rules 
contain requirements for FMPs and monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting provisions similar to those in SJVUAPCD Rule 4311, and 
emission standards for ground-level enclosed flares, but Rule 4311 
applies to a wider range of operations and does not include certain 
exemptions present in the other districts' rules.\64\ The District

[[Page 59886]]

also states that the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 
District (SMAQMD) and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 
(VCAPCD) do not have specific prohibitory rules for flares.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ The 2012 PM2.5 Plan mistakenly identifies the 
Santa Barbara rule as ``Rule 4359.'' 2012 PM2.5 Plan, 
Appendix D at D-71.
    \64\ 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D at D-71.
    \65\ Id. The VCAPCD does not have a specific flaring rule, but 
VACPCD Rule 54, ``Sulfur Compounds'' includes requirements for 
flaring events, including FMPs. The District's ``2015 Plan for the 
1997 PM2.5 Standard'' (``2015 PM2.5 Plan'') 
includes this rule in a table comparing Rule 4311 to other 
California air district rules, and states that SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 is 
at least as stringent. 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C: BACM 
and MSM for Stationary and Area Sources, at page C-79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District has addressed the North Dakota Century Code and the 
Industrial Commission Order in Appendix C of the ``2015 Plan for the 
1997 PM2.5 Standard'' (hereafter ``2015 PM2.5 
Plan'').\66\ There, the District concludes that SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 is 
more stringent than the North Dakota rule. Among its findings in 
support of this conclusion, the District notes that Rule 4311 applies 
to a broader range of sources and achieves a higher percentage of gas 
capture.\67\ Appendix C of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan also 
discusses SBCAPCD Rule 359, which includes a performance standard for 
gas volume.\68\ The District concludes that Rule 4311 is more stringent 
than this rule, citing reasons that include Rule 4311's applicability 
to a broader range of sources, fewer exemptions, and greater percentage 
gas capture.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C: BACM and MSM for 
Stationary and Area Sources, at page C-81.
    \67\ In its comparison of Rule 4311 to the North Dakota 
provisions, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan states that Rule 4311 
``requires 95% capture and treatment of produced gas.'' 2015 
PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C: BACM and MSM for Stationary and 
Area Sources, at page C-82. We interpret this to mean that the rule 
achieves at least 95 percent capture in practice, as demonstrated at 
Table C-11 of the Plan. 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C: BACM 
and MSM for Stationary and Area Sources, at page C-80. See email 
dated May 20, 2016, from Sheraz Gill of the SJVUAPCD to Andrew 
Steckel of EPA Region 9, regarding Small flares question.
    \68\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C: BACM and MSM for 
Stationary and Area Sources, at pp. C-79 to C-81.
    \69\ Id. at C-81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree with the District's analysis and conclusion that SJVUAPCD 
Rule 4311 is at least as stringent as the rules adopted by the other 
California air districts and the requirements in place in North Dakota. 
Therefore, we disagree with the commenter's assertion that a 
performance-based standard like North Dakota's would be more protective 
than Rule 4311. While Rule 4311 does not set performance targets for 
reducing flared gas, information in the record indicates that it 
achieves emission reductions greater than those targets. Table C-11 of 
the 2015 PM2.5 Plan shows that the percentage of gas flared 
in the SJV in the years between 2009 and 2013 has never exceeded 5 
percent.\70\ This analysis addresses the commenter's suggestion that 
the District should assess the percentage of natural gas flared in the 
District, and it indicates that adoption of requirements like North 
Dakota's would not reduce emissions from flaring in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C: BACM and MSM for 
Stationary and Area Sources, at page C-79. SJVUAPCD staff confirmed 
that the data in this table comes from the annual emissions 
inventory reports submitted by sources to the District. Email dated 
April 27, 2016, from Sheraz Gill of the SJVUAPCD to Andrew Steckel 
of EPA Region 9, regarding SJV flares data inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this assessment, we find that SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 
represents RACT for flaring operations in the SJV, and that the 
alternatives suggested by the commenter would not achieve additional 
emission reductions.
    Comment 7: Earthjustice comments that the RACM/RACT analysis in the 
Plan does not include reasonable controls for condensable emissions, 
and that the EPA must therefore disapprove the RACM/RACT demonstration. 
Earthjustice states that 40 CFR 51.1002(c) requires agencies to set 
controls for condensable emissions beginning January 1, 2011, and 
quotes the EPA's prior statement at 72 FR 20586, 20652 that ``[w]e 
expect States to address the control of direct PM2.5 
emissions, including condensables [sic] \71\ with any new actions taken 
after January 1, 2011.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ The Federal Register notice uses the term ``condensable 
PM.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 7: We agree with Earthjustice's statement that the 
transition period under 40 CFR 51.1002(c) (as effective May 29, 2007) 
\72\ allowing state and local agencies to submit plans that do not 
address condensable emissions ended on January 1, 2011. We disagree, 
however, with the claim that the EPA must disapprove the RACM/RACT 
demonstration in the Plan for failure to assess controls on condensable 
PM2.5 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007). The EPA's recent final rule 
to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS also requires that emission 
limitations for PM2.5 sources address condensable 
PM2.5. See EPA, Final Rule, ``Fine Particulate Matter 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 
Requirements,'' July 29, 2016 (pre-publication notice) at p. 567 
(requiring at 40 CFR 51.1009(c) that, for new or revised source 
emissions limitations on sources of direct PM2.5 
emissions, states apply such emissions limitations either to the 
total of the filterable plus condensable fractions of direct 
PM2.5, or to filterable PM2.5 and condensable 
PM2.5 separately).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.1002(c), as effective May 29, 2007, 
provide that, after January 1, 2011, for purposes of establishing 
emissions limits to satisfy requirements for RFP and reasonably 
available control measures/reasonably available control technology 
(RACM/RACT), states must establish such limits taking into 
consideration the condensable fraction of direct PM2.5 
emissions. Because direct PM2.5 is comprised of both 
filterable PM2.5 and condensable PM2.5,\73\ the 
EPA has explained that both the emissions inventories underlying a 
PM2.5 attainment plan and any emission limits for sources of 
direct PM2.5 in the control strategy must take into 
consideration the condensable fraction of PM2.5 
emissions.\74\ As the EPA stated in the July 29, 2016 final rule to 
implement the PM2.5 NAAQS, it is particularly important to 
ensure that both the filterable and condensable components of direct 
PM2.5 emissions are accurately represented in the base year 
emissions inventory underlying a RACM/RACT control analysis.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Certain commercial or industrial activities involving high 
temperature processes (e.g., fuel combustion, metal processing, and 
cooking operations) emit gaseous pollutants into the ambient air 
which rapidly condense into particle form. These ``condensable'' 
particulate matter emissions exist almost entirely in the 2.5 or 
less micron range and can consist of organic material, sulfuric acid 
and metals. 80 FR 15340, 15343 at n. 7 (March 23, 2015); see also 72 
FR 20586, 20651 (April 25, 2007).
    \74\ See, e.g., 80 FR 15340, 15412 (March 23, 2015) (discussing 
requirement to address condensable PM2.5 in base year 
emissions inventory and related SIP control strategies).
    \75\ See EPA, Final Rule, ``Fine Particulate Matter National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 
Requirements,'' July 29, 2016 (pre-publication notice) at pp. 66-77, 
90-104 and 139-140 (discussing requirements to include condensable 
PM2.5 in base year emissions inventories and in RACM/RACT 
control evaluations); see also 80 FR 15340 at 15378, 15412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 4 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan contains a brief 
discussion of the District's approach to condensable PM2.5 
emissions and states that condensable particulates are included in the 
District's total emissions inventory for direct PM2.5.\76\ 
The base year inventory for direct PM2.5 emissions is 
provided in Appendix B of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and includes 
condensable emissions. Specifically, the PM2.5 emissions 
inventory for commercial cooking operations incorporates emission 
factors from a source testing study that collected both filterable and 
condensable particulate matter (PM).\77\

[[Page 59887]]

Similarly, the SJVUAPCD's PM2.5 emission factors for natural 
gas fired boilers, turbines and engines in the manufacturing and 
industrial category are based on the EPA's AP-42 emission factors, 
which include both filterable and condensable PM.\78\ Also, PM in the 
emissions inventory from biomass boilers and natural gas turbines for 
the electric utilities sector is based on PM10 testing 
required by operating permits and includes both filterable and 
condensable PM.\79\ According to the emissions inventories in the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan, approximately 38 percent of the 2007 direct 
PM2.5 inventory for stationary and area sources comes from 
fugitive dust and farming, emission sources that generally do not 
produce condensable PM emissions. Stationary source combustion 
processes that emit condensable PM, such as electric utilities, 
commercial cooking operations and glass melting furnaces, account for 
approximately 13.5 percent of the 2007 PM2.5 inventory for 
stationary and area sources. Residential fuel combustion, fires, and 
managed burning activities account for 44 percent of the stationary and 
area source inventory, and miscellaneous industrial processes make up 
the remainder of the non-mobile source inventory.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See 2012 PM2.5 Plan at p. 4-22.
    \77\ See ``2006 Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology 
690--Commercial Cooking Operations,'' available at http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/EmissionsMethods/MethodForms/Current/CommercialCooking2006.pdf. See also Welch, W.A. and Norbeck, 
J.M., 1998, ``Development of Emission Test Methods and Emission 
Factors for Various Commercial Cooking Operations,'' TO-98-14-3 and 
email dated May 20, 2016, from W. Welch of the SCAQMD to Stanley 
Tong of USEPA, RE: Development of PM Charbroiling Emission Factors 
using SC 5.1 (confirming that tests were performed using SCAQMD 
Method 5.1 which includes both filterable and condensable PM).
    \78\ SJVUAPCD. ``2006 Area Source Emissions Inventory 
Methodology 050--Industrial Natural Gas Combustion'' at p. 3 
(identifying emission factors are based on the EPA's AP-42 chapters 
1.4 and 3.2, which include filterable and condensable PM).
    \79\ Email dated May 18, 2016, from Chay Thao of the SJVUAPCD to 
Stanley Tong of EPA Region 9, regarding ``Gas Turbine PM source 
testing condensible''; see also SJVUAPCD, Notice of Final Action, 
Minor Title V Permit Modification, District Facility #C-14 (April 
26, 2012), permit condition 21, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/R9/air/EPSS.NSF/0201370ee436adf08825653000726dc1/
e76e9625e609621088257a0e00535d9c/$FILE/Public%20Notice%20Pkg.pdf and 
SJVUAPCD, Notice of Final Action, Revised Final Determination of 
Compliance, Project Number: N-1113502 (January 18, 2012), permit 
condition 51, available at https://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/air/EPSS.NSF/
0201370ee436adf08825653000726dc1/5f867ce070483067882579c300793cbe/
$FILE/Public%20Notice%20Package.pdf.
    \80\ 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B at B-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2012 PM2.5 Plan relies on several SJVUAPCD rules 
regulating direct PM emissions as part of the PM2.5 control 
strategy, including Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling, amended 
September 17, 2009), Rule 4103 (Open Burning, amended April 15, 2010), 
Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces, amended May 19, 2011), and Rule 4901 
(Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters, amended September 
18, 2014).\81\ Of the SJVUAPCD rules that control direct PM emissions, 
only two establish emission limits for PM: Rule 4692 and Rule 4354. 
Both of these rules contain control requirements that apply to 
condensable PM and require sources to use test methods that measure 
condensable PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 81 FR 6936 at 6951-52, Table 3 (February 9, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, section 5.2 of SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 requires that each 
chain-driven charbroiler be equipped and operated with a catalytic 
oxidizer that has a control efficiency of at least 83 percent for 
PM10 emissions, and section 6.5.1 of the rule requires 
testing in accordance with the ``South Coast Air Quality Management 
District's Protocol,'' which requires measurement of both condensable 
and filterable PM in accordance with SCAQMD Test Method 5.1.\82\ 
SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 defines PM10 as defined in SJVUAPCD Rule 
1020 and states that ``[f]or purposes of determining control 
efficiency, all particulate collected using the test method specified 
in Section 6.5 shall be considered PM10.'' \83\ Because 
section 6.5 of SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 requires measurement of both 
condensable and filterable PM, both condensable and filterable PM are 
considered PM10 under the rule.\84\ Similarly, section 5.4 
of SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 establishes emission limits for PM10, 
also defined as in SJVUAPCD Rule 1020,\85\ and states that ``total 
PM10 includes both filterable PM10 and 
condensable PM10.'' Section 6.5.9 of SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 
requires testing for condensable PM emissions using EPA Method 202.\86\ 
No other SIP control measure in the RACM/RACT demonstrations in the 
2012 PM2.5 Plan establishes direct PM emission limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See SCAQMD Protocol, Determination of Particulate and 
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Restaurant Operations, 
November 14, 1997, available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/
R9Testmethod.nsf/0/3D4DEB4D21AB4AAF882570AD005DFF69/$file/
SC%20Rest%20emiss.pdf and SCAQMD Test Method 5.1, Determination of 
Particulate Matter Emissions From Stationary Sources Using a Wet 
Impingement Train, March 1989, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/laboratory-procedures/methods-procedures/stm-005-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
    \83\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 (amended September 17, 2009), section 
3.6, defining PM10 ``as defined in Rule 1020 
(Definitions).'' SJVUAPCD Rule 1020 defines ``particulate matter'' 
as ``any material except uncombined water, which exists in a finely 
divided form as a liquid or solid at standard conditions,'' and 
defines ``PM-10'' as ``particulate matter with an aerodynamic 
diameter smaller than or equal to a nominal ten (10) microns as 
measured by the applicable state and federal reference test 
methods.'' SJVUAPCD Rule 1020 (amended February 21, 2013), sections 
3.32 and 3.36, approved at 79 FR 59433 (October 2, 2014).
    \84\ Welch, W.A. and Norbeck, J.M., 1998, ``Development of 
Emission Test Methods and Emission Factors for Various Commercial 
Cooking Operations,'' TO-98-14-3 (indicating that the majority of PM 
emitted from commercial cooking operations is less than 2.5 
microns).
    \85\ See SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 (amended May 19, 2011), section 
3.30, defining PM10 ``as defined in Rule 1020 
(Definitions).'' SJVUAPCD Rule 1020 defines ``particulate matter'' 
as ``any material except uncombined water, which exists in a finely 
divided form as a liquid or solid at standard conditions,'' and 
defines ``PM10'' as ``particulate matter with an 
aerodynamic diameter smaller than or equal to a nominal ten (10) 
microns as measured by the applicable state and federal reference 
test methods.'' SJVUAPCD Rule 1020 (amended February 21, 2013), 
sections 3.32 and 3.36, approved at 79 FR 59433 (October 2, 2014).
    \86\ 75 FR 80118 (December 21, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We therefore find that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan adequately 
addresses the condensable fraction of direct PM2.5 both in 
the base year emissions inventory and in the SIP control strategy.
    Comment 8: Earthjustice argues that the EPA must disapprove the 
ammonia RACM/RACT demonstration because the District has not 
demonstrated that it has adopted all reasonably available control 
measures. According to Earthjustice, the Plan ``includes no analysis of 
how Rules 4565, 4566, and 4570 actually control ammonia emissions,'' 
and the District's ammonia RACM/RACT demonstration ``is little more 
than the District's rationalizations for not adopting reasonable 
controls'' (emphasis in comment). Earthjustice says that the EPA has 
proposed to excuse the Plan's failure to analyze ammonia controls 
``because it was submitted too soon after the decision in NRDC for the 
District to have incorporated a full analysis of ammonia controls into 
the Plan.'' Earthjustice asserts that this consideration ``provides no 
basis for finding that the statutory requirements have been met.''
    Response 8: We disagree with Earthjustice's assertion that the EPA 
must disapprove the ammonia RACM/RACT demonstration in the Plan. As we 
explained in our proposed rule, the 2014 Supplement contains a 
discussion of three SIP-approved District rules that regulate VOCs but 
also have the effect of reducing ammonia emissions in the SJV, as well 
as ammonia control measures implemented elsewhere that the District 
evaluated for technical and economic feasibility.\87\ These analyses, 
which the EPA has developed further below, demonstrate that SJVUAPCD 
Rule 4565, Rule 4566, and Rule 4570 reduce ammonia emissions from 
confined animal facilities (CAFs) and composting operations in the SJV, 
which together account for

[[Page 59888]]

approximately 76 percent of the District's estimates of total 2015 
ammonia emissions in the SJV.\88\ We find these evaluations sufficient 
to demonstrate that the District has adopted RACM/RACT for ammonia 
emissions for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ 80 FR 1816 at 1827-1830 (referencing 2014 Supplement at 
Attachment A).
    \88\ 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B at B-17 and 2014 
Supplement at Attachment A, p. A-1 (indicating that ``farming 
operations'' account for 239.2 tpd of ammonia emission and that 
``waste disposal,'' which includes composting solid waste 
operations, accounts for 20.5 tpd of ammonia emissions in 2015, from 
a total 2015 ammonia inventory of 340.7 tpd).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 (Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter 
Operations), as adopted March 15, 2007, requires that each operator of 
a composting/co-composting facility with a throughput of at least 
100,000 wet tons per year conduct all active or curing composting 
either in aerated static pile(s) vented to an emission control device 
with a VOC control efficiency of at least 80 percent by weight, or in 
an in-vessel composting system vented to an emission control device 
with a VOC control efficiency of at least 80 percent by weight.\89\ 
Alternatively, the operator may implement an ``alternative Class Two 
mitigation measure'' that is determined by the SJVUAPCD Air Pollution 
Control Officer (APCO) and the EPA to achieve equivalent VOC emission 
reductions.\90\ According to the District's staff report for SJVUAPCD 
Rule 4565, the most commonly used VOC emission control devices at 
composting facilities are biofilters, which are used at over twenty 
composting facilities in the U.S. and at least five composting 
facilities in California.\91\ Biofilters reduce both VOC and ammonia 
emissions by oxidizing VOC to carbon dioxide and water and degrading 
ammonia emissions into nitrate.\92\ For operators that use a biofilter 
as an emission control device, SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 contains detailed 
requirements for regularly maintaining, monitoring, and testing the 
biofilter.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 (adopted March 15, 2007), section 5.3.3 
(requiring implementation of at least one ``Class Two mitigation 
measure''); see also 2014 Supplement at Attachment A, p. A-36 to A-
39.
    \90\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 (adopted March 15, 2007), section 5.3.3 
and section 3.3 (defining ``alternative mitigation measure'').
    \91\ SJVUAPCD, Final Staff Report, Revised Proposed New Rule 
4565 (Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations), 
March 30, 2007, at p. 9.
    \92\ SCAQMD, ``Technology Assessment for Proposed Rule 1133 
(Emission Reductions from Composting and Related Operations),'' 
March 22, 2002, at p. 3-4 and 3-5 (``biofilters use microorganism 
that live in the biofilm . . . to adsorb and biologically degrade 
contaminated air into non-harmful substances. In particular, VOC is 
oxidized to carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia is degraded into 
nitrate without creating aggravating pollution issues''); see also 
SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 (adopted January 10, 2003), section (c)(5) 
(defining ``biofiltration'' as ``a pollution control technology that 
removes and oxidizes VOC and ammonia through the action of bacteria 
and other microorganisms'').
    \93\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 (adopted March 15, 2007), sections 5.5 
and 5.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, SCAQMD Rule 1133.2, as adopted January 10, 2003, 
generally requires operators of ``new'' co-composting facilities (i.e., 
those that started operations after January 10, 2003) with design 
capacities of at least 1,000 tons of throughput per year to conduct all 
active co-composting within the confines of an enclosure meeting 
certain conditions, to conduct all curing using an aeration system 
meeting certain conditions, and to vent the exhaust from the enclosure 
and aeration system to an emissions control system designed and 
operated with a control efficiency of at least 80 percent, by weight, 
for both VOC and ammonia emissions.\94\ Alternatively, an operator of a 
new co-composting facility may submit a compliance plan, for approval 
by the SCAQMD Executive Officer, that demonstrates an overall emission 
reduction of 80 percent, by weight, from specified baseline emission 
factors for both VOC and ammonia emissions.\95\ Existing co-composting 
facilities with design capacities of at least 35,000 tons of throughput 
per year must submit a compliance plan that demonstrates an overall 
emission reduction of 70 percent, by weight, from specified baseline 
emission factors for both VOC and ammonia emissions.\96\ For existing 
facilities or new facilities that elect to submit alternative 
compliance plans, the compliance plan must specify the operator's 
selected control method(s), which may include (among others) enclosure 
design or technology; aeration system design and operation; 
biofiltration; process controls; or best management practices.\97\ 
According to the final staff report for SCAQMD Rule 1133.2, a well-
designed, well-operated, and well-maintained biofilter can achieve 80 
percent control efficiency for both VOC and ammonia emissions.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 (adopted January 10, 2003), section 
(d)(1).
    \95\ Id. at section (d)(2).
    \96\ Id. at sections (d)(3) and (j)(1).
    \97\ Id. at section (e).
    \98\ SCAQMD, Final Staff Report, ``Proposed Rule 1133--
Composting and Related Operations: General Administrative 
Requirements; Proposed Rule 1133.1--Chipping and Grinding 
Activities; Proposed Rule 1133.2--Emission Reductions from Co-
Composting Operations,'' January 10, 2003, at p. 18 (stating that 
``[b]ased on the information collected so far on existing biofilter 
composting applications, control efficiencies of about 80% to 90% 
for VOC and 70% to over 90% for ammonia have been achieved. . . . 
[demonstrating] that a well-designed, well-operated, and well-
maintained biofilter is capable of achieving 80 percent control 
efficiency for VOC and ammonia'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 does not explicitly require operators 
of composting/co-composting facilities to achieve specified levels of 
ammonia emission reductions, as does SCAQMD Rule 1133.2, both rules 
generally require composting facilities to use enclosures and/or 
aeration systems vented to an emission control device with a VOC 
control efficiency of 70 or 80 percent. Given the similarity in the 
control requirements contained in these rules, we find the requirements 
of SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 sufficient to satisfy RACM/RACT requirements for 
ammonia control for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    We also disagree with Earthjustice's claim that the EPA has 
``proposed to excuse the Plan's failure to analyze ammonia controls'' 
because of the timing of its submission after the D.C. Circuit's 
decision in NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). In our proposed 
rule, we noted that ``the timing of the NRDC decision in early 2013 may 
have constrained the State's and District's ability to fully evaluate 
additional ammonia control measures as part of a RACM/RACT control 
strategy ahead of the applicable Moderate area attainment date 
(December 31, 2015)'' and stated that we were taking this unique 
circumstance into account in our evaluation of the Plan.\99\ We also 
noted the absence of specific information regarding more stringent 
ammonia air emission control measures that may be technologically and 
economically feasible for implementation in the SJV area and 
recommended that the State and District conduct a more thorough 
evaluation of all available ammonia control measures as part of its 
development of a Serious area plan for the area.\100\ The commenter 
argues generally that the Plan includes no analysis of how the 
District's rules control ammonia emissions but provides no specific 
information to show that more stringent control measures are 
technologically and economically feasible for implementation in the SJV 
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ 80 FR 1816, 1830 (January 13, 2015).
    \100\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in our proposed rule, sections 172(c)(1) and 
189(a)(1)(C) of the Act require that attainment plans for Moderate 
nonattainment areas provide for the implementation of RACM and RACT for 
existing sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in 
the nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable but no later 
than 4 years after designation. In longstanding guidance, the EPA has

[[Page 59889]]

interpreted the RACM requirement to include any potential control 
measure for a point, area, on-road or non-road emission source that is 
technologically and economically feasible and is not ``absurd, 
unenforceable, or impracticable.'' \101\ The Act does not require 
adoption of every conceivable control measure to satisfy the RACM 
requirement in a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area.\102\ 
Consistent with the EPA's recommended process for determining RACM/RACT 
for a given area, the District compiled a list of potential control 
measures for ammonia emission sources in the SJV; evaluated the 
identified control measures for ``reasonableness,'' considering 
technological and economic feasibility and potentially adverse impacts; 
and identified the SIP-approved control measures in the Plan that it 
was relying on to implement RACM for ammonia emission sources.\103\ 
Although the Plan does not contain every conceivable control measure 
for ammonia emissions, we find the control evaluations in the Plan 
sufficient to demonstrate that it provides for the implementation of 
all RACM/RACT for ammonia sources that could reasonably be implemented 
by the statutory implementation deadline under CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) 
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We discuss Earthjustice's specific 
comments about SJVUAPCD Rule 4566 in Response 9 below, and its specific 
comments about SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 in Response 10 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ 80 FR 1816, 1826 (January 13, 2015) (citing ``State 
Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of 
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR 13498 
(April 16, 1992) (General Preamble) at 13540, 13560).
    \102\ See 55 FR 38326 (September 18, 1990) (revoking prior EPA 
guidance to the extent it suggested or stated that areas with severe 
pollution problems must implement every conceivable control measure 
including those that would cause severe socioeconomic disruption to 
satisfy RACM).
    \103\ 2014 Supplement at Attachment A (ammonia controls).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 9: Earthjustice disputes the District's finding that its 
composting rule, Rule 4566, is at least as stringent as SCAQMD Rule 
1133.3, and argues that the District failed to consider some of the 
requirements of SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 in the table that it used to compare 
the two rules. Earthjustice notes that SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 requires 
implementation of a mitigation measure that demonstrates emissions 
reductions, by weight, of at least 40 percent for VOC and at least 20 
percent for ammonia, and that SJVUAPCD Rule 4566 requires a mitigation 
measure that demonstrates emissions reductions of VOC of at least 19 
percent, and does not regulate ammonia. While noting that ``VOC 
emissions reductions may result in some ammonia emissions reductions,'' 
Earthjustice asserts that because Rule 4566 does not regulate ammonia, 
the District cannot rely on the rule to result in a certain amount of 
ammonia emissions.
    Response 9: Although SJVUAPCD Rule 4566 does not explicitly 
regulate ammonia emissions, we disagree with Earthjustice's suggestion 
that the District cannot rely on this rule as part of its RACM/RACT 
control strategy for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4566, as adopted August 18, 2011, requires smaller 
composting operations to implement at least three turns during active-
phase composting and one of several mitigation measures listed in Table 
1 of the rule, such as application of water or a finished compost 
cover, or in the alternative to implement an alternative mitigation 
measure approved by the APCO and the EPA that demonstrates at least 19 
percent reduction, by weight, in VOC emissions.\104\ For larger 
composting operations (i.e., those with a total throughput between 
200,000 and 750,000 wet tons per year of organic material), Rule 4566 
requires operators to apply both watering and a finished compost cover 
in addition to implementation of at least three turns during active-
phase composting, or in the alternative to implement an alternative 
mitigation measure approved by the APCO and the EPA that demonstrates 
at least 60 percent reduction, by weight, in VOC emissions.\105\ For 
the largest composting operations (i.e., those with a total throughput 
of at least 750,000 wet tons per year of organic material), Rule 4566 
requires operators to implement an alternative mitigation measure 
approved by the APCO and the EPA that demonstrates at least 80 percent 
reduction, by weight, in VOC emissions.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4566 (adopted August 18, 2011), section 
5.2.1.
    \105\ Id. at section 5.2.2.
    \106\ Id. at section 5.2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SCAQMD Rule 1133.3, as adopted July 8, 2011, establishes similar 
requirements for greenwaste composting operations to periodically turn 
and water active compost piles and to apply finished compost 
covers.\107\ According to the SCAQMD's staff report for Rule 1133.3, 
these types of ``good composting practices'' minimize both VOC and 
ammonia emissions by balancing the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio and 
providing adequate aeration and moisture in the compost.\108\ As 
Earthjustice correctly notes, SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 also allows operators 
of such operations to implement an alternate mitigation measure 
approved by the SCAQMD Executive Officer, CARB, and the EPA that 
demonstrates VOC emission reductions by at least 40 percent by weight 
and ammonia emission reductions by at least 20 percent by weight.\109\ 
For composting operations involving greater than 5,000 tons per year of 
foodwaste throughput, SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 establishes requirements to 
conduct the active phase composting using an emission control device 
designed and operated with an overall system control efficiency of at 
least 80 percent, by weight, each for VOC and ammonia emissions, or to 
implement an alternate mitigation measure approved by the SCAQMD 
Executive Officer, CARB, and the EPA that achieves equivalent 
reductions in both VOCs and ammonia.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 (adopted July 8, 2011), section (d)(2).
    \108\ SCAQMD, Final Staff Report, ``Proposed Amended Rule 
1133.1--Chipping and Grinding Activities; Proposed Rule 1133.3--
Emission Reductions from Greenwaste Composting Operations,'' July 
2011, at p. 3 (``[g]ood composting practices, which balance the 
carbon-to-nitrogen (C:N) ratio and provide adequate aeration and 
moisture, will minimize VOC, ammonia and GHG emissions'').
    \109\ SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 (adopted July 8, 2011), section 
(d)(2)(E).
    \110\ Id. at section (d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to CARB, the water management requirements in SJVUAPCD 
Rule 4566 and SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 achieve an ammonia control efficiency 
of 19 percent, while use of certain kinds of aerated static piles (ASP) 
vented to a biofilter achieves an ammonia control efficiency ranging 
from 20 to 99 percent.\111\ In the absence of specific information 
about more stringent ammonia control requirements for composting 
operations that the District could reasonably have implemented by the 
statutory implementation deadline for RACM/RACT in this area (December 
14, 2013), we find the requirements of SJVUAPCD Rule 4566 adequate to 
satisfy RACM/RACT requirements for composting operations for purposes 
of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ CARB, ``ARB Emissions Inventory Methodology for Composting 
Facilities'' (posted 2015) at Table III-3 (``Control Techniques for 
Composting Operations''), available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/Composting%20Emissions%20Inventory%20Methodology%20Final%20Combined.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 10: Earthjustice comments that the District did not 
adequately review Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) when it 
compared it to similar rules in other California districts and the 
state of Idaho. According to

[[Page 59890]]

Earthjustice, SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 and Idaho's rule ``employ drastically 
different methods to reduce emissions from dairies,'' and the District 
has not fully explored aspects of the Idaho rule that could strengthen 
SJVUAPCD Rule 4570. In particular, Earthjustice asserts that the 
District misconstrued a statement by the Idaho Department of 
Environmental Quality (Idaho DEQ) that described the Idaho rule as 
employing an ``arbitrary'' point system. According to Earthjustice, the 
maximum number of points in the system's rating scale was ``arbitrary'' 
in the sense that another number could have been selected, but the 
Idaho DEQ ``thoroughly analyzed the control measures and their 
associated ammonia emission reductions,'' and allocated points based on 
these reductions. Because the District has not done a similar 
evaluation of the measures in SJVUAPCD Rule 4570, Earthjustice asserts, 
it has not fully compared the stringency of the rule against the Idaho 
rule.
    Earthjustice asserts that the District's comparison of the 
stringency of SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 and other California air district 
rules is insufficient because the District considered only the number 
of mitigation measures required by each district. Earthjustice states 
that the District should consider instead the ammonia emissions 
reductions achieved under each rule. Further, Earthjustice states, if 
the District finds that other air districts' mitigation measures are 
more effective in reducing emissions, it should incorporate those 
measures into its rule.
    Response 10: We agree that the District appears to have 
misconstrued the Idaho DEQ's statement about the point system in Idaho 
Rule 58.01.01, sections 760-764 (Rules for the Control of Ammonia from 
Dairy Farms) (hereafter ``Idaho CAF Rule'') and that the District 
should have considered the ammonia emission reductions achieved under 
the rules that it evaluated, rather than simply addressing the number 
of mitigation measures required in each rule. For the reasons provided 
below, however, we find SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 adequate to satisfy RACM/
RACT requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4570, as amended October 21, 2010, requires that CAFs 
of certain sizes for dairy cows, other cattle, swine, poultry, and 
layer hens implement measures to reduce VOC emissions during feed 
operations, manure management and other CAF processes.\112\ Both VOCs 
and ammonia are emitted during these activities at CAFs. Given the 
large proportion of ammonia emissions that come from cow manure 
produced at CAFs,\113\ we focus our evaluation below on measures to 
reduce ammonia from the production and handling of cow manure at dairy 
CAFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended October 21, 
2010).
    \113\ ``Ammonia Emissions and Animal Agriculture,'' Susan W. Gay 
and Katharine F. Knowlton, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia 
Tech, 2009 (noting that ``[a]mmonia is a common by-product of animal 
waste due to the often inefficient conversion of feed nitrogen into 
animal product. Livestock and poultry are often fed high-protein 
feed, which contains surplus nitrogen, to ensure that the animals' 
nutritional requirements are met. Nitrogen that is not metabolized 
into animal protein (i.e., milk, meat, or eggs) is excreted in the 
urine and feces of livestock and poultry where further microbial 
action releases ammonia into the air during manure decomposition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ammonia emissions from CAF manure processes may be reduced by 
flushing lanes in freestall barns \114\ and limiting manure exposure to 
air through land incorporation.\115\ According to the SJVUAPCD, 
freestall barns are the largest source of manure at SJV dairies.\116\ 
Rule 4570 contains mandatory requirements for all dairy CAFs subject to 
the rule that house animals in freestalls to frequently clean the 
housing flush lanes--specifically, to ``flush or scrape freestall flush 
lanes at least three (3) times per day'' or to ``flush, scrape, or 
vacuum freestall flush lanes'' immediately before, after, or during 
each milking.\117\ In practice, most CAFs in the SJV comply with the 
SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 manure management requirements by flushing manure to 
dilute the urea in urine, which reduces ammonia emissions,\118\ and by 
incorporating solid manure into crop land within 72 hours of land 
application.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ W. Kroodsma, J.W.H. Huis In 't Veld & R. Scholtens, 1993, 
``Ammonia emissions and its reduction from cubicle houses by 
flushing,'' Livestock Production Science 35: 293-302.
    \115\ Ndegwa, P.M., A.N. Hristov, J. Arogo, and R.E. Sheffield, 
``A review of ammonia emission mitigation techniques for 
concentrated animal feeding operations,'' J. Bioengineering Systems, 
ed. 100, 2008, p. 463-464.
    \116\ SJVUAPCD, Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (October 21, 
2010), at p. 9.
    \117\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended October 21, 2010) at Section 
5.6.1 and Table 4.1.D.2. Milking generally occurs at least twice a 
day at a typical dairy CAF. See Walter L. Hurley, Lactation Biology 
Web site, ANSC 438, University of Illinois, available at http://ansci.illinois.edu/static/ansc438/Lactation/milkingfrequency.html.
    \118\ Memorandum dated June 15, 2016, from Andy Steckel to Kerry 
Drake, EPA Region 9, ``Summary of our 6/10/16 Discussion with Kevin 
Abernathy, Milk Producers Council'' and W. Kroodsma, et al., 1993, 
``Ammonia emissions and its reduction from cubicle houses by 
flushing,'' Livestock Production Science 35: 293-302, at p. 300 
(noting that ``[f]lushing has a significant emission reducing effect 
[because] . . . the urea concentration on slats, concrete floors and 
in the top layer of the slurry is lowered by dilution''); see also 
SJVUAPCD, Final Staff Report: Rule 4570 (October 21, 2010), at p. 10 
(noting that ``[l]iquid systems are common in large dairies due to 
their lower labor costs and ease of use with automatic flushing 
systems'').
    \119\ Memorandum dated June 15, 2016, from Andy Steckel to Kerry 
Drake, EPA Region 9, ``Summary of our 6/10/16 Discussion with Kevin 
Abernathy, Milk Producers Council''; see also email dated June 9, 
2016, from Samir Sheikh of the SJVUAPCD to Kerry Drake of EPA Region 
9, regarding ``Manure Land Application.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 requires each owner/operator of a 
large dairy CAF that handles or stores solid manure or separated solids 
outside the animal housing to remove dry manure or separated solids 
from the facility or cover it with a weatherproof covering from October 
through May, within 72 hours of collecting it, or to implement an 
``alternative mitigation measure'' \120\ approved by CARB and the 
EPA.\121\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 provides, in Table 4.1.H, specific 
requirements for applying manure to agricultural lands on the facility 
including the option to incorporate all solid manure within 72 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ ``Alternative Mitigation Measure'' is defined in Rule 4570 
as ``a mitigation measure that is determined by the APCO, CARB, and 
EPA to achieve reductions that are equal to or exceed the reductions 
that would be achieved by other mitigation measures listed in this 
rule that owners/operators could choose to comply with rule 
requirements.'' SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended October 21, 2010), 
Section 3.4.
    \121\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended October 21, 2010), Section 
5.6.1 at Table 4.1.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are aware of only two rules implemented in other areas that 
explicitly regulate ammonia emissions from dairy facilities--the Idaho 
CAF Rule and SCAQMD Rule 1127 (Emission Reductions from Livestock 
Waste).\122\ The Idaho CAF Rule assigns points to each ammonia 
mitigation measure listed in the rule and requires dairy farm operators 
to implement measures that collectively achieve at least 27 
points.\123\ The rule only applies,

[[Page 59891]]

however, to dairy farms containing between 1,638 and 5,063 cows, 
depending on the type of dairy facility.\124\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4570, on 
the other hand, applies to dairy CAFs containing at least 500 milking 
cows and also applies to other types of CAFs, including beef cattle 
feedlots, other cattle facilities, poultry facilities, and swine 
facilities.\125\ As we stated in our proposed rule, because the 
structure of the Idaho CAF Rule differs substantially from the 
structure of SJVUAPCD Rule 4570, it is difficult to compare the 
requirements in these two rules directly.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ See Idaho Administrative Code 58.01.01, section 760, and 
SCAQMD Rule 1127 (adopted August 6, 2004), paragraph (a). Other CAF 
rules in California include SCAQMD Rule 223, BAAQMD Rule 2-10, 
SMAQMD Rule 496, VCAPCD Rule 23, Imperial County APCD (ICAPCD) Rule 
217, and Butte County AQMD Rule 450. Each of these rules also 
regulates CAFs but does not establish specific requirements for 
ammonia control. For example, SCAQMD Rule 223 (adopted June 2, 2006) 
identifies ammonia as a precursor to particulates, but its 
requirements are very similar to SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 as originally 
adopted June 15, 2006. Similarly, ICAPCD Rule 217 states that its 
purpose is to limit emissions of VOC and ammonia, but the mitigation 
requirements are generally equivalent to those in SJVUAPCD Rule 
4570.
    \123\ Idaho Administrative Code 58.01.01, section 764, paragraph 
01 (``Dairy farm best management practices'') (requiring dairies to 
``employ BMPs for the control of ammonia to total twenty-seven (27) 
points'').
    \124\ Id. at section 761 (``General applicability'').
    \125\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended October 21, 2010), Table 2 and 
Section 5.6.
    \126\ 80 FR 1816, 1829-30 (January 13, 2015) (noting, for 
example, that the Idaho CAF Rule identifies certain mitigation 
measures that are not included in SJVUAPCD Rule 4570, while Rule 
4570 contains more stringent applicability thresholds and provisions 
for testing and records retention).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, according to information submitted by the SJVUAPCD, 
the option in the Idaho CAF Rule to cover synthetic lagoons (one of the 
key mitigation measures in the rule) would not be effective in the SJV 
and could increase ammonia emissions at CAFs in the SJV.\127\ 
Furthermore, the Idaho CAF Rule states that ``[p]oints may be obtained 
through third party export with sufficient documentation'' and that 
``[a]s new information becomes available or upon request, the Director 
may determine a practice not listed in the table constitutes a BMP and 
assign a point value.'' \128\ These ambiguously phrased provisions 
allow CAF owners/operators to comply with the rule by implementing 
measures entirely different from those listed in the rule that may or 
may not be effective in reducing ammonia emissions. The commenter has 
provided no information to support a conclusion that the requirements 
of the Idaho CAF Rule will actually achieve ammonia emission 
reductions, nor any information to indicate that the requirements of 
this rule are more stringent than those in SJVUAPCD Rule 4570.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ Email dated June 25, 2015 from Sheraz Gill of the SJVUAPCD 
to Andrew Steckel of EPA Region 9, regarding ``Requested 
Information'' and attachment, ``Evaluation of Covers Lagoons Manure 
Piles for NH3.pdf.''
    \128\ Idaho Administrative Code 58.01.01, at section 764-01 
(``BMPs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SCAQMD Rule 1127, as adopted August 6, 2004, applies only to 
livestock waste (i.e., manure management) at dairy farms and related 
operations. Unlike SJVUAPCD Rule 4570, which explicitly requires that 
dairy CAFs regularly flush, scrape, or vacuum freestall flush 
lanes,\129\ SCAQMD Rule 1127 contains no analogous requirement to 
regularly clean flush lanes in freestall barns.\130\ SCAQMD Rule 223, 
as adopted June 2, 2006, contains menu-based options for flushing, 
scraping, or vacuuming freestall barns but does not specifically 
mandate such measures.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended October 21, 2010) at Section 
5.6.1 and Table 4.1.D.2. Milking generally occurs at least twice a 
day at a typical dairy CAF. Walter L. Hurley, Lactation Biology Web 
site, ANSC 438, University of Illinois at http://ansci.illinois.edu/static/ansc438/Lactation/milkingfrequency.html.
    \130\ SCAQMD Rule 1127 does require dairies to remove manure 
accumulated in corrals at least 4 times per year and to remove 
manure stockpiles within 3 months of the last corral clearing day, 
and no more than 3 months after the date that previous stockpiles 
were last completely cleared. SCAQMD Rule 1127 (adopted August 6, 
2004), sections (d)(4) and (d)(5).
    \131\ SCAQMD Rule 223, Appendix A, Table 1.C (requiring owners/
operations at large dairy CAFs that house animals in freestall barns 
to implement at least 2 of 9 listed mitigation measures, including 
measures to regularly flush, scrape or vacuum freestalls).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, SCAQMD Rule 1127 requires that a dairy operator 
disposing of manure within the South Coast area remove or contract to 
remove the manure to a manure processing operation approved in 
accordance with specific requirements and/or to agricultural land 
within the SCAQMD approved by local ordinance and/or the regional water 
quality board for the spreading of manure.\132\ Rule 1127 does not 
require that manure be incorporated into agricultural land within any 
specific timeframe to reduce ammonia emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ Id. at section (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, neither SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 nor SCAQMD Rule 1127 strictly 
requires dairy CAF operators to promptly remove and dispose of 
collected manure to minimize ammonia emissions. The commenter has 
failed to identify any measure implemented in the South Coast or 
elsewhere that is more stringent than the requirements of SJVUAPCD Rule 
4570 for this particular component of the manure handling process.
    On balance, we find that SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 is more stringent than 
the Idaho CAF Rule and SCAQMD Rule 1127 given SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 
establishes specific requirements for the frequency of flushing manure 
from freestall barns, which are a significant source of manure and 
ammonia emissions at dairy CAFs in SJV, while the Idaho CAF Rule and 
SCAQMD Rule 1127 contain no analogous requirements. In the absence of 
specific information about more stringent ammonia control requirements 
for CAFs that the District could reasonably have implemented by the 
statutory implementation deadline for RACM/RACT in this area (December 
14, 2013), we find the requirements of SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 adequate to 
satisfy RACM/RACT requirements for CAFs for purposes of the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
    Comment 11: Earthjustice argues that the RACM/RACT demonstration 
fails to comply with CAA section 189(a)(1)(C), which requires a plan to 
include provisions to assure that RACM is implemented no later than 
four years after a moderate nonattainment designation. Earthjustice 
asserts that this section required the District to implement RACM for 
the 2006 PM2.5 standards by December 14, 2013. According to 
Earthjustice, because the District has not implemented controls 
identified by Earthjustice as RACM/RACT and has delayed additional 
charbroiling and residential furnace controls, the EPA must disapprove 
the demonstration and place the District on a clock to ensure that the 
missing measures are adopted expeditiously.
    Response 11: We disagree. Section 107(a) of the CAA provides states 
with both the authority and primary responsibility to develop SIPs that 
meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for attaining, 
maintaining, and enforcing the NAAQS. States have discretion in 
formulating their SIPs, and the EPA is required to approve a SIP 
submission that satisfies the applicable requirements of the Act.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ CAA section 110(k)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3) and 40 CFR 
52.02(a); see also Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 250 (1976); 
Train v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the commenter notes, CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) requires that each 
attainment plan for a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area 
include provisions to assure that RACM for the control of 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are implemented no 
later than four years after the area's designation as nonattainment. 
For the SJV area, the deadline for implementation of RACM for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) was December 14, 
2013. For the reasons provided in our proposed rule and further 
explained above in Response 6 through Response 10, we conclude that the 
2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2014 Supplement provide for the 
implementation of all RACM/RACT that could reasonably be implemented in 
the SJV by the statutory implementation deadline, as required by CAA 
sections 172(c) and 189(a)(1)(C).
    Additionally, we disagree with the commenter's assertion that 
revisions to SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning

[[Page 59892]]

Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters'') are necessary to satisfy RACM 
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. See 
Response 6.d. Similarly, we disagree with the commenter's assertion 
that SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) fails to satisfy RACM 
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. See 
Response 6.e.
    Comment 12: Earthjustice argues that much of the Plan's control 
strategy is unenforceable and that this is inconsistent with CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(A), which requires SIPs to ``include enforceable 
emissions limitations and other control measures.'' Specifically, 
Earthjustice argues that three control strategies challenged in recent 
litigation are not enforceable: (1) Mobile sources measures that are 
not included in the SIP; (2) open-ended tonnage commitments; and (3) 
voluntary incentive programs.
    Comment 12a: Mobile source ``waiver'' measures. Earthjustice notes 
that a significant portion of the emissions reductions in the Plan come 
from state mobile source measures for which the EPA has issued a waiver 
under CAA section 209. Earthjustice argues that because these measures 
are not included in the SIP, they are not enforceable by either the EPA 
or citizens, and therefore do not meet the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(A).
    Earthjustice also criticizes the EPA's general policy of not 
including these ``waiver measures'' in the SIP. Earthjustice argues 
that requiring the EPA to approve waiver measures into the SIP is not 
inconsistent with Congress' intent to provide California with ``the 
broadest possible discretion'' to develop mobile source measures, and 
that there is no conflict between CAA sections 110 and 209 that would 
prevent the EPA from adding these measures to the SIP. Additionally, 
Earthjustice argues that Congress has not ratified the EPA's policy of 
excluding waiver measures from SIPs, asserting that the EPA had not 
affirmatively expressed its policy until recently and that the agency 
has contradicted this policy in previous statements.
    Response 12a: The EPA has historically allowed California to take 
credit for measures for which the state has obtained a waiver of 
federal preemption under CAA section 209 (``waiver'' measures) even 
though the waiver measures themselves (i.e., CARB's regulations) had 
not been adopted and approved as part of the California SIP. However, a 
recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the 
EPA's longstanding practice in this regard was at odds with the CAA 
requirement that state and local emissions limits relied upon to meet 
the NAAQS be enforceable by the EPA or private citizens through 
adoption and approval of such limits in the SIP.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ See Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 
(9th Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the court's decision, CARB has adopted the necessary 
waiver measures as revisions to the California SIP and submitted them 
to the EPA for approval.\135\ The EPA proposed to approve the waiver 
measures into the California SIP at 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015) and 
took final action to approve these measures into the SIP at 81 FR 39424 
(June 16, 2016). Accordingly, these waiver measures are now enforceable 
by the EPA or private citizens under the CAA, consistent with the 
enforceability requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ See letter dated August 14, 2015, from Richard W. Corey, 
Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared 
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, with attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 12b: Open-ended commitments. Earthjustice asserts that the 
District's commitment to reduce direct PM2.5 by 1.9 tons per 
day (tpd) by 2019 is not enforceable. According to Earthjustice, 
although the District has committed to proposing certain measures to 
its board, it has not specified when it will implement those measures 
or committed to achieving reductions as a result of the measures. 
Earthjustice characterizes these measures as ``goals'' that have been 
found by courts to be unenforceable, citing Bayview Hunters Point 
Community Advocates v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 366 F.3d 
692 (9th Cir. 2004). According to Earthjustice, it will be ``virtually 
impossible'' for either citizens or the EPA to determine whether the 
District has in fact met its 2019 reduction target, citing the EPA's 
statement at 57 FR at 13,568 that ``[a] regulatory limit is not 
enforceable if, for example, it is impractical to determine compliance 
with the published limit.'' Additionally, citing CAA section 182(e)(5), 
Earthjustice asserts that the CAA allows ``open-ended commitments'' 
only in limited circumstances and that there is no parallel provision 
for creating such a ``black box'' in PM2.5 plans.
    Response 12b: We disagree with the commenter's claim that the 
District's commitments in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan are not 
enforceable. We also disagree with the commenter's suggestion that the 
long-term strategy provision for ozone attainment plans in CAA section 
182(e)(5) is the only statutory provision that allows for approval of 
attainment plans that rely on state commitments, and that commitments 
such as those identified in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan are not 
permissible in PM2.5 attainment plans.
    Section 182(e)(5) of the CAA authorizes the EPA to approve 
provisions of an attainment plan for an extreme ozone nonattainment 
area that anticipate development of new control techniques or 
improvement of existing control technologies, and to approve an 
attainment demonstration based on such provisions, if, inter alia, the 
State has submitted enforceable commitments to submit adopted 
contingency measures meeting certain criteria no later than three years 
before proposed implementation of the new technology measures.\136\ 
Contrary to the commenter's suggestion, section 182(e)(5) is not the 
only provision in the CAA that allows for approval of attainment plans 
that rely on enforceable commitments. Sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 
172(c)(6) of the CAA require that SIPs include enforceable emission 
limitations and such other control measures, means or techniques, as 
well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or 
appropriate to provide for attainment of the NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date. For over 20 years, the EPA has consistently maintained 
its interpretation of these provisions as allowing for approval, under 
certain circumstances, of a SIP that contains an enforceable commitment 
to adopt additional controls as part of a comprehensive control 
strategy for attaining the NAAQS.\137\ The EPA's interpretation of the 
Act as allowing for approval of limited enforceable commitments has 
been upheld by several courts of appeals.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ CAA section 182(e)(5).
    \137\ See, e.g., 62 FR 1150, 1187 (Jan. 8, 1997) (approving 
ozone attainment demonstration for the South Coast Air Basin); 65 FR 
18903 (Apr. 10, 2000) (approving revisions to ozone attainment 
demonstration for the South Coast Air Basin); 63 FR 41326 (Aug. 3, 
1998) (promulgating federal implementation plan for PM-10 for 
Phoenix); 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004) (approving PM-10 attainment 
demonstration for San Joaquin Valley); 48 FR 51472 (approving ozone 
attainment demonstration for New Jersey).
    \138\ See, e.g., City of Seabrook v. EPA, 659 F.2d 1349 (5th 
Cir. 1981); Connecticut Fund for the Environment v. EPA, 672 F.2d 
998 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1035 (1982); BCCA Appeal Group 
v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003), reh'g denied, 2004 U.S. App. 
LEXIS 215 (5th Cir., January 8, 2004); Environmental Defense v. EPA, 
369 F.3d 193, 209 (2d Cir. 2004); and Committee for a Better Arvin 
v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (upholding EPA approval of 
CARB and SJVUAPCD commitments as enforceable SIP measures consistent 
with requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in our proposed rule, we generally consider three 
factors in

[[Page 59893]]

determining whether to approve the use of an enforceable commitment to 
meet a CAA requirement: (1) Does the commitment address a limited 
portion of the CAA-required program; (2) is the state capable of 
fulfilling its commitment; and (3) is the commitment for a reasonable 
and appropriate period of time. We stated in our proposed rule that we 
were not evaluating the commitments in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 
in accordance with this three-factor test because the Plan did not rely 
on any of these commitments to satisfy CAA requirements.\139\ In 
response to these comments, however, we have evaluated the commitments 
in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to amend SJVUAPCD Rule 4308 in 2013 
and to adopt Rule 4905 in 2014 in accordance with our three-factor 
test, because these commitments were part of the control strategy to be 
implemented prior to the Moderate area attainment date (December 31, 
2015) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area.\140\ We find 
that these commitments satisfy the EPA's three-factor test as follows: 
(1) The commitments address a limited portion of the CAA-required 
program because the Plan relies on them only to supplement the RACM and 
RFP control strategies in the impracticability demonstration and does 
not rely on either commitment for necessary emission reductions; (2) 
the state has fulfilled both commitments, as explained further below in 
this response; and (3) each commitment was for a reasonable and 
appropriate period of time--i.e., to be fulfilled by 2013 and 2014, 
ahead of the December 31, 2015 Moderate area attainment date. 
Accordingly, we are approving the District's commitment to amend Rule 
4308 as a RACM and approving the District's commitment to adopt Rule 
4905 in 2014 as an additional reasonable measure under CAA section 
172(c)(6).\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ 80 FR 1816, 1833 (January 13, 2015).
    \140\ We did not evaluate the District's commitments to amend 
Rule 4692 and Rule 4901 in 2016 or to achieve an aggregate reduction 
of 1.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 by 2019 in accordance with our 
three-factor test because these commitments address actions to be 
undertaken after the Moderate area attainment date (December 31, 
2015) and, therefore, are not part of the control strategy for this 
impracticability demonstration. Additionally, we did not evaluate 
the District's commitment to adopt Rule 9610 in 2013 in accordance 
with our three-factor test because this rule is not a control 
measure and therefore is not eligible for SIP emission reduction 
credit. See Response 12c, infra.
    \141\ The District's commitment to adopt Rule 4905 in 2014 does 
not qualify as a RACM because it is a measure implemented after the 
RACM implementation deadline (December 14, 2013). It is, however, an 
additional measure implemented before the Moderate area attainment 
date (December 31, 2015) and therefore may be treated as part of the 
Moderate area control strategy for the area under CAA section 
172(c)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also find that the commitments are enforceable and therefore 
appropriate for approval under CAA section 110.\142\ Specifically, 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 2012-12-19 states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ See Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 
(9th Cir. 2015) (upholding EPA approval of CARB and SJVUAPCD 
commitments as enforceable SIP measures consistent with requirements 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)).

The District Governing Board commits to adopt and implement the 
rules and measures in the Plan by the dates specified in Chapter 5 
to achieve the emissions reductions shown in Chapter 5, and to 
submit these rules and measures to ARB within 30 days of adoption 
for transmittal to EPA as a revision to the State Implementation 
Plan (SIP). If the total emission reductions from the adopted rules 
are less than those committed to in the Plan, the District Governing 
Board commits to adopt, submit, and implement substitute rules that 
will achieve equivalent reductions in emissions of direct 
PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors in the same adoption 
and implementation timeframes or in the timeframes needed to meet 
CAA milestones.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 2012-12-19, ``In the 
Matter of: Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 
Control District 2012 PM2.5 Plan.''

    Chapter 5 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan identifies, in Table 5-
3, the ``regulatory control measure commitments'' and related amendment 
dates, compliance dates, and amounts of emission reductions shown in 
Table 5.

  Table 5--San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Specific Rule Adoption/
                                              Amendment Commitments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Compliance
           Rule number                  Rule title       Amendment date       date         Emission reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4308.............................  Boilers, Steam                  2013            2015  TBD.
                                    Generators, and
                                    Process Heaters
                                    0.075 to <2 MMBtu/
                                    hr \144\.
4692.............................  Commercial                      2016            2017  0.4 tpd PM2.5.
                                    Charbroiling.
4901.............................  Wood Burning                    2016       2016/2017  1.5 tpd of PM2.5.
                                    Fireplaces and Wood
                                    Burning Heaters.
4905.............................  Natural Gas-Fired,              2014            2015  TBD.
                                    Fan-Type
                                    Residential Central
                                    Furnaces.
9610.............................  SIP Creditability of            2013            2013  TBD.
                                    Incentives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, Table 5-3 (``Regulatory Control Measure Commitments'').

    Thus, the District Governing Board's commitment specifies the 
actions the Board committed to undertake, the dates by which it would 
take such actions, and the emission reductions (if any) that it would 
achieve through these actions. We find these commitments specific 
enough to be enforced by the EPA or by citizens under the CAA and are, 
therefore, approving them into the California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ ``MMBtu'' means million British Thermal Units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that the SJVUAPCD has made substantial progress on 
satisfying the commitments identified in the Plan, as follows:
    Rule 4308. The District amended SJVUAPCD Rule 4308 on November 14, 
2013, and CARB submitted it to the EPA for SIP action on May 13, 2014. 
The EPA approved amended SJVUAPCD Rule 4308 at 80 FR 7813 (February 12, 
2015).
    Rule 4905. The District adopted Rule 4905 on January 22, 2015, and 
CARB submitted the rule to the EPA for SIP action on April 7, 2015. The 
EPA approved Rule 4905 at 81 FR 17390 (March 29, 2016).
    Rule 9610. The District adopted Rule 9610 on June 20, 2013, and 
CARB submitted the rule to the EPA for SIP action on June 26, 2013. The 
EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 9610 
at 80 FR 19020 (April 9, 2015).
    Rule 4901. The District amended Rule 4901 on September 18, 2014, 
and CARB submitted the rule to the EPA for SIP action on November 6, 
2014. On August 15, 2016, Acting Regional Administrator Alexis Strauss 
signed a notice of final

[[Page 59894]]

rulemaking to approve SJVUAPCD Rule 4901.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ EPA, Final Rule, ``Approval of California Air Plan 
Revisions, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 
District,'' August 15, 2016 (pre-publication notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 12c: Voluntary incentive programs. Earthjustice states that 
the EPA's suggestion that Rule 9610 (State Implementation Plan Credit 
for Emission Reductions Generated Through Incentive Programs) may 
provide emission reductions to help satisfy the District's tonnage 
commitment is particularly confusing. Earthjustice understands the 
EPA's proposed approval of Rule 9610 and related technical support 
document to say that an incentive program's compliance with the rule's 
SIP-creditability definitions does not mean that the incentive program 
is, in fact, SIP-creditable. Thus, Earthjustice states, commenters ``do 
not understand how Rule 9610 itself will provide any creditable 
emission reductions.''
    More fundamentally, Earthjustice asserts, the emissions reductions 
that may be achieved through the District's incentive programs cannot 
be credited in a SIP unless they are treated under the EPA's voluntary 
emissions reductions policy. Earthjustice states that ``[t]he 
requirement to reduce emissions in exchange for incentive funding is 
not enshrined in any sort of control measure that is included in the 
[SIP] and enforceable by EPA or citizens'' and that, as with ``waiver 
measures,'' approval of a strategy built upon these reductions would 
(again) violate Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(A).''
    Response 12c: We agree with Earthjustice's statement that SJVUAPCD 
Rule 9610 itself is not a SIP-creditable control measure and that the 
District therefore cannot rely on this rule to satisfy any SIP emission 
reduction commitments.
    SJVUAPCD Rule 9610, as adopted June 20, 2013, establishes a 
regulatory framework for the District's quantification of emission 
reductions achieved through incentive programs and provides 
opportunities for the EPA, CARB, and the public to review and comment 
on the District's evaluations on an annual basis. As we stated in our 
May 19, 2014 proposal to approve Rule 9610, the rule ``does not 
establish any emission limitation, control measure, or other 
requirement that applies directly to an emission source'' and therefore 
``is not intended to implement the reasonably available control 
technology (RACT) standard or any other control standard under the 
Act.'' \146\ Instead, Rule 9610 ``establishes an administrative 
mechanism designed to ensure that each SIP submittal in which the 
District relies upon emission reductions achieved through 
implementation of incentive programs in the SJV will adequately address 
the requirements of the Act.'' \147\ The requirements and procedures in 
Rule 9610 apply only to the District and lay the groundwork for the 
District's incorporation of incentive programs into air quality plans 
going forward.\148\ The EPA finalized a limited approval and limited 
disapproval of Rule 9610 on April 9, 2015, thereby making its 
requirements and procedures enforceable by the EPA or citizens against 
the District.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ 79 FR 28650, 28652 and n. 5 (May 19, 2014).
    \147\ Id.
    \148\ Id.
    \149\ 80 FR 19020 (April 9, 2015) (concluding that Rule 9610 
largely satisfies CAA requirements but contains several deficiencies 
warranting limited disapproval).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of our proposed action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, 
we listed SJVUAPCD Rule 9610 among the District's rule amendment 
commitments \150\ and explained that the District had committed to 
adopt, submit, and implement Rule 9610 to ``provide a process for 
quantifying emissions reductions from the use of incentive funds.'' 
\151\ To the extent our proposed rule suggested that SJVUAPCD Rule 9610 
may itself be a SIP-creditable control measure, we hereby clarify that 
this rule does not achieve any SIP-creditable emission reductions and 
therefore cannot be credited for any SIP purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ 80 FR 1816 at 1827 (Table 2), 1832 (Table 3).
    \151\ 80 FR 1816, 1831 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, to the extent Earthjustice intended to assert that 
emissions reductions achieved through a state or local incentive 
program cannot be credited in a SIP except through a SIP submission 
that satisfies the requirement of the Act as interpreted in EPA 
guidance, we agree. As we explained in our final action on SJVUAPCD 
Rule 9610:

    We expect the District to address the applicable requirements of 
the CAA in each individual SIP submittal that relies on incentive 
programs, and our recommendations in both the proposal and today's 
final rule are intended to provide the District with general 
guidance on how these requirements, as interpreted in EPA guidance, 
apply to future SIP submittals developed pursuant to Rule 9610 and 
the requirements of the Act. . . . EPA will review each SIP 
submittal developed pursuant to Rule 9610 (including the necessary 
evaluation of the applicable incentive program guidelines) on a 
case-by-case basis, following notice-and-comment rulemaking, to 
determine whether the applicable requirements of the Act are met 
[internal citations omitted]. Nothing in today's action prohibits 
EPA from disapproving a SIP relying on incentive-based emission 
reductions that fails to satisfy the requirements of the CAA.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    With respect to Earthjustice's statement that ``[t]he requirement 
to reduce emissions in exchange for incentive funding is not enshrined 
in any sort of control measure that is included in the [SIP] and 
enforceable by EPA or citizens,'' we note that under longstanding EPA 
guidance, SIP credit may be allowed for a voluntary or other 
nontraditional measure only where the State submits enforceable 
mechanisms to ensure that the emission reductions necessary to meet 
applicable CAA requirements are achieved--e.g., an enforceable 
commitment to monitor and report on emission reductions achieved and to 
rectify any shortfall in a timely manner.\153\ Thus, if California 
intends to satisfy a SIP requirement through reliance on an incentive 
program that the EPA and citizens may not directly enforce against 
participating sources, the State/District must take responsibility for 
assuring that SIP emission reduction requirements are met through an 
enforceable commitment, which the EPA and citizens may enforce against 
the State/District upon the EPA's approval of the commitment into the 
SIP.\154\ Approval of a control strategy built upon emission reductions 
achieved through incentive programs may satisfy CAA section 
110(a)(2)(A) only if these enforceability requirements are met.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ Id. at 19026.
    \154\ Id.
    \155\ The EPA has recommended presumptive limits on the amounts 
of emission reductions from certain voluntary and other 
nontraditional measures that may be credited in a SIP. Specifically, 
for voluntary mobile source emission reduction programs (VMEPs), the 
EPA has identified a presumptive limit of three percent (3%) of the 
total projected future year emission reductions required to attain 
the appropriate NAAQS, and for any particular SIP submittal to 
demonstrate attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or progress 
toward attainment (e.g., RFP), 3% of the specific statutory 
requirement. See, e.g., ``Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile 
Source Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans 
(SIPs),'' EPA, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), October 24, 1997, 
at 5 and ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,'' 
EPA, OAR, January 2001, at 158. For voluntary stationary and area 
source measures, the EPA has identified a presumptive limit of 6% of 
the total amount of emission reductions required for RFP, 
attainment, or maintenance demonstration purposes. See, e.g., 
``Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State 
Implementation Plan,'' EPA, OAR, September 2004 (``2004 Emerging and 
Voluntary Measures Guidance'') at 9 and ``Incorporating Bundled 
Measures in a State Implementation Plan (SIP),'' August 2005 (``2005 
Bundled Measures Guidance''), at 8. The EPA has also long stated, 
however, that states may justify higher amounts of SIP emission 
reduction credit for voluntary programs on a case-by-case basis, and 
that the EPA may approve measures for SIP credit in excess of the 
presumptive limits ``where a clear and convincing justification is 
made by the State as to why a higher limit should apply in [its] 
case.'' 2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance at 9; see also 
2005 Bundled Measures Guidance at 8, n. 6 and ``Diesel Retrofits: 
Quantifying and Using Their Emission Benefits in SIPs and 
Conformity,'' EPA, OTAQ, February 2014, at 12.

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

[[Page 59895]]

D. Comments on RFP, RFP Contingency Measures, and Quantitative 
Milestones

    Comment 13: Earthjustice disagrees with the EPA's proposal to 
approve the RFP demonstration in the Plan, quoting the statutory 
definition of ``reasonable further progress'' in CAA section 171(1) and 
asserting that the EPA's approach to RFP ``divorces the RFP targets 
from attainment altogether by claiming that the RFP requirement of CAA 
section 172(c)(2) can be met by assuring implementation of RACM/RACT.'' 
Earthjustice asserts that RFP is a requirement separate and independent 
from RACM/RACT and that the EPA's approach undermines Congress' intent 
for RFP and milestones to serve as enforceable targets that will 
trigger consequences when RACM/RACT controls are not implemented on a 
particular schedule.
    Earthjustice also states that the Plan's RACM/RACT demonstration 
cannot support the RFP targets approved by the EPA because it is 
incomplete, particularly for ammonia. According to Earthjustice, the 
ammonia RACM/RACT demonstration sets no RACM/RACT requirements and 
therefore makes it impossible to assess whether the Plan will achieve 
RFP. Further, Earthjustice says, because the Plan allows ammonia 
emissions to increase after 2012, it does not provide ``annual 
incremental reductions'' (emphasis in comment) as required by CAA 
section 171. Earthjustice states that the EPA must disapprove the RFP 
demonstration because it has no basis for concluding that the Plan will 
provide such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant 
air pollutant as are required for the purpose of ensuring attainment by 
the applicable date.
    Response 13: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that the 
EPA's approach to RFP in this action is inconsistent with the statutory 
RFP requirements.
    Section 172(c)(2) of the Act requires that plan provisions for all 
PM2.5 nonattainment areas require RFP, which is defined in 
section 171(1) as such annual incremental reductions in emissions of 
the relevant air pollutant as are required by part D, title I of the 
Act or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose 
of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date. 
In the EPA's July 29, 2016 final rule to implement the PM2.5 
NAAQS, the EPA explained that for areas that cannot demonstrate 
attainment by the statutory deadline for Moderate areas in CAA section 
188(c)(1), the state must demonstrate either generally linear or 
stepwise emissions reductions toward the full amount of reductions that 
will be achieved by that deadline, i.e., the amount that reflects 
implementation of all of the control measures identified as RACM and 
RACT and additional reasonable measures for the entire period of the 
applicable attainment plan.\156\ The EPA explained that generally 
linear progress toward this full amount would meet the RFP requirement, 
while slower progress would require further justification.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ EPA, Final Rule, ``Fine Particulate Matter National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 
Requirements,'' July 29, 2016 (pre-publication notice) at pp. 178-
179.
    \157\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we explained in our proposed rule, the 2012 PM2.5 
Plan shows that emissions of direct PM2.5, NOX 
and SOX will decline from the 2007 base year through 2015 
and states that emissions will remain below the levels needed to show 
``generally linear progress'' from 2007 to 2019, the year that the Plan 
projects to be the earliest practicable attainment date.\158\ The Plan 
also demonstrates that all RACM/RACT and additional reasonable measures 
for sources of direct PM2.5, NOX, SOX 
and ammonia are being implemented as expeditiously as practicable \159\ 
and identifies projected emission levels for each of these pollutants 
in 2014 and 2017 that reflect full implementation of the State's and 
District's Moderate area control strategy for the area.\160\ In an area 
that cannot practicably attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the 
applicable Moderate area attainment date, we believe it is reasonable 
to find that full implementation of a control strategy that satisfies 
the Moderate area control requirements (i.e., RACM/RACT and additional 
reasonable measures) represents reasonable further progress toward 
attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ 80 FR 1816, 1835 (January 13, 2015) (citing 2012 
PM2.5 Plan, section 9.3).
    \159\ As explained in Response 12b, supra, we are approving the 
District's commitment in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to adopt 
Rule 4905 in 2014 as an additional reasonable measure under CAA 
section 172(c)(6) because it is a control measure implemented after 
the RACM implementation deadline (December 14, 2013) but before the 
Moderate area attainment date (December 31, 2015).
    \160\ Id. at 1835, 1836.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also disagree with the commenter's claim that the Plan's RACM/
RACT demonstration for ammonia cannot support the RFP targets approved 
by the EPA because it is incomplete and lacks any RACM/RACT 
requirements. For the reasons provided above in Response 6 through 
Response 10, we find the RACM/RACT demonstration in the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan consistent with the statutory requirement for 
RACM/RACT in CAA section 189(a)(1)(C).
    Finally, we disagree with Earthjustice's claim that the Plan fails 
to satisfy the RFP requirement because it allows ammonia emissions to 
increase after 2012 and, therefore, does not provide annual incremental 
reductions as required by CAA section 171. As the EPA explained in the 
preamble to the July 29, 2016 final rule to implement the 
PM2.5 NAAQS, states may in certain circumstances develop 
approvable RFP plans in which emissions of one or more PM2.5 
precursors subject to control evaluation are not decreasing. The EPA 
explained that in this scenario:

. . . The state must demonstrate that the emissions reductions of 
direct PM2.5 combined with the aggregate emissions 
reductions of PM2.5 plan precursors support expeditious 
attainment of the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS. To accomplish 
this, the EPA expects that a state could use the relative air 
quality impacts of the different PM2.5 plan precursors 
identified in the attainment modeling to demonstrate that the 
emissions reductions of direct PM2.5 and aggregate 
PM2.5 plan precursors constitute an acceptable RFP plan. 
For example, the state could demonstrate that even if one or more 
PM2.5 plan precursor is not decreasing, the emissions 
reductions of direct PM2.5 and the remaining 
PM2.5 plan precursors are the dominant factors in 
reducing ambient PM2.5 levels and are therefore adequate 
to support expeditious attainment. In providing this flexibility, 
the EPA recognizes that control measures for certain pollutants may 
be more effective at reducing PM2.5 concentrations than 
others, and that states may be able to implement some measures more 
quickly than others while still achieving reasonable overall 
progress toward attainment.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ EPA, Final Rule, ``Fine Particulate Matter National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 
Requirements,'' July 29, 2016 (pre-publication notice) at p. 179.

    Consistent with these recommendations, the 2012 PM2.5 
Plan demonstrates that despite the increase in ammonia emissions after 
2012, the reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5, 
NOX and SOX are the dominant factors in reducing 
ambient PM2.5 levels and are therefore adequate to support

[[Page 59896]]

expeditious attainment.\162\ Because the Plan provides for generally 
linear reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 and 
PM2.5 precursors in the aggregate, we find that it provides 
for such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air 
pollutant as are required by part D, title I of the Act or may 
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring 
attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As a result of our December 22, 2015 action reclassifying the SJV 
area as a Serious nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS, the area is now subject to Serious area planning requirements 
under subpart 4 and must reevaluate and strengthen its SIP control 
strategy as necessary to meet the Serious area requirement for BACM and 
BACT, among other requirements.\163\ The State must also demonstrate 
attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 
31, 2019, and provide a revised RFP demonstration, both taking into 
consideration the implementation of the Serious Area control 
strategy.\164\ Today, we are approving certain elements of the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan only for the limited purpose of satisfying the 
statutory control requirements that apply to Moderate areas 
demonstrating that attainment by the Moderate Area attainment date 
under subpart 4 is impracticable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ 81 FR 2993 (January 20, 2016) (final rule) and 81 FR 42263 
(June 29, 2016) (correcting amendment).
    \164\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 14: Earthjustice asserts that the EPA does not have 
authority to defer action on quantitative milestones and RFP 
contingency measures. Earthjustice notes that the EPA has deemed the 
District's SIP revision complete and asserts that the EPA is under a 
mandatory duty as a result to take one of the actions enumerated in CAA 
section 110(k). Earthjustice contends that disapproval of the 
quantitative milestones and RFP contingency measures is the only 
reasonable option. According to Earthjustice, deferring action on these 
parts effectively waives the statutory consequences for failing to 
submit a complete plan, including sanctions, and leaves the District 
with ``no actual plan for attaining the PM2.5 standards.'' 
Earthjustice says that interim milestones and RFP targets will be 
needed to ensure progress before the District's next attainment plan is 
adopted.
    Response 14: These comments are outside the scope of this action. 
We did not propose any action concerning quantitative milestones or RFP 
contingency measures in the Plan and, therefore, are not finalizing any 
action with respect to these requirements at this time.
    For all areas designated nonattainment for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS effective December 14, 2009, including the SJV 
area, the EPA has established December 31, 2014 as the starting point 
for the first 3-year period for quantitative milestones under CAA 
section 189(c).\165\ This is because December 31, 2014, was the due 
date for states to submit additional SIP elements necessary to satisfy 
the subpart 4 Moderate area requirements for the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 standards.\166\ Establishing December 31, 2014 as the 
starting point for the first 3-year period under CAA section 189(c) for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is in keeping with the EPA's historical 
approach to quantitative milestone dates (i.e., using the due date for 
the Moderate area plan submission as the starting point for the first 
3-year milestone period). Thus, for the SJV PM2.5 Serious 
nonattainment area, the state must submit quantitative milestones to be 
achieved by December 31, 2017 (the first milestone date) and every 3 
years thereafter until the milestone date that falls within 3 years 
after the Serious area attainment date.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ See EPA, Final Rule, ``Fine Particulate Matter National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 
Requirements,'' July 29, 2016 (pre-publication notice) at 40 CFR 
51.1013(a)(4). Although this regulatory text is not yet effective, 
it reflects the EPA's interpretation of the statutory requirements.
    \166\ EPA, Final Rule, ``Fine Particulate Matter National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 
Requirements,'' July 29, 2016 (pre-publication notice) at p. 203 
(referencing 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014) (final rule establishing 
subpart 4 moderate area classifications and deadline for related SIP 
submissions)); see also 80 FR 1816, 1835 (January 13, 2015).
    \167\ See EPA, Final Rule, ``Fine Particulate Matter National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 
Requirements,'' July 29, 2016 (pre-publication notice) at 40 CFR 
51.1013(a)(4). Although this regulatory text is not yet effective, 
it reflects the EPA's interpretation of the statutory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to RFP contingency measures, we explained in our 
proposed rule that once the SJV area is reclassified as a Serious area, 
the State would be obligated to demonstrate that the SIP provides for 
the implementation of BACM and BACT and for attainment as expeditiously 
as practicable, and no later than 2019.\168\ We also noted that as part 
of this demonstration, the State would need to revise its RFP 
demonstration to establish new RFP targets, quantitative milestones, 
and RFP contingency measures for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As a 
consequence of our January 20, 2016 final action reclassifying the SJV 
area as a Serious area for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, California 
is subject to an August 21, 2017 deadline to submit these Serious area 
plan elements.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ 80 FR 1816, 1837 (January 13, 2015).
    \169\ 81 FR 2993, 3000 (January 20, 2016) and 40 CFR 52.247(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the State's submission of a Serious area plan to provide 
for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area, the 
EPA intends to review the submitted plan for compliance with these 
requirements for quantitative milestones and RFP contingency measures.

E. Comments Regarding Interpollutant Trading Ratios for NNSR

    Comment 15: The SJVUAPCD disagrees with the EPA's proposal to 
disapprove the District's NNSR interpollutant trading (IPT) ratios to 
offset PM2.5 emission increases with NOX and 
SOX emissions reductions. The District asserts that its use 
of a single IPT ratio for each pollutant based on the average of 
different calculated ratios across the District is simpler and more 
equitable than the EPA's suggestion that ratios should either differ 
across the regions of the SJV or be set based on a maximum calculated 
value for any point in the SJV. The District believes the EPA's 
suggested geographically-based ratios would be unfair, since the ratio 
used for a particular source could depend on which side of the road it 
is located on.
    The SJVUAPCD further asserts that the District's reliance on the 
use of a basin-wide average for each pollutant is consistent with the 
EPA's NNSR regulations at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, as well as prior 
EPA approvals of NNSR programs that mitigate emission increases across 
an air basin. The District also states that it models local impacts of 
increased PM2.5 emissions for every facility subject to NNSR 
and will not issue a permit to a facility if the modeled impacts 
indicate a significant health risk or a significant increase in 
PM2.5 emissions. The SJVUAPCD concludes that its NNSR 
modeling analysis and proposed IPT ratios prevent localized impacts and 
appropriately offset regional impacts, and that the EPA should 
therefore approve the ratios.
    Response 15: We disagree with the District's assertion that the EPA 
should approve the NNSR IPT ratios in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. 
Our primary concern regarding the District's approach to interpollutant 
trading for NSR purposes is that the Plan provided only a ratio 
calculation, without a rationale to

[[Page 59897]]

support the use of this ratio for NNSR purposes. Under section IV.G.5 
of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, interpollutant trades to meet NNSR 
offset requirements for emissions of direct PM2.5 or 
PM2.5 precursors may be allowed if such offsets comply with 
an interprecursor trading hierarchy and ratio approved by the 
Administrator. As stated in our proposal, the EPA issued a 2011 
guidance memorandum on interpollutant trading stating that ``any ratio 
involving PM2.5 precursors submitted to the EPA for approval 
for use in a state's interpollutant offset program for PM2.5 
nonattainment areas must be accompanied by a technical demonstration 
that shows the net air quality benefits of such ratio for the 
PM2.5 nonattainment area in which it will be applied.'' 
\170\ Therefore, a PM2.5 NNSR SIP submittal containing 
interpollutant trading ratios for use in NNSR offsetting must describe 
a method for calculating ratios and provide a rationale demonstrating 
that the method is consistent with the purpose of NNSR offsets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ Memorandum dated July 21, 2011, from Gina McCarthy, 
Assistant Administrator, to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 
1-10, Subject: Revised Policy to Address Reconsideration of 
Interpollutant Trading Provisions for Fine Particles 
(PM2.5) (``IPT memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA disagrees with the District's claim that the use of a 
single trading ratio, even the maximum ratio over an area, is 
necessarily more equitable or less complex than using multiple ratios. 
While the use of a single interpollutant trading ratio for all 
locations in a nonattainment area may be simpler than separate ratios 
for different geographic zones, the District has provided no rationale 
concerning the net air quality benefits of such an approach. The impact 
of emissions of a given pollutant varies by the chemical environment 
the emissions occur in, and that chemical environment varies by 
location. The ratio of impacts between emissions of NOX and 
SOX precursors will also necessarily vary by geographic 
location. The importance of that impact for total concentration is 
another consideration; emissions from a remote, relatively clean area 
used to offset emissions in a highly polluted area may not meet the 
requirement in Condition 3 of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, section IV.A, 
which states that offsets from existing sources in the area of the 
proposed source are required such that there will be reasonable 
progress toward attainment of the applicable NAAQS. The use of a ratio 
that is an average over a broad geographic area, or any ratio less than 
the maximum ratio for such an area, could allow for a new source whose 
location-specific modeling gives the maximum ratio to obtain a permit 
without offsetting its full impact and, thus, potentially interfere 
with progress toward attainment.
    The District suggests that the use of the maximum ratio poses an 
equity problem for a source whose location-specific ratio is lower, as 
such a source would have to offset more than it should. However, the 
use of an average ratio across the entire nonattainment area poses a 
different equity problem: A source whose location-specific ratio is the 
maximum would be offsetting less than it should while other sources 
would have to offset more. Use of different ratios tailored to specific 
geographic zones would be one way to help address these issues. 
Although the District correctly notes that a source located to one side 
of a zone boundary may have a different ratio than one located just to 
the other side of the boundary, creating potential inequities, we 
believe such an approach is generally more appropriate and equitable as 
sources in each zone would offset approximately their fair share. In 
any case, the EPA will review each technical demonstration accompanying 
an NNSR SIP submission to determine whether the state's requested 
interpollutant trading ratio(s) will achieve a net air quality benefit 
in the PM2.5 nonattainment area.
    Comment 16: The SJVUAPCD disagrees with the EPA's proposal to 
disapprove the District's interpollutant trading ratio sensitivity 
calculation based on a 50 percent reduction in stationary source 
emissions. The District comments that the EPA has provided only limited 
guidance on the development of interpollutant trading ratios and has 
failed to propose a mechanism to determine the sensitivity of 
PM2.5 formation to NOX and SOX 
emission decreases for NNSR, even though, according to the District, 
federal law requires the EPA to do so. The District asserts that its 
method is consistent with the EPA's existing guidance on NNSR IPT 
ratios and with state techniques that the EPA has approved for 
attainment demonstration purposes. The District contends that the EPA's 
disapproval of its approach creates new standards not reflected in 
previous guidance, and that the EPA should establish new standards only 
through the proper regulatory approval process. The District states 
that the EPA should therefore approve its 50 percent reduction 
sensitivity approach.
    Response 16: Although it may be reasonable to use modeling of 50 
percent reductions in calculating interpollutant trading ratios,\171\ 
consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S and EPA 
guidance, the state must provide a rationale for the reduction used and 
demonstrate its appropriateness for NSR offsetting purposes. As we 
stated in our proposed rule, the Plan provides no rationale for the 
appropriateness of a 50 percent reduction. Generally, the emission 
reductions model should have a direct connection to the emission 
reductions expected in IPT trades for NSR offsetting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ We note, however, that such a level of reduction does not 
match the scale of reductions involved in a typical NNSR offsetting 
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 17: The District disagrees with the EPA's general comment 
that the Plan fails to provide an overall rationale for the District's 
methodology that is grounded in the statutory purpose of NSR offsets, 
and also with the EPA's specific concern that the 2012 PM2.5 
Plan does not show that its offsets provide a ``net air quality benefit 
in the affected area,'' as required by 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, 
section IV.A. The District asserts that Appendix H of the Plan 
demonstrates that the Plan's interpollutant trading ratios are 
consistent with the federal NNSR requirements and that the use of 
credits would not interfere with attainment efforts. The District 
states that the proposed trading ratios substitute only one precursor 
pollutant to the current offsetting requirements that the EPA has 
already found ``to comply with the CAA and EPA's NSR implementation 
regulations,'' and that this substitution uses a predetermined ratio 
demonstrated to be equal in ability to offset PM2.5. For 
this reason, the District argues that the ratios have already been 
demonstrated to provide an air quality benefit to the area and should 
be approved.
    Response 17: The EPA disagrees with the District's claim that the 
Plan demonstrates that its proposed interpollutant offsets would not 
interfere with attainment efforts, and that its ratio represents 
equivalent PM2.5 offsetting impacts. As we explained above 
in Response 15 concerning location-specific ratios, depending on the 
locations of the new or modified sources and the offsetting sources, 
offsets based on interpollutant trades could interfere with progress 
toward attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS. The District used 
modeling of emission reductions occurring over a large geographic area 
and calculated ratios of the effects at multiple monitor locations, 
without providing a rationale for the procedure used. The modeling 
reflects

[[Page 59898]]

the average response of geographically distributed emission reductions 
but does not show the effect of any particular offset for a new source, 
and it is unclear how it is related to the aggregate effect of many 
such trades. Because the 2012 PM2.5 Plan does not address 
the locations of either the PM2.5 precursor emission 
increases and offsets or the ambient PM2.5 effects, we find 
the technical analyses in the Plan insufficient to demonstrate that the 
District's proposed offset ratio will assure reasonable progress toward 
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.

F. Comments on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    Comment 18: Earthjustice agrees with the EPA's proposal to 
disapprove the interpollutant trading ratios for NSR but argues that 
the EPA should also disapprove the District's 8:1 ratio for offsetting 
mobile source emission increases of PM2.5 for conformity 
purposes. Earthjustice claims that the EPA did not evaluate the 
methodology supporting this ratio and instead approved it on the basis 
that it was more stringent than regional modeling determinations. 
According to Earthjustice, given the EPA concluded that the regional 
modeling was arbitrary and lacked any rationale for its methodology, 
the mere fact that the conformity ratios are ``more stringent'' does 
not provide the EPA with any rational basis for approving an 8:1 ratio 
for conformity purposes.
    Response 18: The EPA disagrees with Earthjustice's claim that the 
8:1 NOX:direct PM2.5 ratio for transportation 
conformity has no rational basis. As an initial matter, we note that 
the EPA did not state that the regional modeling was arbitrary, but 
rather that the Plan had not provided a rationale for its particular 
approach to using modeled sensitivity ratios to derive IPT ratios for 
NSR offsetting purposes.\172\ The EPA made these statements in the 
context of NNSR permitting requirements, not trading mechanisms for 
transportation conformity purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ 80 FR 1816, 1838 (January 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District's methodology for estimating the IPT ratio for 
conformity purposes is essentially an update (based on newer modeling) 
of the approach that the EPA previously approved for the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 
SJV.\173\ The District's approach in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan was 
to model the ambient PM2.5 effect of areawide NOX 
emissions reductions and of areawide direct PM2.5 
reductions, and to express the ratio of these modeled sensitivities as 
an interpollutant trading ratio. Variable factors in this method 
included the extent of the area over which emission reductions were 
applied and the location(s) at which the resulting ambient 
PM2.5 effect was evaluated. As part of the EPA's November 
2011 action partially approving the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV, the EPA stated that this 
methodology ``is adequate for purposes of assessing the effect of area-
wide emissions changes, such as are used in RFP, contingency measures, 
and conformity budgets.'' \174\ In the TSD supporting that action, we 
stated that ``[t]he method modeled `across the board' emission changes 
over the entire modeling domain; emissions considered in transportation 
conformity are also domain-wide.'' \175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ See 80 FR 1816, 1841 (January 13, 2015) (noting the EPA's 
prior approval of MVEBs for the 1997 annual and 24-hour 
PM2.5 standards in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan at 76 
FR 69896, November 9, 2011).
    \174\ 76 FR 69896, 69919 (November 9, 2011).
    \175\ EPA, Region 9, Air Division, ``Technical Support Document 
and Responses to Comments, Final Rule on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 
PM2.5 State Implementation Plan,'' September 30, 2011, at 
pp. 46 and 165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of our proposed action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, 
we stated that the areawide methodology used in the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan gave a range of IPT ratios from 2.8 to 4.7, 
depending on the ambient location chosen.\176\ Using the same method 
would entail using the IPT ratio evaluated at the California Street, 
Bakersfield design value site, 4:3. The 8:1 ratio used in the Plan is 
larger than both the Bakersfield ratio and any ratio using variants of 
the previously-approved approach, and is thus a more stringent (and 
conservatively high) trading mechanism to use for estimating the 
NOX reductions needed to offset PM2.5 
increases.\177\ We are approving the 8:1 trading ratio for 
transportation conformity purposes because it is significantly more 
stringent than any of the other ratios calculated in the Plan for 
different locations in the SJV, all of which were calculated using a 
methodology that the EPA previously approved for transportation 
conformity purposes in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ The maximum ratio for the 1st Street location in Fresno 
was actually 5:2, based on emission reduction sensitivities for 
NOX and for direct PM in the State's Weight of Evidence 
Analysis, Appendix G to the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Table 7, p. 
G-65.
    \177\ The Bakersfield ratio is based on values in ``Table 7. 
Modeled PM2.5 air quality benefit per ton of valley wide 
precursor emission reductions'', 2012 PM2.5 Plan, 
Appendix G, p. 65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 19: Earthjustice comments that the EPA's conformity 
regulations require MVEB to be consistent with the requirements for 
RFP. Earthjustice argues that because the RFP demonstration is not 
approvable, the EPA also should not approve the MVEBs.
    Response 19: We disagree with Earthjustice's claim that the EPA 
should disapprove the MVEBs in the Plan.
    As we explained above in Response 13, we are approving the RFP 
demonstration in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan based on our conclusion 
that it provides for generally linear reductions in emissions of direct 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the aggregate and, 
therefore, provides for such annual incremental reductions in emissions 
of the relevant air pollutant as are required by part D, title I of the 
Act or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose 
of ensuring attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the 
applicable attainment date.
    The 2012 PM2.5 Plan contains 2014 and 2017 MVEBs for 
emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX. We proposed to 
approve these budgets based on a conclusion that they are consistent 
with applicable requirements for RFP, are clearly identified and 
precisely quantified, and meet all other applicable statutory and 
regulatory requirements including the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 
93.118(e)(4).\178\ Additionally, in accordance with 40 CFR 
93.102(b)(2)(v), we proposed to find that on-road emissions of VOCs, 
SO2 and ammonia are not significant contributors to the 
PM2.5 nonattainment problem in the SJV area, and 
accordingly, that transportation conformity requirements do not apply 
for these pollutants in this area.\179\ In April 2016, the EPA found 
the direct PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs in the Plan, as 
submitted December 29, 2014, adequate for transportation conformity 
purposes.\180\ On November 13, 2015, the State submitted revised direct 
PM2.5 and NOX budgets based on EMFAC2014 for the 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA proposed to approve these revised 
budgets based on our conclusion that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 
continues to meet applicable requirements for RFP in 2017 when the 
EMFAC2011-based budgets are replaced with the new EMFAC2014-based 
budgets and that these budgets are clearly identified, precisely 
quantified, and meet all of the other criteria in 40 CFR 
93.118(e)(4).\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ 80 FR 1816, 1840 (January 13, 2015).
    \179\ Id.
    \180\ Letter dated April 1, 2016, from Deborah Jordan, Director, 
Air Division, EPA, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, 
California Air Resources Board, and 81 FR 22194 (April 15, 2016).
    \181\ 81 FR 31212, 31218 (May 18, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter has not identified any information that compels us to

[[Page 59899]]

reconsider our conclusion that the MVEBs in the 2012 PM2.5 
Plan are consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further 
progress. Therefore, we are approving the 2017 MVEBs for direct 
PM2.5 and NOX, as submitted November 13, 
2015.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ Although the 2012 PM2.5 Plan contained MVEBs 
for both 2014 and 2017, MVEBs for 2014 are no longer relevant for 
conformity analyses since that year has passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that, because the provisions of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, 
apply only with respect to emissions of NOX and direct 
PM2.5 for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 
SJV area, the commenter's arguments about ammonia emissions are not 
germane to our action on these MVEBs.

G. Other Comments

    Comment 20: Earthjustice asserts that the EPA has no basis for 
deferring action on the NSR component of the Plan and that deferral 
will put the EPA in violation of the statutory deadlines under CAA 
section 110(k)(2). Earthjustice states that the District's NSR program 
does not meet all subpart 4 requirements because it does not regulate 
ammonia, which according to Earthjustice is required under CAA section 
189(e).
    Response 20: These comments are outside the scope of this action. 
We did not propose any action on the portions of the 2014 Supplement 
that address NNSR requirements for PM2.5 in the SJV and, 
therefore, are not finalizing any action with respect to these Plan 
elements at this time. The EPA intends to act on these components of 
the Plan through a separate rulemaking.
    We note that as a consequence of the EPA's January 20, 2016 final 
action reclassifying the SJV area as a Serious nonattainment area for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, California is subject to a February 
21, 2017 deadline to submit NNSR rule revisions for the SJV that 
satisfy the requirements of sections 189(b)(3) and 189(e) and all other 
applicable requirements of the CAA for implementation of the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS.\183\ These SIP revisions must appropriately 
address the NNSR requirements for direct PM2.5 and all 
PM2.5 precursors, including ammonia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ 81 FR 2993, 3000 (January 20, 2016) and 40 CFR 52.245(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    The EPA is taking final action to approve elements of the following 
SIP revisions submitted by California to address Clean Air Act 
requirements for implementation of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 
the SJV: The 2012 PM2.5 Plan, submitted March 4, 2013; the 
2014 Supplement, submitted November 6, 2014; and the motor vehicle 
emissions budgets for direct PM2.5 and NOX, as 
submitted November 13, 2015.
    Specifically, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to 
approve the following elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 
2014 Supplement:
    1. The 2007 base year emissions inventories as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3);
    2. the demonstration that attainment by the Moderate area 
attainment date of December 31, 2015 is impracticable as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii);
    3. the reasonably available control measures/reasonably available 
control technology demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA 
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C);
    4. the reasonable further progress demonstration as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2); and
    5. SJVUAPCD's commitments to adopt and implement specific rules and 
measures by the dates specified in Chapter 5 of the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan to achieve the emissions reductions shown 
therein, and to submit these rules and measures to CARB within 30 days 
of adoption for transmittal to the EPA as a revision to the SIP, or if 
the total emission reductions from the adopted rules are less than 
those committed to in the Plan, to adopt, submit, and implement 
substitute rules that will achieve equivalent reductions in emissions 
of direct PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors in the same 
adoption and implementation timeframes or in the timeframes needed to 
meet CAA milestones, as stated on p. 4 of SJVUAPCD Governing Board 
Resolution 12-12-19, dated December 20, 2012, ``In the Matter of 
Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 
2012 PM2.5 Plan.''
    In addition, the EPA is approving the 2017 NOX and 
PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions budgets submitted November 13, 
2015,\184\ as shown in Table 1 above, because they are derived from an 
approvable RFP demonstration and meet the applicable requirements of 
CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. We are also 
approving, in accordance with 40 CFR 93.124, the trading mechanism 
described on p. C-32 in Appendix C of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan as 
an enforceable component of the transportation conformity program for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV, with the condition that the 
trades are limited to substituting excess reductions in NOX 
for increases in PM2.5. The budgets that the EPA is 
approving herein relate to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS only, and 
our approval of them does not affect the status of the previously-
approved MVEBs for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and related trading 
mechanism, which remain in effect for that PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ See letter dated November 13, 2015, from Richard W. Corey, 
Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 
EPA Region 9, with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is disapproving the PM2.5 interpollutant trading 
ratios provided in Appendix H of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for 
NNSR permitting purposes. Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 
disapproval of a SIP submittal that addresses a requirement of part D, 
title I of the Act or is required in response to a finding of 
substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) 
starts a sanctions clock. The NNSR interpollutant trading ratios 
provided in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan were not submitted to meet 
either of these requirements. Therefore, our final action to disapprove 
this component of the Plan does not trigger a sanctions clock. 
Disapproval of a SIP element also triggers the requirement under CAA 
section 110(c) for the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan 
(FIP) no later than two years from the date of the disapproval unless 
the State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the 
plan or plan revision, before the Administrator promulgates such FIP. 
Disapproval of these NNSR interpollutant trading ratios, however, does 
not create any deficiency in the Plan, and therefore does not trigger 
the obligation on the EPA to promulgate a FIP under section 110(c).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/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 action does not impose additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a

[[Page 59900]]

substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will 
not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by 
state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to 
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will 
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

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

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

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

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 31, 2016. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 16, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLMENTATION PLANS

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 adding paragraphs (c)(476)(ii)(A)(2), 
(c)(478), and (c)(479) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (476) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Attachment A to Resolution 15-50, ``Updates to the 
Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley 2007 
PM10, 2007 Ozone and 2012 PM2.5 SIPs,'' Table A-2 
(Updated Transportation Conformity Budgets for the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan (Tons per winter day).
* * * * *
    (478) The following plan was submitted on March 4, 2013, by the 
Governor's Designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) ``2012 PM2.5 Plan'' (dated December 20, 2012), 
adopted December 20, 2012, except for the motor vehicle emission 
budgets used for transportation conformity purposes.
    (2) SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 12-12-19, dated 
December 20, 2012, ``In the Matter of Adopting the San Joaquin Valley 
Unified Air Pollution Control District 2012 PM2.5 Plan.''
    (3) SJVUAPCD's commitments to adopt and implement specific rules 
and measures by the dates specified in Chapter 5 of the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan to achieve the emissions reductions shown 
therein, and to submit these rules and measures to CARB within 30 days 
of adoption for transmittal to EPA as a revision to the SIP, or if the 
total emission reductions from the adopted rules are less than those 
committed to in the Plan, to adopt, submit, and implement substitute 
rules that will achieve equivalent reductions in emissions of direct 
PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors in the same adoption 
and implementation timeframes or in the timeframes needed to meet CAA 
milestones, as stated on p. 4 of SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 
12-12-19, dated December 20, 2012.
    (B) California Air Resources Board.

[[Page 59901]]

    (1) CARB Resolution 13-2, dated January 24, 2013, ``San Joaquin 
Valley PM2.5 State Implementation Plan.''
    (479) The following plan was submitted on November 6, 2014, by the 
Governor's Designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) ``Supplemental Document, Clean Air Act Subpart 4: The 2012 
PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 Standard and 
District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review)'' (dated 
September 18, 2014), adopted September 18, 2014.
    (2) SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 14-09-01, dated 
September 18, 2014, ``In the Matter of: Authorizing Submittal of 
``Supplemental Document for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan'' to EPA.''
    (B) California Air Resources Board.
    (1) CARB Resolution 14-37, dated October 24, 2014, ``Supplemental 
Document for the San Joaquin Valley 24-Hour PM2.5 State 
Implementation Plan.''

[FR Doc. 2016-20413 Filed 8-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P