Denial of Request for Extension of Attainment Date for 1997 PM2.5, 69396-69401 [2016-24082]

Download as PDF 69396 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 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 December 5, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: August 15, 2016. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(364)(i)(A)(4) and (c)(457)(i)(H) to read as follows: ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 § 52.220 Identification of plan—in part. * * * * * (c) * * * (364) * * * (i) * * * (A) * * * (4) Previously approved on October 11, 2009 in paragraph (c)(364)(i)(A)(2) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(457)(i)(H)(1), Rule 4901, ‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters,’’ amended on October 16, 2008. * * * * * (457) * * * (i) * * * (H) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. (1) Rule 4901, ‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters,’’ amended on September 18, 2014. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2016–24081 Filed 10–5–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0432; FRL–9953–66– Region 9] Denial of Request for Extension of Attainment Date for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; California; San Joaquin Valley Serious Nonattainment Area Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is denying a request submitted by California for extension of the attainment date for the 1997 24-hour and annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards in the San Joaquin Valley Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area. DATES: This rule is effective on November 7, 2016. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2015– 0432 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105–3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g., confidential business information SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA Region 9, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@ epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. Background II. Final Action on Section 188(e) Extension Request III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background On February 9, 2016, the EPA proposed to approve, conditionally approve, and disapprove state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by California (the ‘‘State’’ or California Air Resources Board (CARB)) to address Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) requirements for the 1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area.1 The SIP revisions on which we proposed action are the ‘‘2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard,’’ which the State submitted on June 25, 2015, and the ‘‘2018 Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 SIP, Plan Supplement,’’ submitted on August 13, 2015. We refer to these SIP submissions collectively as the ‘‘2015 PM2.5 Plan’’ or ‘‘the Plan.’’ The 2015 PM2.5 Plan is a PM2.5 Serious area attainment plan for the SJV and includes a request to extend the applicable attainment date for the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards by three and five years, respectively, on the basis that attainment by December 31, 2015 is impracticable, in accordance with CAA section 188(e). The EPA proposed to approve the following elements of the Plan as satisfying applicable CAA requirements: (1) The 2012 base year emissions inventories; (2) the best available control measures (BACM)/best available control technology demonstration; (3) the attainment demonstration; (4) the reasonable further progress demonstration; (5) the State’s application for an extension of the Serious area attainment date to December 31, 2018 for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and to December 31, 2020 for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; (6) the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (the ‘‘District’’ 1 81 E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM FR 6936 (February 9, 2016). 06OCR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations or SJVUAPCD) commitment to amend and implement revisions to SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 (‘‘Commercial Charbroiling’’) for under-fired charbroilers on a specific schedule; and (7) the motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2014, 2017, 2018, and 2020. Additionally, the EPA proposed to approve the Plan’s interpollutant trading mechanism for use in transportation conformity analyses, with the condition that trades are limited to substituting excess reductions in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) for direct PM2.5 emission reductions. The EPA proposed to conditionally approve the Plan’s quantitative milestones based on a commitment by the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain but not later than one year after the date of the Plan approval, consistent with CAA section 110(k)(4). Finally, the EPA proposed to disapprove the Plan’s contingency measures for failure to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9). Section 188(e) of the CAA provides the Administrator with discretionary authority to grant a state’s request for an extension of a Serious area attainment date where certain conditions are met. Before the EPA may extend the attainment date for a Serious area under section 188(e), the State must: (1) Apply for an extension of the attainment date beyond the statutory attainment date; (2) demonstrate that attainment by the statutory attainment date is impracticable; (3) have complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the implementation plan; (4) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the plan for the area includes the ‘‘most stringent measures’’ that are included in the implementation plan of any state or are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented in the area; and (5) submit a demonstration of attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable.2 The EPA’s determination of whether such a plan provides for attainment by the most expeditious date practicable depends on whether the plan provides for implementation of BACM no later than the statutory implementation deadline, the most stringent measures (MSM) as expeditiously as practicable, and any other technologically and economically feasible measures that will result in attainment as expeditiously as practicable. Given the strategy in the nonattainment provisions of the Act to offset longer attainment time frames with more stringent control requirements, the EPA interprets the 2 Id. at 6940. VerDate Sep<11>2014 MSM provision to assure that additional controls that can feasibly be implemented in the area beyond the set of measures adopted as BACM are implemented. Two ways to do this are (1) to require that more sources and source categories be subject to MSM analysis than to BACM analysis and controlled as necessary—i.e., by expanding the applicability provisions in the MSM control requirements to cover more sources, and (2) to require reanalysis of any measures adopted in other areas that were rejected during the BACM analysis because they could not be implemented by the BACM implementation deadline to see if they are now feasible for the area given the longer attainment timeframe.3 The EPA provided a 30-day period for public comment on the proposed rule and received comment letters from Mr. Paul Cort, on behalf of Earthjustice, and from Mr. Shawn Dolan. The comments from Earthjustice primarily argued that the control measure analysis in the Plan for several sources categories, including ammonia emission sources, glass melting furnaces, and internal combustion engines used in agricultural operations, fail to satisfy CAA requirements. The comments from Mr. Shawn Dolan argued that EPA Method 9 should be phased out in favor of other methods for evaluating visible emissions such as the Digital Camera Opacity Technique (DCOT). II. Final Action on Section 188(e) Extension Request Based on our reevaluation of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan and related control measures and consideration of the comments we received, the EPA is denying CARB’s request for extension of the December 31, 2015 Serious area attainment date for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. As explained in our proposed rule, one of the minimum criteria for extension of an attainment date under CAA section 188(e) is that the state demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the plan for the area includes the most stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan of any state or are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented in the area. For a number of source categories, CARB and the SJVUAPCD have demonstrated that the SIP includes the most stringent measures required or achieved in practice in other areas. For the following reasons, however, we find that CARB and the SJVUAPCD have not demonstrated to the EPA’s satisfaction that the plan for the SJV area includes 3 Id. 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 at 6941. Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 69397 all MSM that can feasibly be implemented in the area. First, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not adequately demonstrate that it includes MSM for sources of ammonia emissions in the SJV.4 As explained in our proposed rule, three source categories collectively emitted 95% of all ammonia emissions in the 2012 annual average base year inventory for the SJV area: Confined animal facilities (CAFs), composting operations, and fertilizer application.5 The 2015 PM2.5 Plan states that three SIP-approved rules designed to limit volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions also control ammonia emissions from two of these source categories (i.e., CAFs and composting operations) but does not substantiate these conclusions. For example, according to the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, many of the VOC control measures in SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (‘‘Confined Animal Facilities’’), as amended October 21, 2010, have an ammonia ‘‘cobenefit,’’ and these measures have reduced ammonia emissions in the SJV by over 100 tons per day (tpd).6 The 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not, however, specifically identify any enforceable requirement in SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 that reduces ammonia emissions from CAF operations, nor does it substantiate its calculation of ammonia emission reductions attributed to SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 other than by reference to an outdated analysis from 2006.7 Moreover, a number of provisions in SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 allow CAF owners/operators to implement ‘‘alternative mitigation 4 As we explained in our proposed rule, the EPA does not agree at this time with the State’s and District’s conclusion in the Plan that ammonia emissions do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels exceeding the PM2.5 standards in the SJV. 81 FR 6936, 6948 (February 9, 2016). Accordingly, consistent with the regulatory presumption under subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act, ammonia emission sources are subject to control evaluation for purposes of implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 5 81 FR 6936, 6978 (February 9, 2016); see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C–239. 6 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–239 to C– 240. 7 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–239 to C– 275 and SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Final Draft Staff Report, Proposed Re-Adoption of Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities),’’ June 18, 2009, at Appendix F, ‘‘Ammonia Reductions Analysis for Proposed Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities),’’ June 15, 2006 (discussing various assumptions underlying the District’s calculation of ammonia emission factors without identifying relevant emissions inventories). We note that CARB has provided the EPA with significantly lower estimates of ammonia emission reductions achieved by SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 based on more recent calculations of reductions from a 2012 baseline emissions inventory. Email dated September 3, 2015, from Gabe Ruiz (CARB) to Larry Biland and Andrew Steckel (EPA), regarding ‘‘SJV Livestock Ammonia Emissions with and without Rule 4570.’’ E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 69398 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES measures’’ 8 in lieu of the mitigation measures listed in the rule, without any requirement to ensure that such alternative mitigation measures achieve any particular level of ammonia emission reductions.9 We find these analyses in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan insufficient to demonstrate that the plan includes MSM for ammonia emissions from CAFs in the SJV. Because emissions from CAFs account for more than half of all ammonia emissions in the SJV,10 a more robust analysis of potential ammonia emission reduction measures for this source category is necessary to satisfy the MSM requirement. Similarly, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan states that SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 (‘‘Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations’’), as adopted March 15, 2007, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4566 (‘‘Organic Material Composting Operations’’), as adopted August 18, 2011, limit ammonia emissions from composting operations but does not specifically identify any enforceable requirement in either of these rules that reduces ammonia emissions, nor does it identify a basis for the District’s statement that ‘‘the [ammonia] control efficiencies are assumed to be the same as the VOC control efficiencies . . . since the same control measures will reduce both VOC and [ammonia] from these operations.’’ 11 By contrast, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1133.2 (‘‘Emission Reductions from Co-Composting Operations’’), as adopted January 10, 2003, and SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 (‘‘Emission Reductions from Greenwaste Composting Operations’’), as adopted July 8, 2011, both contain specific requirements to reduce ammonia emissions and, in some cases, to achieve an overall ammonia emission reduction of at least 80% by weight from specified baseline levels.12 8 ‘‘Alternative Mitigation Measure’’ is defined in SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 as ‘‘a mitigation measure that is determined by the APCO, ARB, 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. Because SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 explicitly applies only to VOC emissions, the requirement for equivalent ‘‘reductions’’ in section 3.4 applies only to VOC emission reductions and does not apply to ammonia emission reductions. 9 See, e.g., SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended October 21, 2010) at section 5.6, Table 4.1.F. 10 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, pp. B–17 and B– 19. 11 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–271 to C– 278. 12 SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 (adopted January 10, 2003), section (d) and SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 (adopted July 8, 2011), section (d). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 With respect to fertilizer application, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan discusses ongoing research on improved methods of fertilizer application to maximize nitrogen use efficiency and minimize air and water quality impacts and states that ‘‘the weight of evidence suggests that managing nutrient applications to fields . . . has significantly reduced losses of nitrogen compounds to the environment, including leaching of nitrogen compounds to groundwater and air emissions such as ammonia and nitrous oxide.’’ 13 The 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not, however, provide any specific analysis of potential control measures to reduce ammonia emissions from fertilizer application or identify any enforceable SIP requirement that reduces ammonia emissions from this source category. In sum, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan fails to identify any specific, enforceable requirement to reduce ammonia emissions in the SIP for the area and does not demonstrate that the State or District adequately considered potential control measures to expand or strengthen the reasonably available control measure (RACM) strategy for ammonia emission sources.14 We therefore find the District’s analyses in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan insufficient to demonstrate that the plan includes MSM for ammonia emission sources in the SJV. Second, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not adequately demonstrate that it includes MSM for NOX emissions from internal combustion engines used in agricultural operations in the SJV. SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, regulates NOX emissions from two types of agricultural internal combustion (IC) engines rated at 25 brake horsepower (bhp) or greater: Spark-ignited (SI) engines and compression-ignited (CI) engines.15 For SI engines used in agricultural operations, the rule establishes NOX emission limits of 90 parts per million by volume (ppmv) for rich-burn engines and 150 ppmv for lean-burn engines.16 For CI engines used in agricultural operations, Rule 4702 requires compliance by specified dates with EPA Tier 3 or Tier 4 NOX emission 13 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–268 to C– 271. 14 The SJVUAPCD’s Moderate area plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, adopted in 2012, relies upon the same SIP-approved VOC control measures to satisfy RACM requirements for these NAAQS. See EPA, Final Rule, ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ August 16, 2016 (prepublication notice). 15 SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 (amended November 14, 2013), sections 2.0 and 5.2. 16 Id. at section 5.2.3 and Table 3. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 standards for non-road CI engines in 40 CFR part 89 or part 1039, as applicable, or an 80 ppmv NOX emission limit, depending on engine type.17 SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, by contrast, establishes an 11 ppmv NOX emission limit for all stationary SI and CI engines rated over 50 bhp, effective July 1, 2011, with limited exceptions for agricultural engines that meet certain conditions.18 According to the SCAQMD, three natural gas-fired SI engines used in agricultural operations are currently subject to the 11 ppmv NOX emission limit in Rule 1110.2 and use nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR, also called ‘‘three-way catalysts’’) control technology to comply with this emission limit.19 The Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) Rule 3.22, as amended October 6, 2014, establishes NOX emission limits of 25 parts per million (ppm) and 65 ppm for rich-burn and lean-burn agricultural engines in southern FRAQMD, respectively, except for agricultural engines that emit less than 50% of the major source thresholds for regulated air pollutants and/or hazardous air pollutants.20 The NOX emission limits for agricultural engines in SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 and FRAQMD Rule 3.22 are significantly more stringent than the 90 ppmv and 150 ppmv limits applicable to agricultural 17 Id. at section 5.2.4 and Table 4 and section 3.37 (defining Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 engines). 18 SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 (amended February 1, 2008), section (d)(1) (referencing Tables I and II). Rule 1110.2 provides an exemption from the 11 ppmv emission limit for agricultural engines that meet EPA Tier 4 emission standards and either of two additional conditions: (1) The engine operator submits documentation to the SCAQMD, by the deadline for a permit application, that the applicable electric utility has rejected an application for an electrical line extension to the location of the engines, or (2) the SCAQMD determines that the operator does not qualify for funding under California Health and Safety Code Section 44229 to replace, retrofit or repower the engine. SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 at section (h)(9). 19 Email dated May 3, 2016, from Kevin Orellana (SCAQMD) to Nicole Law (EPA), regarding ‘‘Question on Engines under Rule 1110.2.’’ 20 FRAQMD Rule 3.22 (amended October 6, 2014), section D.1, Table 2 (South FRAQMD Emission Limits) and section B.1.e (Exemptions). As of June 2016, staff at the FRAQMD were unaware of any stationary SI engines currently operating at agricultural facilities in the Feather River area that have demonstrated compliance with the 25 ppm or 65 ppm NOX emission limits in FRAQMD Rule 3.22. See email dated June 2, 2016, from Alamjit Mangat (FRAQMD) to Nicole Law (EPA), regarding ‘‘Engines in FRAQMD’’ (stating that all 423 agricultural engines currently operating in the Feather River area qualify for an exemption from the NOX emission limits in FRAQMD Rule 3.22). Nonetheless, because these NOX emission limits are approved into the California SIP as part of an earlier version of FRAQMD Rule 3.22 (see 77 FR 12493, March 1, 2012), they are required as MSM if they can feasibly be implemented in the SJV. E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES engines in SJVUAPCD Rule 4702. Moreover, SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 itself establishes NOX emission limits for IC engines used in other (non-agricultural) operations that range from 11 to 50 ppmv for rich-burn engines and 11 to 75 ppmv for lean-burn engines, depending on type of fuel and use.21 In Appendix C of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, the SJVUAPCD estimated the following costs of replacing agricultural SI engines: $76,209 per ton to replace a lean-burn engine to meet an 11 ppmv NOX limit; $42,146 per ton to replace a lean-burn engine to meet a 65 ppmv NOX limit; $59,754 per ton to replace a rich-burn engine to meet an 11 ppmv NOX limit; and $69,521 per ton to replace a rich-burn engine to meet a 25 ppmv NOX limit.22 The District subsequently submitted additional information indicating that the cost of replacing a lean-burn engine to meet 65 ppmv or 25 ppmv NOX limits would be the same as the replacement cost to meet an 11 ppmv NOX limit ($76,209 per ton), as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) would be necessary for a leanburn engine to meet any of these limits, and indicating that the cost of replacing a rich-burn engine to meet a 65 ppmv NOX limit would also be the same as the replacement cost to meet 25 ppmv or 11 ppmv NOX limits ($59,754 or $69,521 per ton), as three-way catalysts (NSCR) would be necessary for a rich-burn engine to meet any of these limits.23 The SJVUAPCD did not, however, identify the bases for any of these cost estimates or submit related technical documentation. At the EPA’s request, the SJVUAPCD provided additional information about the technological and economic feasibility of IC engine retrofits to meet lower NOX limits but similarly did not identify the bases for its cost estimates or provide any related technical documentation.24 Moreover, according to the SCAQMD, the costeffectiveness of replacing an agricultural SI engine ranges from $5,650 to $29,000 per ton of NOX reduced and, for most engine categories, is below $20,000 per ton.25 Given the absence of a technical basis for the SJVUAPCD’s cost estimates for 21 SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 (amended November 14, 2013), section 5.2.1. Table 1 and section 5.2.2. Table 2. 22 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C–132 to C– 139. 23 Email dated April 27, 2016, from Sheraz Gill (SJVUAPCD) to Andrew Steckel (EPA), regarding ‘‘Additional SJV info.’’ 24 Email dated June 25, 2015, from Sheraz Gill (SJVUAPCD) to Andrew Steckel (EPA), regarding ‘‘Requested Information.’’ 25 Email dated May 3, 2016, from Kevin Orellana (SCAQMD) to Nicole Law (EPA), regarding ‘‘Question on Engines under Rule 1110.2.’’ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 engine replacements or retrofits, the contrary information presented by the SCAQMD regarding costs for the same type of engines, and the significantly lower NOX emission levels achieved in practice in the South Coast area, as well as the lower NOX limits for similar engines required in SIP-approved rules for both the Feather River area and the SJV, we find the District’s analyses in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan insufficient to demonstrate that the plan includes MSM for NOX emissions from IC engines used in agricultural operations. Third, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not adequately demonstrate that it includes MSM for NOX emissions from container glass melting furnaces in the SJV. SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, as amended May 19, 2011, establishes a NOX emission limit of 1.5 pounds of NOX per ton (lbs NOX/ton) of glass pulled, over a 30-day rolling average.26 Under the SCAQMD’s Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) Program, the SCAQMD determined in 2000 that a NOX limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/ton of glass pulled represented Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) 27 for glass melting furnaces, and in 2015 the SCAQMD determined that a lower NOX limit of 0.24 lbs NOX/ton of glass pulled represents BARCT for this source category based on use of SCR or the ‘‘Ultra Cat ceramic filter system,’’ which the SCAQMD found is guaranteed to achieve an 80% NOX reduction and has been installed or is under construction at 12 glass manufacturing locations worldwide.28 The Owens-Brockway Glass Container facility, which manufactures clear and colored beer bottles, is the only glass melting facility currently operating in the South Coast area.29 At the EPA’s request, the SCAQMD provided continuous 26 SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 (amended May 19, 2011), section 5.1. 27 BARCT is defined as ‘‘an emission limitation that is based on the maximum degree of reduction achievable taking into account environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or category of source.’’ California Health & Safety Code Section 40406. 28 The RECLAIM program requires that container glass melting facilities achieve NOX reductions consistent with the 2015 BARCT determination (0.24 lbs NOX/ton of glass pulled) by 2022. SCAQMD Rule 2002 (as amended December 4, 2015), subparagraph (f)(1)(L) and Table 6 (‘‘RECLAIM NOX 2022 Ending Emission Factors’’); see also SCAQMD, Draft Final Staff Report, ‘‘Proposed Amendments to Regulation XX, Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM), NOX RECLAIM,’’ December 4, 2015, at pp. 170–171. 29 Email dated May 13, 2016, from Kevin Orellana (SCAQMD) to Idalia Perez (EPA) regarding ‘‘question regarding SCAQMD boilers and container glass facility;’’ see also email dated April 28, 2016, from Kevin Orellana (SCAQMD) to Idalia Perez (EPA) regarding ‘‘question regarding SCAQMD boilers and container glass facility.’’ PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 69399 emission monitoring system (CEMS) data from February 2015 for the OwensBrockway facility. The CEMS data shows that the facility operated at approximately 90% production capacity and consistently emitted below 0.72 lbs NOX/ton of glass pulled during that month, using oxyfuel firing to control NOX emissions.30 According to the SJVUAPCD, NOX emissions from glass melting facilities operating oxyfuel or SCR systems can vary widely depending on multiple factors, including the stability of the glass pull rate and the condition and age of the furnace refractory and insulation.31 The SJVUAPCD states that glass melting facilities in the SJV manufacture a large variety of sizes and shapes of still and sparkling wine glass bottles and often must respond to fluctuating demands in the wine industry, which require operators to use their furnaces in a manner that results in a less stable pull rate compared to facilities located in the South Coast, which mainly produce beer bottles. Additionally, according to the SJVUAPCD, as furnaces age the refractory is not as effective at retaining heat in the furnace and the burner fire rate must be increased over time to maintain the same overall furnace and glass temperature, which increases NOX emissions on a lb/ton basis. The District states that all of these factors result in varied NOX emission rates depending on production conditions, furnace age, and furnace design.32 The District did not, however, submit or reference any technical documentation to support its conclusions about the feasibility of lower NOX emission limits for glass melting furnaces in the SJV. Given the absence of a technical basis for the SJVUAPCD’s conclusions about the feasibility of more stringent controls for glass melting furnaces, and the available information from the SCAQMD about significantly lower NOX emission levels that have been achieved in practice both in the South Coast and elsewhere, we find the District’s analyses in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan insufficient to demonstrate that the plan includes MSM for NOX emissions from container glass melting furnaces. Finally, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not adequately demonstrate that the State and District reevaluated, for potential adoption, control measures rejected 30 Email dated April 13, 2016, from Kevin Orellana (SCAQMD) to Idalia Perez (EPA) regarding ‘‘question regarding SCAQMD boilers and container glass facility.’’ 31 Email dated April 27, 2016, from Sheraz Gill (SJVUAPCD) to Andrew Steckel (EPA) regarding ‘‘Additional SJV info.’’ 32 Id. E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 69400 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES during the State’s and District’s development of the previous attainment plan for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area (the ‘‘2008 PM2.5 Plan’’) 33 in accordance with the EPA’s longstanding interpretation of the MSM requirement. As explained in our proposed rule, given the strategy in the nonattainment provisions of the Act to offset longer attainment time frames with more stringent control requirements, the EPA interprets the MSM provision to assure that additional controls that can feasibly be implemented in the area beyond the set of measures adopted as BACM are implemented. Two ways to do this are (1) to require that more sources and source categories be subject to MSM analysis than to BACM analysis and controlled as necessary—i.e., by expanding the applicability provisions in the MSM control requirements to cover more sources, and (2) to require reanalysis of any measures adopted in other areas that were rejected during the BACM analysis because they could not be implemented by the BACM implementation deadline to see if they are now feasible for the area given the longer attainment timeframe.34 In this case, because CARB submitted both the BACM demonstration required under CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) and the MSM demonstration required under CAA section 188(e) simultaneously, we compared the BACM and MSM analyses in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan with the previous RACM analysis carried out by the District to support the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The 2015 PM2.5 Plan identifies four District control measures not included in the RACM control strategy that the EPA approved as part of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.35 Collectively, these four District measures are projected to achieve a total of 0.0357 tpd of NOX emission reductions and 3.3 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions by 2018 and to achieve a total of 0.4011 tpd of NOX emission reductions and 2.0 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions by 33 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011) (final rule approving most elements of 2008 PM2.5 Plan). 34 81 FR 6936, 6941 (February 9, 2016); see also EPA, Final Rule, ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements,’’ 81 FR 58010, 58096–58097 (August 24, 2016). 35 81 FR at 6973–6975 (February 9, 2016). The four District control measures are: (1) Rule 4308 (‘‘Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 0.075 to <2 MMBtu/hr’’), as amended November 14, 2013; (2) an enforceable commitment to amend Rule 4692 (‘‘Commercial Charbroiling’’) in 2016 to add requirements for under-fired charbroilers; (3) Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters’’), as amended September 18, 2014; and (4) Rule 4905 (‘‘Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Residential Central Furnaces’’), as amended January 22, 2015. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 2020.36 The MSM evaluation in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan provides little discussion of actions to either expand the applicability provisions in the RACM control measures to cover more sources, or to reanalyze measures that were rejected during the previous RACM analysis to see if they are now feasible for the area given the longer attainment timeframe (i.e., the extended attainment dates requested by the State). While the Plan provides the District’s conclusions that its existing SIP control measures satisfy BACM and MSM requirements and that no additional control measures are feasible, it provides limited technical support for these conclusions.37 We note that many of the SJVUAPCD rules that the 2015 PM2.5 Plan relies on to address the MSM requirement have not been revised in many years 38 and that the State and District should conduct a more comprehensive evaluation of potential measures to strengthen these regulations, subject to notice-andcomment rulemaking, to ensure expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. In light of the deficiencies in the MSM analyses, we find that the State and District have not demonstrated to the EPA’s satisfaction that the 2015 PM2.5 Plan includes the most stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan of any state or are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented in the area, in accordance with the requirements of CAA section 188(e). For these reasons, the EPA is denying CARB’s request for extension of the December 31, 2015 Serious area attainment date under CAA section 188(e) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. We note that the EPA had proposed to grant the State’s requested extension of the Serious area attainment date in the SJV for the reasons explained in our February 9, 2016 proposed action on the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. Public comments on our proposal, however, presented information indicating that our proposal to grant the requested extension would not be consistent with the requirements of the Act. Our proposal to grant the State’s request for extension of the Serious area attainment date raised the question as to whether the 2015 PM2.5 36 Id. at 6975, Table 9. 37 See generally 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C (BACM and MSM for Stationary and Area Sources). 38 See, e.g., 2015 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C–106 to C–114 (discussing SJVUAPCD Rule 4550, as adopted August 19, 2004); pp. C–194 to C–197 (discussing SJVUAPCD Rule 8061, as amended August 19, 2004); and pp. C–275 to C–278 (discussing SJVUAPCD Rule 4565, as adopted March 15, 2007). PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Plan satisfied the minimum criteria in CAA section 188(e) for such extensions. Implicit in any such proposal to grant an extension requested by a state is the possibility that the EPA may decide to deny the extension, after considering public comments. Because our February 9, 2016 proposed rule provided adequate notice of both the possibility that the EPA would grant the State’s request for extension of the attainment date for the SJV and the possibility that the EPA would deny this request, we are not providing additional opportunity for comment before this final action takes effect. The EPA is taking final action only to deny the State’s requested extension of the attainment date for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and is not finalizing its proposed actions on other elements of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan at 81 FR 6936 (February 9, 2016) at this time. The EPA will take final action on the remaining portions of the submitted 2015 PM2.5 Plan, as appropriate, in a subsequent rulemaking. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 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. E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking. 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. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) 17:57 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 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 December 5, 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 dioxide. Dated: September 23, 2016. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. [FR Doc. 2016–24082 Filed 10–5–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0121; FRL–9951–90] 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) Dichlormid; Pesticide Tolerances Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of dichlormid in or on all commodities for which there is a tolerance for metolachlor and Smetolachlor. Drexel Chemical Company SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 69401 requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This regulation is effective October 6, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 5, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0121, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Acting Director, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; main telephone number: (703) 305– 7090; email address: RDFRNotices@ epa.gov. DATES: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). B. How can I get electronic access to other related information? You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA’s tolerance E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM 06OCR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69396-69401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24082]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0432; FRL-9953-66-Region 9]


Denial of Request for Extension of Attainment Date for 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS; California; San Joaquin Valley Serious Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is denying a request 
submitted by California for extension of the attainment date for the 
1997 24-hour and annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 
national ambient air quality standards in the San Joaquin Valley 
Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0432 
for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-
3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at 
the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-
volume reports), and some may not be available in either location 
(e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard 
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business 
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region 9, (415) 972-3227, mays.rory@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Final Action on Section 188(e) Extension Request
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On February 9, 2016, the EPA proposed to approve, conditionally 
approve, and disapprove state implementation plan (SIP) revisions 
submitted by California (the ``State'' or California Air Resources 
Board (CARB)) to address Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requirements 
for the 1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5 national ambient air 
quality standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Serious 
PM2.5 nonattainment area.\1\ The SIP revisions on which we 
proposed action are the ``2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 
Standard,'' which the State submitted on June 25, 2015, and the ``2018 
Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley 
PM2.5 SIP, Plan Supplement,'' submitted on August 13, 2015. 
We refer to these SIP submissions collectively as the ``2015 
PM2.5 Plan'' or ``the Plan.'' The 2015 PM2.5 Plan 
is a PM2.5 Serious area attainment plan for the SJV and 
includes a request to extend the applicable attainment date for the 24-
hour and annual PM2.5 standards by three and five years, 
respectively, on the basis that attainment by December 31, 2015 is 
impracticable, in accordance with CAA section 188(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 81 FR 6936 (February 9, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed to approve the following elements of the Plan as 
satisfying applicable CAA requirements: (1) The 2012 base year 
emissions inventories; (2) the best available control measures (BACM)/
best available control technology demonstration; (3) the attainment 
demonstration; (4) the reasonable further progress demonstration; (5) 
the State's application for an extension of the Serious area attainment 
date to December 31, 2018 for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 
and to December 31, 2020 for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; 
(6) the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (the 
``District''

[[Page 69397]]

or SJVUAPCD) commitment to amend and implement revisions to SJVUAPCD 
Rule 4692 (``Commercial Charbroiling'') for under-fired charbroilers on 
a specific schedule; and (7) the motor vehicle emissions budgets for 
2014, 2017, 2018, and 2020. Additionally, the EPA proposed to approve 
the Plan's inter-pollutant trading mechanism for use in transportation 
conformity analyses, with the condition that trades are limited to 
substituting excess reductions in emissions of nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) for direct PM2.5 emission reductions.
    The EPA proposed to conditionally approve the Plan's quantitative 
milestones based on a commitment by the State to adopt specific 
enforceable measures by a date certain but not later than one year 
after the date of the Plan approval, consistent with CAA section 
110(k)(4). Finally, the EPA proposed to disapprove the Plan's 
contingency measures for failure to satisfy the requirements of CAA 
section 172(c)(9).
    Section 188(e) of the CAA provides the Administrator with 
discretionary authority to grant a state's request for an extension of 
a Serious area attainment date where certain conditions are met. Before 
the EPA may extend the attainment date for a Serious area under section 
188(e), the State must: (1) Apply for an extension of the attainment 
date beyond the statutory attainment date; (2) demonstrate that 
attainment by the statutory attainment date is impracticable; (3) have 
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area 
in the implementation plan; (4) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
Administrator that the plan for the area includes the ``most stringent 
measures'' that are included in the implementation plan of any state or 
are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented 
in the area; and (5) submit a demonstration of attainment by the most 
expeditious alternative date practicable.\2\ The EPA's determination of 
whether such a plan provides for attainment by the most expeditious 
date practicable depends on whether the plan provides for 
implementation of BACM no later than the statutory implementation 
deadline, the most stringent measures (MSM) as expeditiously as 
practicable, and any other technologically and economically feasible 
measures that will result in attainment as expeditiously as 
practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id. at 6940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the strategy in the nonattainment provisions of the Act to 
offset longer attainment time frames with more stringent control 
requirements, the EPA interprets the MSM provision to assure that 
additional controls that can feasibly be implemented in the area beyond 
the set of measures adopted as BACM are implemented. Two ways to do 
this are (1) to require that more sources and source categories be 
subject to MSM analysis than to BACM analysis and controlled as 
necessary--i.e., by expanding the applicability provisions in the MSM 
control requirements to cover more sources, and (2) to require 
reanalysis of any measures adopted in other areas that were rejected 
during the BACM analysis because they could not be implemented by the 
BACM implementation deadline to see if they are now feasible for the 
area given the longer attainment timeframe.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. at 6941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA provided a 30-day period for public comment on the proposed 
rule and received comment letters from Mr. Paul Cort, on behalf of 
Earthjustice, and from Mr. Shawn Dolan. The comments from Earthjustice 
primarily argued that the control measure analysis in the Plan for 
several sources categories, including ammonia emission sources, glass 
melting furnaces, and internal combustion engines used in agricultural 
operations, fail to satisfy CAA requirements. The comments from Mr. 
Shawn Dolan argued that EPA Method 9 should be phased out in favor of 
other methods for evaluating visible emissions such as the Digital 
Camera Opacity Technique (DCOT).

II. Final Action on Section 188(e) Extension Request

    Based on our reevaluation of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan and 
related control measures and consideration of the comments we received, 
the EPA is denying CARB's request for extension of the December 31, 
2015 Serious area attainment date for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 
in the SJV. As explained in our proposed rule, one of the minimum 
criteria for extension of an attainment date under CAA section 188(e) 
is that the state demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator 
that the plan for the area includes the most stringent measures that 
are included in the implementation plan of any state or are achieved in 
practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented in the area. For 
a number of source categories, CARB and the SJVUAPCD have demonstrated 
that the SIP includes the most stringent measures required or achieved 
in practice in other areas. For the following reasons, however, we find 
that CARB and the SJVUAPCD have not demonstrated to the EPA's 
satisfaction that the plan for the SJV area includes all MSM that can 
feasibly be implemented in the area.
    First, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not adequately 
demonstrate that it includes MSM for sources of ammonia emissions in 
the SJV.\4\ As explained in our proposed rule, three source categories 
collectively emitted 95% of all ammonia emissions in the 2012 annual 
average base year inventory for the SJV area: Confined animal 
facilities (CAFs), composting operations, and fertilizer 
application.\5\ The 2015 PM2.5 Plan states that three SIP-
approved rules designed to limit volatile organic compound (VOC) 
emissions also control ammonia emissions from two of these source 
categories (i.e., CAFs and composting operations) but does not 
substantiate these conclusions. For example, according to the 2015 
PM2.5 Plan, many of the VOC control measures in SJVUAPCD 
Rule 4570 (``Confined Animal Facilities''), as amended October 21, 
2010, have an ammonia ``co-benefit,'' and these measures have reduced 
ammonia emissions in the SJV by over 100 tons per day (tpd).\6\ The 
2015 PM2.5 Plan does not, however, specifically identify any 
enforceable requirement in SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 that reduces ammonia 
emissions from CAF operations, nor does it substantiate its calculation 
of ammonia emission reductions attributed to SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 other 
than by reference to an outdated analysis from 2006.\7\ Moreover, a 
number of provisions in SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 allow CAF owners/operators 
to implement ``alternative mitigation

[[Page 69398]]

measures'' \8\ in lieu of the mitigation measures listed in the rule, 
without any requirement to ensure that such alternative mitigation 
measures achieve any particular level of ammonia emission 
reductions.\9\ We find these analyses in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan 
insufficient to demonstrate that the plan includes MSM for ammonia 
emissions from CAFs in the SJV. Because emissions from CAFs account for 
more than half of all ammonia emissions in the SJV,\10\ a more robust 
analysis of potential ammonia emission reduction measures for this 
source category is necessary to satisfy the MSM requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As we explained in our proposed rule, the EPA does not agree 
at this time with the State's and District's conclusion in the Plan 
that ammonia emissions do not contribute significantly to 
PM2.5 levels exceeding the PM2.5 standards in 
the SJV. 81 FR 6936, 6948 (February 9, 2016). Accordingly, 
consistent with the regulatory presumption under subpart 4 of part 
D, title I of the Act, ammonia emission sources are subject to 
control evaluation for purposes of implementing the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
    \5\ 81 FR 6936, 6978 (February 9, 2016); see also 2015 
PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-239.
    \6\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-239 to C-240.
    \7\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-239 to C-275 
and SJVUAPCD, ``Final Draft Staff Report, Proposed Re-Adoption of 
Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities),'' June 18, 2009, at Appendix 
F, ``Ammonia Reductions Analysis for Proposed Rule 4570 (Confined 
Animal Facilities),'' June 15, 2006 (discussing various assumptions 
underlying the District's calculation of ammonia emission factors 
without identifying relevant emissions inventories). We note that 
CARB has provided the EPA with significantly lower estimates of 
ammonia emission reductions achieved by SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 based on 
more recent calculations of reductions from a 2012 baseline 
emissions inventory. Email dated September 3, 2015, from Gabe Ruiz 
(CARB) to Larry Biland and Andrew Steckel (EPA), regarding ``SJV 
Livestock Ammonia Emissions with and without Rule 4570.''
    \8\ ``Alternative Mitigation Measure'' is defined in SJVUAPCD 
Rule 4570 as ``a mitigation measure that is determined by the APCO, 
ARB, 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. Because SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 explicitly applies 
only to VOC emissions, the requirement for equivalent ``reductions'' 
in section 3.4 applies only to VOC emission reductions and does not 
apply to ammonia emission reductions.
    \9\ See, e.g., SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended October 21, 2010) at 
section 5.6, Table 4.1.F.
    \10\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, pp. B-17 and B-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan states that SJVUAPCD Rule 
4565 (``Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations''), as 
adopted March 15, 2007, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4566 (``Organic Material 
Composting Operations''), as adopted August 18, 2011, limit ammonia 
emissions from composting operations but does not specifically identify 
any enforceable requirement in either of these rules that reduces 
ammonia emissions, nor does it identify a basis for the District's 
statement that ``the [ammonia] control efficiencies are assumed to be 
the same as the VOC control efficiencies . . . since the same control 
measures will reduce both VOC and [ammonia] from these operations.'' 
\11\ By contrast, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 
Rule 1133.2 (``Emission Reductions from Co-Composting Operations''), as 
adopted January 10, 2003, and SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 (``Emission Reductions 
from Greenwaste Composting Operations''), as adopted July 8, 2011, both 
contain specific requirements to reduce ammonia emissions and, in some 
cases, to achieve an overall ammonia emission reduction of at least 80% 
by weight from specified baseline levels.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-271 to C-278.
    \12\ SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 (adopted January 10, 2003), section (d) 
and SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 (adopted July 8, 2011), section (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to fertilizer application, the 2015 PM2.5 
Plan discusses ongoing research on improved methods of fertilizer 
application to maximize nitrogen use efficiency and minimize air and 
water quality impacts and states that ``the weight of evidence suggests 
that managing nutrient applications to fields . . . has significantly 
reduced losses of nitrogen compounds to the environment, including 
leaching of nitrogen compounds to groundwater and air emissions such as 
ammonia and nitrous oxide.'' \13\ The 2015 PM2.5 Plan does 
not, however, provide any specific analysis of potential control 
measures to reduce ammonia emissions from fertilizer application or 
identify any enforceable SIP requirement that reduces ammonia emissions 
from this source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-268 to C-271.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan fails to identify any 
specific, enforceable requirement to reduce ammonia emissions in the 
SIP for the area and does not demonstrate that the State or District 
adequately considered potential control measures to expand or 
strengthen the reasonably available control measure (RACM) strategy for 
ammonia emission sources.\14\ We therefore find the District's analyses 
in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan insufficient to demonstrate that the 
plan includes MSM for ammonia emission sources in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The SJVUAPCD's Moderate area plan for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS, adopted in 2012, relies upon the same SIP-
approved VOC control measures to satisfy RACM requirements for these 
NAAQS. See EPA, Final Rule, ``Approval and Promulgation of Air 
Quality State Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; 
Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' August 16, 
2016 (pre-publication notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not adequately 
demonstrate that it includes MSM for NOX emissions from 
internal combustion engines used in agricultural operations in the SJV. 
SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, regulates 
NOX emissions from two types of agricultural internal 
combustion (IC) engines rated at 25 brake horsepower (bhp) or greater: 
Spark-ignited (SI) engines and compression-ignited (CI) engines.\15\ 
For SI engines used in agricultural operations, the rule establishes 
NOX emission limits of 90 parts per million by volume (ppmv) 
for rich-burn engines and 150 ppmv for lean-burn engines.\16\ For CI 
engines used in agricultural operations, Rule 4702 requires compliance 
by specified dates with EPA Tier 3 or Tier 4 NOX emission 
standards for non-road CI engines in 40 CFR part 89 or part 1039, as 
applicable, or an 80 ppmv NOX emission limit, depending on 
engine type.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 (amended November 14, 2013), sections 
2.0 and 5.2.
    \16\ Id. at section 5.2.3 and Table 3.
    \17\ Id. at section 5.2.4 and Table 4 and section 3.37 (defining 
Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 engines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, by contrast, establishes an 11 ppmv 
NOX emission limit for all stationary SI and CI engines 
rated over 50 bhp, effective July 1, 2011, with limited exceptions for 
agricultural engines that meet certain conditions.\18\ According to the 
SCAQMD, three natural gas-fired SI engines used in agricultural 
operations are currently subject to the 11 ppmv NOX emission 
limit in Rule 1110.2 and use nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR, 
also called ``three-way catalysts'') control technology to comply with 
this emission limit.\19\ The Feather River Air Quality Management 
District (FRAQMD) Rule 3.22, as amended October 6, 2014, establishes 
NOX emission limits of 25 parts per million (ppm) and 65 ppm 
for rich-burn and lean-burn agricultural engines in southern FRAQMD, 
respectively, except for agricultural engines that emit less than 50% 
of the major source thresholds for regulated air pollutants and/or 
hazardous air pollutants.\20\ The NOX emission limits for 
agricultural engines in SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 and FRAQMD Rule 3.22 are 
significantly more stringent than the 90 ppmv and 150 ppmv limits 
applicable to agricultural

[[Page 69399]]

engines in SJVUAPCD Rule 4702. Moreover, SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 itself 
establishes NOX emission limits for IC engines used in other 
(non-agricultural) operations that range from 11 to 50 ppmv for rich-
burn engines and 11 to 75 ppmv for lean-burn engines, depending on type 
of fuel and use.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 (amended February 1, 2008), section 
(d)(1) (referencing Tables I and II). Rule 1110.2 provides an 
exemption from the 11 ppmv emission limit for agricultural engines 
that meet EPA Tier 4 emission standards and either of two additional 
conditions: (1) The engine operator submits documentation to the 
SCAQMD, by the deadline for a permit application, that the 
applicable electric utility has rejected an application for an 
electrical line extension to the location of the engines, or (2) the 
SCAQMD determines that the operator does not qualify for funding 
under California Health and Safety Code Section 44229 to replace, 
retrofit or repower the engine. SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 at section 
(h)(9).
    \19\ Email dated May 3, 2016, from Kevin Orellana (SCAQMD) to 
Nicole Law (EPA), regarding ``Question on Engines under Rule 
1110.2.''
    \20\ FRAQMD Rule 3.22 (amended October 6, 2014), section D.1, 
Table 2 (South FRAQMD Emission Limits) and section B.1.e 
(Exemptions). As of June 2016, staff at the FRAQMD were unaware of 
any stationary SI engines currently operating at agricultural 
facilities in the Feather River area that have demonstrated 
compliance with the 25 ppm or 65 ppm NOX emission limits 
in FRAQMD Rule 3.22. See email dated June 2, 2016, from Alamjit 
Mangat (FRAQMD) to Nicole Law (EPA), regarding ``Engines in FRAQMD'' 
(stating that all 423 agricultural engines currently operating in 
the Feather River area qualify for an exemption from the 
NOX emission limits in FRAQMD Rule 3.22). Nonetheless, 
because these NOX emission limits are approved into the 
California SIP as part of an earlier version of FRAQMD Rule 3.22 
(see 77 FR 12493, March 1, 2012), they are required as MSM if they 
can feasibly be implemented in the SJV.
    \21\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 (amended November 14, 2013), section 
5.2.1. Table 1 and section 5.2.2. Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Appendix C of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, the SJVUAPCD 
estimated the following costs of replacing agricultural SI engines: 
$76,209 per ton to replace a lean-burn engine to meet an 11 ppmv 
NOX limit; $42,146 per ton to replace a lean-burn engine to 
meet a 65 ppmv NOX limit; $59,754 per ton to replace a rich-
burn engine to meet an 11 ppmv NOX limit; and $69,521 per 
ton to replace a rich-burn engine to meet a 25 ppmv NOX 
limit.\22\ The District subsequently submitted additional information 
indicating that the cost of replacing a lean-burn engine to meet 65 
ppmv or 25 ppmv NOX limits would be the same as the 
replacement cost to meet an 11 ppmv NOX limit ($76,209 per 
ton), as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) would be necessary for a 
lean-burn engine to meet any of these limits, and indicating that the 
cost of replacing a rich-burn engine to meet a 65 ppmv NOX 
limit would also be the same as the replacement cost to meet 25 ppmv or 
11 ppmv NOX limits ($59,754 or $69,521 per ton), as three-
way catalysts (NSCR) would be necessary for a rich-burn engine to meet 
any of these limits.\23\ The SJVUAPCD did not, however, identify the 
bases for any of these cost estimates or submit related technical 
documentation. At the EPA's request, the SJVUAPCD provided additional 
information about the technological and economic feasibility of IC 
engine retrofits to meet lower NOX limits but similarly did 
not identify the bases for its cost estimates or provide any related 
technical documentation.\24\ Moreover, according to the SCAQMD, the 
cost-effectiveness of replacing an agricultural SI engine ranges from 
$5,650 to $29,000 per ton of NOX reduced and, for most 
engine categories, is below $20,000 per ton.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-132 to C-139.
    \23\ Email dated April 27, 2016, from Sheraz Gill (SJVUAPCD) to 
Andrew Steckel (EPA), regarding ``Additional SJV info.''
    \24\ Email dated June 25, 2015, from Sheraz Gill (SJVUAPCD) to 
Andrew Steckel (EPA), regarding ``Requested Information.''
    \25\ Email dated May 3, 2016, from Kevin Orellana (SCAQMD) to 
Nicole Law (EPA), regarding ``Question on Engines under Rule 
1110.2.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the absence of a technical basis for the SJVUAPCD's cost 
estimates for engine replacements or retrofits, the contrary 
information presented by the SCAQMD regarding costs for the same type 
of engines, and the significantly lower NOX emission levels 
achieved in practice in the South Coast area, as well as the lower 
NOX limits for similar engines required in SIP-approved 
rules for both the Feather River area and the SJV, we find the 
District's analyses in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan insufficient to 
demonstrate that the plan includes MSM for NOX emissions 
from IC engines used in agricultural operations.
    Third, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not adequately 
demonstrate that it includes MSM for NOX emissions from 
container glass melting furnaces in the SJV. SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, as 
amended May 19, 2011, establishes a NOX emission limit of 
1.5 pounds of NOX per ton (lbs NOX/ton) of glass 
pulled, over a 30-day rolling average.\26\ Under the SCAQMD's Regional 
Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) Program, the SCAQMD determined in 
2000 that a NOX limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/ton of glass 
pulled represented Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) 
\27\ for glass melting furnaces, and in 2015 the SCAQMD determined that 
a lower NOX limit of 0.24 lbs NOX/ton of glass 
pulled represents BARCT for this source category based on use of SCR or 
the ``Ultra Cat ceramic filter system,'' which the SCAQMD found is 
guaranteed to achieve an 80% NOX reduction and has been 
installed or is under construction at 12 glass manufacturing locations 
worldwide.\28\ The Owens-Brockway Glass Container facility, which 
manufactures clear and colored beer bottles, is the only glass melting 
facility currently operating in the South Coast area.\29\ At the EPA's 
request, the SCAQMD provided continuous emission monitoring system 
(CEMS) data from February 2015 for the Owens-Brockway facility. The 
CEMS data shows that the facility operated at approximately 90% 
production capacity and consistently emitted below 0.72 lbs 
NOX/ton of glass pulled during that month, using oxyfuel 
firing to control NOX emissions.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 (amended May 19, 2011), section 5.1.
    \27\ BARCT is defined as ``an emission limitation that is based 
on the maximum degree of reduction achievable taking into account 
environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or 
category of source.'' California Health & Safety Code Section 40406.
    \28\ The RECLAIM program requires that container glass melting 
facilities achieve NOX reductions consistent with the 
2015 BARCT determination (0.24 lbs NOX/ton of glass 
pulled) by 2022. SCAQMD Rule 2002 (as amended December 4, 2015), 
subparagraph (f)(1)(L) and Table 6 (``RECLAIM NOX 2022 
Ending Emission Factors''); see also SCAQMD, Draft Final Staff 
Report, ``Proposed Amendments to Regulation XX, Regional Clean Air 
Incentives Market (RECLAIM), NOX RECLAIM,'' December 4, 
2015, at pp. 170-171.
    \29\ Email dated May 13, 2016, from Kevin Orellana (SCAQMD) to 
Idalia Perez (EPA) regarding ``question regarding SCAQMD boilers and 
container glass facility;'' see also email dated April 28, 2016, 
from Kevin Orellana (SCAQMD) to Idalia Perez (EPA) regarding 
``question regarding SCAQMD boilers and container glass facility.''
    \30\ Email dated April 13, 2016, from Kevin Orellana (SCAQMD) to 
Idalia Perez (EPA) regarding ``question regarding SCAQMD boilers and 
container glass facility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the SJVUAPCD, NOX emissions from glass 
melting facilities operating oxyfuel or SCR systems can vary widely 
depending on multiple factors, including the stability of the glass 
pull rate and the condition and age of the furnace refractory and 
insulation.\31\ The SJVUAPCD states that glass melting facilities in 
the SJV manufacture a large variety of sizes and shapes of still and 
sparkling wine glass bottles and often must respond to fluctuating 
demands in the wine industry, which require operators to use their 
furnaces in a manner that results in a less stable pull rate compared 
to facilities located in the South Coast, which mainly produce beer 
bottles. Additionally, according to the SJVUAPCD, as furnaces age the 
refractory is not as effective at retaining heat in the furnace and the 
burner fire rate must be increased over time to maintain the same 
overall furnace and glass temperature, which increases NOX 
emissions on a lb/ton basis. The District states that all of these 
factors result in varied NOX emission rates depending on 
production conditions, furnace age, and furnace design.\32\ The 
District did not, however, submit or reference any technical 
documentation to support its conclusions about the feasibility of lower 
NOX emission limits for glass melting furnaces in the SJV. 
Given the absence of a technical basis for the SJVUAPCD's conclusions 
about the feasibility of more stringent controls for glass melting 
furnaces, and the available information from the SCAQMD about 
significantly lower NOX emission levels that have been 
achieved in practice both in the South Coast and elsewhere, we find the 
District's analyses in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan insufficient to 
demonstrate that the plan includes MSM for NOX emissions 
from container glass melting furnaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Email dated April 27, 2016, from Sheraz Gill (SJVUAPCD) to 
Andrew Steckel (EPA) regarding ``Additional SJV info.''
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not adequately 
demonstrate that the State and District reevaluated, for potential 
adoption, control measures rejected

[[Page 69400]]

during the State's and District's development of the previous 
attainment plan for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area 
(the ``2008 PM2.5 Plan'') \33\ in accordance with the EPA's 
longstanding interpretation of the MSM requirement. As explained in our 
proposed rule, given the strategy in the nonattainment provisions of 
the Act to offset longer attainment time frames with more stringent 
control requirements, the EPA interprets the MSM provision to assure 
that additional controls that can feasibly be implemented in the area 
beyond the set of measures adopted as BACM are implemented. Two ways to 
do this are (1) to require that more sources and source categories be 
subject to MSM analysis than to BACM analysis and controlled as 
necessary--i.e., by expanding the applicability provisions in the MSM 
control requirements to cover more sources, and (2) to require 
reanalysis of any measures adopted in other areas that were rejected 
during the BACM analysis because they could not be implemented by the 
BACM implementation deadline to see if they are now feasible for the 
area given the longer attainment timeframe.\34\ In this case, because 
CARB submitted both the BACM demonstration required under CAA section 
189(b)(1)(B) and the MSM demonstration required under CAA section 
188(e) simultaneously, we compared the BACM and MSM analyses in the 
2015 PM2.5 Plan with the previous RACM analysis carried out 
by the District to support the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011) (final rule approving most 
elements of 2008 PM2.5 Plan).
    \34\ 81 FR 6936, 6941 (February 9, 2016); see also EPA, Final 
Rule, ``Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements,'' 81 FR 58010, 
58096-58097 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2015 PM2.5 Plan identifies four District control 
measures not included in the RACM control strategy that the EPA 
approved as part of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.\35\ Collectively, 
these four District measures are projected to achieve a total of 0.0357 
tpd of NOX emission reductions and 3.3 tpd of direct 
PM2.5 emission reductions by 2018 and to achieve a total of 
0.4011 tpd of NOX emission reductions and 2.0 tpd of direct 
PM2.5 emission reductions by 2020.\36\ The MSM evaluation in 
the 2015 PM2.5 Plan provides little discussion of actions to 
either expand the applicability provisions in the RACM control measures 
to cover more sources, or to reanalyze measures that were rejected 
during the previous RACM analysis to see if they are now feasible for 
the area given the longer attainment timeframe (i.e., the extended 
attainment dates requested by the State). While the Plan provides the 
District's conclusions that its existing SIP control measures satisfy 
BACM and MSM requirements and that no additional control measures are 
feasible, it provides limited technical support for these 
conclusions.\37\ We note that many of the SJVUAPCD rules that the 2015 
PM2.5 Plan relies on to address the MSM requirement have not 
been revised in many years \38\ and that the State and District should 
conduct a more comprehensive evaluation of potential measures to 
strengthen these regulations, subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, 
to ensure expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 
the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 81 FR at 6973-6975 (February 9, 2016). The four District 
control measures are: (1) Rule 4308 (``Boilers, Steam Generators, 
and Process Heaters 0.075 to <2 MMBtu/hr''), as amended November 14, 
2013; (2) an enforceable commitment to amend Rule 4692 (``Commercial 
Charbroiling'') in 2016 to add requirements for under-fired 
charbroilers; (3) Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood 
Burning Heaters''), as amended September 18, 2014; and (4) Rule 4905 
(``Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Residential Central Furnaces''), as 
amended January 22, 2015.
    \36\ Id. at 6975, Table 9.
    \37\ See generally 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C (BACM 
and MSM for Stationary and Area Sources).
    \38\ See, e.g., 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-
106 to C-114 (discussing SJVUAPCD Rule 4550, as adopted August 19, 
2004); pp. C-194 to C-197 (discussing SJVUAPCD Rule 8061, as amended 
August 19, 2004); and pp. C-275 to C-278 (discussing SJVUAPCD Rule 
4565, as adopted March 15, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the deficiencies in the MSM analyses, we find that the 
State and District have not demonstrated to the EPA's satisfaction that 
the 2015 PM2.5 Plan includes the most stringent measures 
that are included in the implementation plan of any state or are 
achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented in 
the area, in accordance with the requirements of CAA section 188(e). 
For these reasons, the EPA is denying CARB's request for extension of 
the December 31, 2015 Serious area attainment date under CAA section 
188(e) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
    We note that the EPA had proposed to grant the State's requested 
extension of the Serious area attainment date in the SJV for the 
reasons explained in our February 9, 2016 proposed action on the 2015 
PM2.5 Plan. Public comments on our proposal, however, 
presented information indicating that our proposal to grant the 
requested extension would not be consistent with the requirements of 
the Act. Our proposal to grant the State's request for extension of the 
Serious area attainment date raised the question as to whether the 2015 
PM2.5 Plan satisfied the minimum criteria in CAA section 
188(e) for such extensions. Implicit in any such proposal to grant an 
extension requested by a state is the possibility that the EPA may 
decide to deny the extension, after considering public comments. 
Because our February 9, 2016 proposed rule provided adequate notice of 
both the possibility that the EPA would grant the State's request for 
extension of the attainment date for the SJV and the possibility that 
the EPA would deny this request, we are not providing additional 
opportunity for comment before this final action takes effect.
    The EPA is taking final action only to deny the State's requested 
extension of the attainment date for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 
the SJV and is not finalizing its proposed actions on other elements of 
the 2015 PM2.5 Plan at 81 FR 6936 (February 9, 2016) at this 
time. The EPA will take final action on the remaining portions of the 
submitted 2015 PM2.5 Plan, as appropriate, in a subsequent 
rulemaking.

III. 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 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.

[[Page 69401]]

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 December 5, 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 dioxide.

    Dated: September 23, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2016-24082 Filed 10-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P