propose to determine that at this time VOC emissions do not contribute
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels which exceed the 1997
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and, therefore,
that VOCs may be excluded from the State's evaluation of potential
control measures for purposes of these standards in this area.
Consistent with the statutory requirements under subpart 4, all other
PM2.5 precursors (i.e., NOX, SO2, and
ammonia) must be included in the State's evaluation of potential
control measures for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area,
including nonattainment NSR provisions to

implement the requirements of subpart 4.\139\ We discuss the State's
evaluation of potential control measures for NOX,
SO2, and ammonia, as well as direct PM2.5, in
section V.D. of this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ Absent a demonstration to EPA's satisfaction that major
stationary sources of ammonia emissions do not contribute
significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the
NAAQS in the SJV area, under CAA section 189(e) major stationary
sources of ammonia are subject to the control requirements that
apply to major stationary sources of direct PM2.5,
including nonattainment NSR requirements. We intend to evaluate the
adequacy of the District's nonattainment NSR program for
PM2.5 upon submission of the NSR SIP revision due May 7,
2016, which is the date 12 months after EPA's reclassification of
the SJV as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
became effective. 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Best Available Control Measures and Most Stringent Measures

    As discussed in section IV.B of this proposed rule, section
189(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires for any serious PM2.5
nonattainment area that the State submit provisions to assure that the
best available control measures (BACM) for reducing emissions of
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors will be implemented no
later than four years after the date the area is reclassified as a
serious area. Because the EPA reclassified the SJV area as Serious
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS effective May 7,
2015, the date four years after reclassification is May 7, 2019. In
this case, however, the Serious area attainment date for the SJV area
under section 188(c) is no later than December 31, 2015, and to qualify
for an extension of this date under section 188(e) the State must,
among other things, demonstrate attainment by the most expeditious
alternative date practicable. Given these circumstances, we are
evaluating the Plan's control strategy for implementation of BACM as
expeditiously as practicable.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) establishes an outermost deadline
(``no later than four years after the date the area is
reclassified'') and does not preclude an earlier implementation
deadline for BACM where necessary to satisfy the attainment
requirements of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, before the EPA may extend the attainment date for a
Serious nonattainment area under CAA section 188(e), the State must,
among other things, 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 (MSM). As discussed above, we have established a process
for evaluating BACM in serious area plans and a similar process for
evaluating MSM. Because of the substantial overlap in the source
categories and controls evaluated for BACM and those evaluated for MSM,
we present our evaluation of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan's
provisions for including MSM alongside our evaluation of the Plan's
provisions for implementing BACM for each identified source category.
We provide a more detailed evaluation of many of the District's control
measures for stationary and area sources in our ``Technical Support
Document for the EPA's Evaluation of Fine Particulate Matter Best
Available Control Measures and Most Stringent Measures for the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District,'' January 2016 (``SJV
Rules TSD'').
1. Identifying the Sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5
Precursors
    The first step in determining BACM and MSM is to develop a detailed
emissions inventory of the sources of direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors that can be used with modeling to determine
the effects of these sources on ambient PM2.5 levels. The
EPA's past guidance on Serious area plans in the Addendum suggested
that the second step is to use modeling to identify those source
categories that have a greater than de minimis impact on ambient
PM2.5 concentrations.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ Addendum at 42012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section V.A of this proposed rule, Appendix B of
the 2015 PM2.5 Plan contains the planning inventories for
direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors
(NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia) for the SJV
PM2.5 nonattainment area together with documentation to
support these inventories. The District used available speciation data
to identify de minimis thresholds, also referred to in the Plan as
``significant emission levels,'' for direct PM2.5,
NOX, and SOX.\142\ Based on these thresholds,
which are described in Chapter 5 of the Plan, the District identified
the following six source categories as emission sources in the SJV that
emit pollutants at levels exceeding its selected de minimis thresholds
(i.e., ``significant'' source categories):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, section 5.4 (``De
Minimis Thresholds for Determining Significant Source Categories'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Open Burning;
    2. Glass Melting Furnaces;
    3. Agricultural Conservation Management Practices;
    4. Commercial Charbroiling;
    5. Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters; and
    6. Paved and Unpaved Roads.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ Id. at Table 5-2 (``Valley Source Category De Minimis
Determinations (using 2012 data)'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB identified most mobile source categories as ``significant''
and identified only several (e.g., cargo handling equipment,
motorcycles, recreational boats, off-road recreational vehicles and
commercial harbor craft) as de minimis source categories.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan at Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separately in Appendix C and Appendix D of the Plan, however, both
CARB and the District identified all of the sources of direct
PM2.5, NOX, SOX and ammonia in the SJV
that are subject to State or District emission control measures and
provided their evaluations of these regulations for compliance with
BACM and MSM requirements. Table 3 identifies the source categories in
SJV that are under State and District jurisdiction, each source
category's 2012 emissions of direct PM2.5, NOX,
and SOX in tons per day (tpd), and, for each source
category, the regulations that the State and District have relied on in
the Plan to satisfy BACM and MSM requirements.

                     Table 3--2015 PM2.5 Plan--Source Categories Evaluated for BACM and MSM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Rule No.    2012 PM2.5    2012 NOX     2012 SOX
                       Source category                         (if any) *     (tpd)        (tpd)        (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Stationary and Area Source Categories under District Jurisdiction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Burning................................................         4103         2.27         1.61         0.05
Reduction of Animal Matter..................................         4104         0.03         0.00         0.00
Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction Burning.............         4106         0.76         0.07         0.03
Particulate Matter Emissions from the Incineration of                4203         0.00         0.00         0.00
 Combustible Refuse.........................................
Cotton Gins.................................................         4204         0.22         0.00         0.00
Fuel Burning Equipment......................................         4301          N/A          N/A          N/A

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater than     4306/4320         1.27         1.93         0.60
 5.0 MMBtu/hr...............................................
Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters--2.0 to 5.0           4307         0.32         0.49         0.15
 MMBtu......................................................
Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters--0.075 to             4308         0.61         0.92         0.28
 less than 2.0 MMBtu........................................
Dryers, Dehydrators, and Ovens..............................         4309         0.85         0.20         0.47
Flares......................................................         4311         0.16         0.56         0.33
Lime Kilns..................................................         4313         0.00         0.00         0.00
Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process              4352         0.62         2.69         0.56
 Heaters....................................................
Glass Melting Furnaces......................................         4354         0.33         6.04         1.96
Conservation Management Practices...........................         4550
     Tilling Dust...................................  ...........         5.17         0.00         0.00
     Harvest Operations Dust........................  ...........         7.28         0.00         0.00
     Dust from Ag Lands (non-pasture)...............  ...........         6.15         0.00         0.00
     Dust from Pasture Lands........................  ...........         1.09         0.00         0.00
Commercial Charbroiling.....................................         4692         2.84         0.00         0.00
Internal Combustion Engines.................................         4702         0.49        13.06         0.12
Stationary Gas Turbines.....................................         4703         1.22         3.09         0.22
Sulfuric Acid Mist..........................................         4802         0.00         0.00         0.75
Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters............         4901         4.48         0.50         0.08
Residential Water Heaters...................................         4902         0.21         2.21         0.06
Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central Furnaces................         4905         0.20         2.46         0.06
General Requirements........................................         8011          N/A          N/A          N/A
Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other          8021         1.46         0.00         0.00
 Earthmoving Activities.....................................
Bulk Materials..............................................         8031         0.04         0.00         0.00
Carryout and Trackout (emission included in Paved and                8041          N/A          N/A          N/A
 Unpaved Roads, Rule 8061, below)...........................
Open Areas..................................................         8051         0.34         0.00         0.00
Paved and Unpaved Roads.....................................         8061         7.59         0.00         0.00
Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment Traffic Areas.....................         8071         0.59         0.00         0.00
Agricultural Sources........................................         8081         1.21         0.00         0.00
Lawn and Garden Equipment...................................       SC 001         0.04         0.58         0.00
Energy Efficiency...........................................       SC 002          N/A          N/A          N/A
Fireworks...................................................       SC 003          N/A          N/A          N/A
Sand and Gravel Operations..................................       SC 004         0.09         0.00         0.00
Asphalt/Concrete Operations (Mineral Processes).............       SC 005         0.82         0.20         0.36
Almond Hulling/Shelling Operations..........................       SC 006         0.38         0.00         0.00
Pistachio Hulling/Shelling Operations (emissions included in       SC 007          N/A          N/A          N/A
 Almond Hulling/Shelling above).............................
Agricultural Material Screening/Shaking Operations                 SC 008          N/A          N/A          N/A
 (emissions included in other control categories)...........
Tub Grinding (emissions included in IC engines, Rule 4702,         SC 009          N/A          N/A          N/A
 fugitive emissions accounted for in stationary and area
 inventory).................................................
Abrasive Blasting...........................................       SC 010         0.33         0.00         0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Mobile Source Categories under State Jurisdiction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicles.............................         (**)          1.9         32.2        (***)
Heavy-Duty Vehicles.........................................         (**)          4.8        138.6        (***)
Off-Road Vehicles and Engines (excludes Cargo Handling               (**)          1.1         19.2        (***)
 Equipment).................................................
Farm Equipment..............................................         (**)          2.9         50.4        (***)
Cargo Handling Equipment....................................         (**)          0.0          0.1        (***)
Other Mobile Sources........................................         (**)  ...........  ...........        (***)
     Motorcycles....................................  ...........          0.0          1.0
     Recreational Boats.............................  ...........          0.4          1.6
     Off-Road Recreational Vehicles.................  ...........          0.0          0.1
     Commercial Harbor Craft........................  ...........          0.0          0.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, Table 5-2; Appendix C (``BACM and MSM for Stationary Sources''); and
  Appendix D (``BACM and MSM for Mobile Sources''), except as otherwise noted.
* ``SC'' refers to a source category that is subject to either several District rules or none.
** See 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D for a discussion of the State measures that cover these mobile source
  categories.
*** See 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B (Emissions Inventory) for SOX emission levels.

    With respect to ammonia, the District states in Appendix C of the
2015 PM2.5 Plan that ammonia is an ``insignificant''
PM2.5 precursor in the SJV but also provides an analysis of
several SIP-approved District regulations that control ammonia
emissions.\145\ We provide our evaluation of these regulations below
and further in the EPA's SJV Rules TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, at pp. C-239 to C-
280.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the State and District have evaluated a much larger set of
emission sources than those identified as ``significant'' sources in
the Plan, and because the District's evaluation of de minimis
thresholds entirely excludes consideration of ammonia emission

sources, the EPA is not proposing any action with respect to the
District's selected de minimis thresholds for BACM and MSM purposes.
Instead, based on the Plan's more comprehensive evaluation of State and
District regulations that apply to stationary, area, and mobile sources
of direct PM2.5, NOX, SOX and ammonia
in the SJV, we propose to find that the 2015 PM2.5 Plan
appropriately identifies all emission sources and source categories
that must be subject to evaluation for potential control measures
consistent with the requirements of subpart 4.
2. Identification and Implementation of BACM and MSM
    As part of its process for identifying candidate BACM and MSM and
considering the technical and economic feasibility of additional
control measures, CARB and the District reviewed the EPA's guidance
documents on BACM, guidance documents on control measures for direct
PM2.5, NOX, and SOX emission sources,
and control measures implemented in other ozone and PM2.5
nonattainment areas in California and other states. The State's and
District's evaluations of potential BACM and MSM for each source
category identified in Table 3 above is found in Appendix C and
Appendix D of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. In the following
sections, we review key components of the State's and District's
demonstrations concerning BACM and MSM for sources of direct
PM2.5, NOX, SOX and ammonia emissions
in the SJV. We provide a more detailed evaluation of the District's
regulations in the EPA's SJV Rules TSD, together with recommendations
for improvements to these rules.
    Based on our evaluation of these State and District demonstrations,
we propose to determine that the 2015 PM2.5 Plan provides
for the implementation of BACM and MSM for sources of direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors as expeditiously as
practicable, in accordance with the requirements of CAA sections
189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e).
a. District Measures for Stationary and Area Sources
    The District's BACM and MSM process is described in the 2015
PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5, section 5.3 (``BACM/MSM Evaluation
Process'') and in Appendix C. The District followed a process similar
to that used by Arizona in the Maricopa County PM10 Serious
Area Plan, the only other air quality plan in the nation that includes
a BACM and MSM demonstration for purposes of requesting an attainment
date extension under CAA section 188(e).\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000) (proposed action on Maricopa
County Serious Area Plan); 66 FR 50252 (October 2, 2001) (proposed
action on Maricopa County Serious Area Plan); and 67 FR 48718 (July
25, 2002) (final action on Maricopa County Serious Area Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each identified source category, the District first identified
potential control measures included in SIPs for other areas, addressed
in federal regulations or guidance (e.g., control technique guidelines
(CTGs), alternative control techniques (ACTs), or new source
performance standards (NSPSs)), or addressed in state or local
regulations or guidance (e.g., Air Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs).\147\
The District evaluated these identified potential control measures to
determine whether implementation of the measures would be
technologically and economically feasible in the SJV.\148\ In addition,
the District considered other available control options (beyond those
included in other SIPs or identified in federal/state regulations or
guidance), such as measures that the State or District have previously
considered ``beyond RACT'' and measures that have been implemented in
practice in other areas. The District also evaluated these potential
control measures to determine whether their implementation would be
technologically and economically feasible in the SJV. The EPA's SJV
Rules TSD provides a more detailed evaluation of many of these District
regulations and our recommendations for rule improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 5; and Appendix C, pp.
C-4 to C-6.
    \148\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Open Burning
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 (``Open Burning''), as amended April 15, 2010,
is designed to minimize impacts of smoke and other air pollutants from
open burning of agricultural waste and other materials.\149\ The rule
restricts the type of materials that may be burned and establishes
other conditions and procedures for open burning in conjunction with
the District's Smoke Management Program.\150\ The EPA approved this
rule into the California SIP on January 4, 2012.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4103, as amended April 15,
2010; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-14 to
C-15.
    \150\ Id.
    \151\ 77 FR 214 (January 4, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District compared Rule 4103 to several other open burning rules
implemented in other parts of California and found no other rules more
stringent as a whole than those in Rule 4103. According to the
District, although the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) implements a rule that restricts burning on residential wood
combustion (RWC) curtailment days (Rule 444) and District Rule 4103
does not contain the same restriction, in practice the District
currently bans all burning on RWC curtailment days through
implementation of its Smoke Management Program, which specifically
allocates allowable burn acreage for 103 geographic zones based on
local meteorology.\152\ We note that a restriction on burning on RWC
curtailment days by itself may not consistently reduce wintertime
PM2.5 emission levels as it could shift more waste burning
activity to days with more favorable meteorology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-8 to C-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 41855.5 and 41855.6 of the California Health and Safety
Code require the District to prohibit open burning of specific crop
categories unless the District determines either that there is no
economically feasible alternative means of eliminating the waste or
that there is no long-term federal or state funding commitment for the
continued operation of biomass facilities in the SJV or for the
development of alternatives to burning.\153\ The District has
considered the technical and economic feasibility of alternatives to
burning several times in the last several years and concluded that such
alternatives are not feasible for selected crop categories at this
time.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ California Health & Safety Code, sections 41855.5 and
41855.6.
    \154\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-8 to C-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater Than 5.0 MMBtu/
hr
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4306 (``Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process
Heaters--Phase 3''), as amended October 16, 2008, establishes
NOX emission limits ranging from 5 to 30 ppm and related
operational requirements for gaseous fuel- or liquid fuel-fired
boilers, steam generators, and process heaters with total rated heat
input greater than 5 million Btu per hour (MMBtu/hr).\155\ The EPA
approved Rule 4306 into the California SIP on January 13, 2010.\156\
SJVUAPCD Rule 4320 (``Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers,
Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater Than 5.0 MMBtu/hr''), as
adopted October 16, 2008, establishes more stringent NOX
emission limits (5 to 12 ppm) and

related operational requirements for these units but allows sources to
pay an emission fee in lieu of compliance with the NOX
emission limits.\157\ The EPA approved Rule 4320 into the California
SIP on March 25, 2011 but determined that this rule, as approved, may
not be credited for attainment planning purposes because the fee
provision renders the NOX emission limits
unenforceable.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4306, as amended October 16,
2008; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-35.
    \156\ 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010).
    \157\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4320, as adopted October 16,
2008; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-35.
    \158\ 76 FR 16696 (March 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District compared both Rule 4306 and Rule 4320 to several other
analogous rules implemented in other parts of California, including the
Sacramento metropolitan area, the South Coast, and the Bay Area.\159\
According to the District, the NOX emission limits in Rule
4306 are generally within the same range as, and in some cases are more
stringent than, those contained in analogous rules implemented by these
other California agencies, except that the SCAQMD implements a rule
containing NOX emission limits that are potentially more
stringent for units of certain sizes (SCAQMD Rule 1146, as amended
November 1, 2013).\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-38.
    \160\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SCAQMD Rule 1146 establishes a 5 ppm NOX emission limit
for larger units (i.e., those with heated rate inputs above 75 MMBtu/
hr), whereas Rule 4320 establishes a 7 ppm limit and Rule 4306
establishes a 9 ppm limit for such units.\161\ SCAQMD Regulation XX
(``Regional Clean Air Incentives Market'' or ``RECLAIM'') also applies
to units within the same range of sizes as Rule 4320 but allows sources
to comply with emission caps by purchasing RECLAIM Trading
Credits.\162\ We do not have information about the rated heat input of
the units subject to RECLAIM in the South Coast area and therefore
cannot conclude that the lower NOX emission limits for
larger boilers in SCAQMD Rule 1146 are technically and economically
feasible for implementation in the SJV at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ Compare SCAQMD Rule 1146 (as amended November 1, 2013) at
section (c)(1)(F) to SJVUAPCD Rule 4320 at Table 1, category B.a and
SJVUAPCD Rule 4306 at Table 1, category B; see also 2015
PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-38.
    \162\ RECLAIM is a market incentive program designed to allow
facilities flexibility in achieving emission reduction requirements
for NOX and SOX through, among other things,
add-on controls, equipment modifications, reformulated products,
operational changes, shutdowns, and the purchase of excess emission
reductions. See SCAQMD Rule 2000, section (a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of alternative NOX and PM2.5 control techniques
for this source category, such as low temperature oxidation and
EMX system for NOX control, and alternative
fuels, electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and wet scrubbers for direct
PM2.5 control.\163\ Based on its consideration of the
technical constraints and costs associated with each of these control
options, the District concluded that these additional controls are not
feasible for implementation in the SJV at this time.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-39.
    \164\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the NOX emission limits in Rule 4320 do not
satisfy the Act's enforceability requirements because of the option to
pay an emission fee, we note that the requirement to pay the emission
fee itself is an enforceable requirement and that the fee provision
appears to function effectively as a pollution deterrent.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ See section 3.b.5 of the EPA's SJV Rules TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flares
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 (``Flares''), as amended June 18, 2009,
establishes specific operational and administrative requirements to
limit emissions of NOX, SOX, and VOCs from the
operation of flares.\166\ Under Rule 4311, for each refinery flare and
other flare with a capacity above 5 MMBtu/hr, the operator must submit
a flare minimization plan (FMP) to the District describing relevant
equipment and preventative measures and demonstrating that the operator
appropriately minimized flaring activity.\167\ The EPA approved Rule
4311 into the California SIP on November 3, 2011.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4311, as amended June 18,
2009; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-63.
    \167\ Id.
    \168\ 76 FR 68106 (November 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District compared Rule 4311 with several other analogous rules
implemented in other parts of California, including the South Coast,
Bay Area, Ventura County, and Santa Barbara, all of which require
regulated sources to submit FMPs to the local districts.\169\ According
to the District, most flares in the SJV occur in the oil and gas
production industry and operate as emergency control devices, unlike
many flares in the South Coast area and the Bay Area, which are
significantly larger and operate as part of the refinery process.\170\
Because of wide variation in flaring operations in the SJV, the
District concludes that requirements to submit details FMPs, as in Rule
4311, are the most effective means of reducing NOX and
SOX emissions from flaring.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-73.
    \170\ Id.
    \171\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of alternative control techniques for flares, such as maximum monthly
flared gas targets and requirements to capture gas before it is
flared.\172\ Based on its consideration of the technical constraints
and costs associated with these control options, the District concluded
that these additional controls are not feasible for implementation in
the SJV at this time.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-82.
    \173\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 8 of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan includes a commitment
by the District to conduct a comprehensive review of submitted FMPs to
identify effective flare minimization practices; to evaluate the
technical and economic feasibility of implementing new and additional
flare minimization practices at affected facilities; to have a draft
report available for public review and comment by December 1, 2015; to
develop a final report by March 31, 2016 after addressing public
comments on these evaluations; and upon completion of these analyses,
to work closely with affected operators to ``evaluate and implement,
when feasible, the most effective flare minimization practices through
the FMP submittal and approval process under Rule 4311.'' \174\ The
District issued its draft report of FMPs on December 3, 2015, starting
a 30-day public comment period.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ Id. at Chapter 8, Section 8.1 (pg. 8-2).
    \175\ SJVUAPCD, ``Draft Further Study, Rule 4311 Flare
Minimization Plans, 2015,'' December 3, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4352 (``Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, Steam Generators,
and Process Heaters''), as amended December 15, 2011, establishes
NOX emission limits and related operational requirements for
boilers, steam generators, and process heaters that burn municipal
solid waste (MSW), biomass, and other solid fuels.\176\ Specifically,
the rule establishes NOX emission limits of 165 ppmv for
units burning MSW, 90 ppmv for units burning biomass, and 65 ppmv for
units burning other solid fuels.\177\ The EPA approved this rule into
the California SIP on November 6, 2012.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4352, as amended December 15,
2011; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-87.
    \177\ Id.
    \178\ 77 FR 66548 (November 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the District, the NOX emission limits in
Rule 4352 have been lowered significantly over time and are

at least as stringent as analogous requirements implemented in other
parts of California. The District compared the provisions of Rule 4352
to potentially more stringent requirements implemented in Sacramento
County, the South Coast area, and the Bay Area, but these comparisons
are of limited value because no affected facilities are subject to the
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District's (SMAQMD)
rule, and no sources are currently complying with the 40 ppmv limit in
the SCAQMD's or Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD's)
rules.\179\ Nonetheless, we note that three other air districts in
California implement regulations that apply to active biomass-fueled
units: Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD), El Dorado
County Air Quality Management District (EDAQMD) and Placer County Air
Pollution Control District (PCAPCD). The NOX emission limits
in these regulations are all within the same range as SJVAPCD's limit
of 90 ppm corrected to 3% O2 on a 24-hour block
average.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C-89.
    \180\ SJV Rules TSD at Section 3.d.2. See also 77 FR 66548
(November 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of alternative control techniques for this source category, such as
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOX control and ESPs
or baghouses for direct PM2.5 control.\181\ Based on its
consideration of the costs associated with SCR retrofits at units
burning biomass, MSW, or other solid fuels, the District concluded that
SCR for these units is not economically feasible for sources in the SJV
at this time.\182\ With respect to direct PM2.5 control, the
District states that sources subject to Rule 4352 are subject to permit
limits that require the best feasible controls.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-91 to C-
101.
    \182\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-95--C-96
and C-98.
    \183\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that biomass- and MSW-fired units provide an environmental
benefit by diverting these wastes from landfills and reducing open
burning.
Glass Melting Furnaces
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 (``Glass Melting Furnaces''), as amended May 19,
2011, establishes NOX, VOC, SOX, and
PM10 emission limits and related operational requirements
for glass melting furnaces.\184\ Specifically, the rule establishes
NOX emission limits of 1.5 to 3.7 lb. NOX/ton
glass, depending on glass product and averaging time, and
SOX emission limits of 0.9 to 1.7 lb. SOX/ton
glass.\185\ The EPA approved Rule 4354 into the California SIP on
January 31, 2013.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, as amended May 19, 2011;
see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-102.
    \185\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, as amended May 19, 2011, at pp. 5 and
7.
    \186\ 78 FR 6740 (January 31, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the District, the NOX emission limits in
Rule 4354 require implementation of oxy-fuel firing or SCR systems,
which are the best available NOX control techniques, and are
at least as stringent as analogous requirements implemented in the
South Coast and Bay Area.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not aware of prohibitory rules for glass melting furnaces in
other areas that are more stringent than Rule 4354. We note that the
SCAQMD has found a 1.2 lb./ton NOX emission limit feasible
through a Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT)
determination under its RECLAIM program, but absent information about
how affected sources in the South Coast area have complied with the
available compliance options under RECLAIM, it is not clear that these
lower NOX emission levels are technically and economically
feasible for implementation in the SJV.
Conservation Management Practices
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4550 (``Conservation Management Practices''), as
adopted August 19, 2004, establishes requirements for owners and
operators of agricultural sites to implement conservation management
practices (CMPs) to control PM10 emissions from on-field
crop and animal feeding operations.\188\ Under the rule, each owner/
operator of an agricultural site must select and implement a CMP for
each category of operations, including unpaved roads and unpaved
vehicle/equipment traffic areas, and submit a CMP application to the
District for its review and approval.\189\ The EPA approved this rule
into the California SIP on February 14, 2006.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4550, as adopted August 19,
2004; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-106.
    \189\ Id.
    \190\ 71 FR 7683 (February 14, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the District, Rule 4550 is the most stringent rule of
its kind.\191\ The District compared the provisions of Rule 4550 to
analogous requirements implemented by air agencies in other parts of
California (Imperial County, South Coast, and Sacramento County) and in
Arizona, and found no requirements more stringent than those in Rule
4550.\192\ We note that it is difficult to directly compare the
requirements among these rules because of the widely varying rule
structures and operations of the affected agricultural sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-114.
    \192\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of additional control options for this source category, such as misting
to reduce PM10 emissions from disking activity and the use
of new almond harvesting equipment.\193\ As to misting, the District
found that the available information was not sufficient to demonstrate
that this control technique would achieve its minimum standard of a 10%
reduction in PM10 emissions, so the District did not add
this measure to the CMP list.\194\ As to the use of newer almond
harvesting equipment, the District noted, based on a 2010-2011 study,
that newer equipment would achieve significant PM10 emission
reductions but found it was not necessary to revise the CMP list given
use of newer almond harvesting equipment is already listed under an
existing CMP category.\195\ Finally, the District considered adding
windblown dust controls to Rule 4550 but determined that such controls
would not substantially impact PM2.5 design values in the
SJV because windblown dust events typically occur during the spring and
fall seasons whereas the District asserts that PM2.5 values
are driven by winter-time concentrations; PM2.5 values
recorded during winter stagnation periods are usually much higher than
those recorded during wind events; and the geologic component of peak
PM2.5 concentration is a fraction of the mass formed by
secondary processes and other sources.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-111.
    \194\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-112.
    \195\ Id.
    \196\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 8 of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan includes a commitment
by the District to reevaluate Rule 4550, in close coordination with
stakeholders (including agricultural industry representatives, CARB,
and the EPA), for additional feasible control options; to have a draft
report available for public review and comment by May 31, 2016; and to
develop a final report by October 15, 2016 after addressing public
comments on these evaluations.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ Id. at Chapter 8, Section 8.3 (pg. 8-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commercial Charbroiling
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 (``Commercial Charbroiling''), as amended
September 17, 2009, establishes control

requirements to reduce PM10 (of which PM2.5 is a
component) and VOC emissions from chain-driven charbroilers.\198\
Specifically, the rule requires that chain-driven charbroilers be
equipped and operated with a catalytic oxidizer with a control
efficiency of at least 83% for PM10 emissions and 86% for
VOC emissions.\199\ The EPA approved Rule 4692 into the California SIP
on November 3, 2011.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, as amended September 17,
2009; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-115.
    \199\ Id.
    \200\ 76 FR 68103 (November 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District compared the requirements in Rule 4692 to analogous
requirements for chain-driven charbroilers implemented by the SCAQMD,
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), and BAAQMD and
found no requirements in these rules more stringent than those
contained in Rule 4692, with one exception in the BAAQMD rule.\201\
With respect to under-fired charbroilers (UFCs), the District found
that no cost-effective control techniques have been demonstrated to
date given technical challenges associated with controlling emissions
from UFCs, which operate differently from chain-driven
charbroilers.\202\ Although the BAAQMD has adopted a rule that
establishes control requirements for both chain-driven and under-fired
charbroilers, according to the District, a significant portion of the
UFCs in the BAAQMD are not subject to the rule's requirements for UFCs
because they fall below the rule's applicability thresholds.\203\ The
District also stated that the BAAQMD has been unable to enforce its UFC
requirements because no control technologies have been certified.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-116 to C-
117.
    \202\ Id.
    \203\ Id.
    \204\ Id. at p. C-116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of alternative control techniques for UFCs, such as catalytic
oxidizers, high efficiency particulate-arresting filtration system,
ESPs, and wet scrubbers.\205\ Based on its consideration of the
technical difficulties and costs associated with installing these
control devices at UFCs, the District concluded that these control
techniques are not technically and economically feasible for sources in
the SJV at this time.\206\ The District also stated, however, that it
expects to begin testing some of these additional control options in
mid-2015. The District's Governing Board approved $750,000 for its
Restaurant Charbroiler Technology Partnership program, which would fund
particulate emission control technology demonstration projects for
under-fired charbroilers at restaurants in the SJV.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ Id. at pp. C-117, C-118.
    \206\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-117 to C-
119.
    \207\ SJVUAPCD Governing Board, Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2015
Governing Board Meeting, pp. 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, the SJVUAPCD submitted a
commitment to amend Rule 4692 in 2016 to add requirements for UFCs,
with an anticipated compliance date of 2017.\208\ The Plan relies on
this commitment for a portion of the direct PM2.5 emission
reductions needed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C-119 and
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 15-4-7A (April 16, 2015) at
paragraph 7.
    \209\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, p. 9. See
also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 7, section 7.1.2, p. 7-6,
and Appendix C, section C.16, pp. C-115 to C-119, which describe the
charbroiling rule revision commitment in the context of the 2015
PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Internal Combustion Engines
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 (``Internal Combustion Engines''), as amended
November 14, 2013, establishes NOX, CO, VOC, and
SOX emission limits and related operational requirements for
internal combustion (IC) engines.\210\ The rule contains separate
emission limits for spark-ignited IC engines used in agricultural
operations (SI AO engines), spark-ignited IC engines used in non-
agricultural operations (SI non-AO engines), and compression-ignited IC
engines.\211\ The EPA proposed to approve this rule into the California
SIP on December 2, 2015.\212\ The EPA approved a previous version of
this rule into the California SIP on January 10, 2008.\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14,
2013; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C-120.
    \211\ Id.
    \212\ 80 FR 75442 (December 2, 2015).
    \213\ 73 FR 1819 (January 10, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For SI non-AO engines, Rule 4702 establishes NOX
emission limits ranging from 25 to 75 ppmv.\214\ According to the
District, these NOX emission limits are at least as
stringent as many analogous control requirements implemented in the Bay
Area, Sacramento Metro, and Ventura County areas.\215\ We also note
that Rule 4702 limits are at least as stringent as analogous
requirements in the Feather River, Placer County, Mojave Desert, and
San Diego areas.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, at Table
1.
    \215\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-122 to C-
123.
    \216\ Feather River AQMD Rule 3.22; Placer County APCD Rule 242;
Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1160; and San Diego APCD Rule 69.4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of the emission limits for SI non-AO engines in Rule 4702 are,
however, less stringent than those implemented in the South Coast, El
Dorado, and Antelope Valley areas for similar engines. Specifically,
the SCAQMD has adopted an 11 ppmv limit for all IC engines; \217\ El
Dorado has adopted a 25 ppmv limit for SI ``rich-burn'' engines and a
65 ppmv limit for SI ``lean-burn'' engines (except those used
exclusively in agricultural operations); \218\ and Antelope Valley has
adopted a 36 ppmv limit for IC engines (except those used exclusively
in agricultural operations).\219\ The District considered the technical
and economic feasibility of alternative control techniques for SI non-
AO engines that would lower the emission levels for certain engines to
11, 25, and 65 ppmv, but found that for reasons of both technical and
economic feasibility, NOX emission limits lower than those
in Rule 4702 are generally not feasible for implementation in the SJV
at this time.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended February 1, 2008.
    \218\ El Dorado County AQMD Rule 233, as amended June 2, 2006.
    \219\ Antelope Valley AQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended January 21,
2003.
    \220\ See section 3.h (Internal Combustion Engines) of the EPA's
SJV Rules TSD, which provides a more detailed discussion of the
District's technical and economic feasibility analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For SI AO engines, Rule 4702 establishes NOX emission
limits ranging from 90 to 150 ppmv.\221\ These NOX emission
limits are more stringent than analogous control requirements
implemented in the Sacramento Metro, Placer County, El Dorado, and
Antelope Valley areas, which exempt AO engines from control
requirements altogether, and are equivalent to analogous control
requirements implemented in the Mojave Desert area.\222\ The SCAQMD,
however, has adopted an 11 ppmv limit for all IC engines,\223\ and the
BAAQMD has adopted NOX emission limits ranging from 25-70
ppmv for all spark-ignited IC engines.\224\ Thus, Rule 4702's

requirements for SI AO engines are at least as stringent as most but
not all analogous requirements implemented in other parts of
California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, at Table
3.
    \222\ SMAQMD Rule 412, as amended June 1, 1995; Placer County
APCD Rule 242, as adopted April 10, 2003; El Dorado County AQMD Rule
233, as amended June 2, 2006; Antelope Valley AQMD Rule 1110.2, as
amended January 21, 2003; and Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1160.1, as
adopted January 23, 2012.
    \223\ SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, as amended February 1, 2008.
    \224\ Bay Area AQMD Regulation 9, Rule 8, as amended July 25,
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District considered the technical and economic feasibility of
alternative control techniques for SI AO engines that would lower their
emission levels and found that for reasons of both technical and
economic feasibility, NOX emission limits lower than those
in Rule 4702 are generally not feasible for implementation within SJV's
agricultural industry at this time.\225\ We note that the SCAQMD, like
SJVUAPCD, has provided economic incentive grants for agricultural
engine retrofits and replacement in recognition of unique economic and
technical circumstances in the agricultural industry.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ See section 3.h (Internal Combustion Engines) of the EPA's
SJV Rules TSD.
    \226\ SCAQMD Final Staff Report for Rule 1110.2, May 2005,
Appendix B: Incentive Funding Available for Agricultural Engine
Emission Reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, for compression-ignited IC engines (both those used in
agricultural operations and those used in non-agricultural operations),
Rule 4702 requires that all certified engines meet the EPA's Tier 3 and
Tier 4 emission standards for nonroad diesel engines and that non-
certified engines meet the same standards or a numerical NOX
emission limit based on engine size.\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, at Table
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stationary Gas Turbines
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4703 (``Stationary Gas Turbines''), as amended
September 20, 2007, establishes NOX emission limits ranging
from 5 to 25 ppm and related operational requirements for all
stationary gas turbines with greater than 0.3 MW capacity.\228\ These
units operate primarily in the oil and gas production and utility
industries, with some also operating in manufacturing and government
facilities.\229\ The EPA approved this rule into the California SIP on
October 21, 2009.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4703, as amended September 20, 2007, at
Table 5-3.
    \229\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C-142.
    \230\ 74 FR 53888 (October 21, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the District, the NOX emission limits in
Rule 4703 are more stringent than analogous control requirements
implemented in many other parts of California, including the Sacramento
Metro area, South Coast, and Ventura County.\231\ The District
considered the technical and economic feasibility of alternative
control techniques to reduce emissions further, such as the
installation of SCR or installation of entirely new turbine systems,
and concluded that these options are extremely expensive and not
economically feasible.\232\ The District also considered the potential
for installation of EMx system for NOX control and concluded
that this technology requires further testing before it will be
generally available for implementation in the SJV.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at p. C-144.
    \232\ Id.
    \233\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning
Heaters''), as amended September 18, 2014, is designed to limit
emissions of PM, including PM2.5 and PM10, and
other pollutants generated by the use of wood burning fireplaces, wood
burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices. The rule establishes
requirements for the sale/transfer, operation, and installation of wood
burning devices and on the advertising of wood for sale within the
SJV.\234\ The EPA proposed to approve this rule into the SIP on
September 30, 2015.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4901, as amended September 18,
2014.
    \235\ 80 FR 58637 (September 30, 2015). Also, EPA approved a
previous version of Rule 4901, as adopted October 16, 2008, into the
SIP on November 10, 2009 (74 FR 57907).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 4901 includes a mandatory two-tiered curtailment program.
During a Level One Episodic Wood Burning Curtailment, which is declared
when the PM2.5 concentration is forecasted to be between 20-
65 [micro]g/m\3\, operation of wood burning fireplaces and unregistered
wood burning heaters is prohibited, but properly operated wood burning
heaters that meet certification requirements and have a current
registration with the District may be used. During a Level Two Episodic
Wood Burning Curtailment, which is declared when the PM2.5
concentration is forecasted to be above 65 [micro]g/m\3\ or the
PM10 concentration is forecasted to be above 135 [micro]g/
m3, operation of any wood burning device is prohibited.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \236\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4901, as amended September 18, 2014, at
paragraph 5.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to SJVAPCD, Rule 4901 is at least as stringent as
analogous rules in other areas, including the South Coast, Bay Area,
Sacramento Metro area, Washoe County, Nevada, and Washington
State.\237\ We note that SCAQMD Rule 445 includes a mandatory
curtailment of all devices when the 24-hour average PM2.5
concentration is forecasted above 30 [micro]g/m\3\, and SMAQMD Rule 421
bans operation of all wood burning devices when ambient
PM2.5 concentrations are above 35 [micro]g/m\3\. According
to the District, however, the small increase in emissions from
registered clean burning devices when concentrations are between 20-65
[micro]g/m\3\ in the SJV will be more than offset by the decrease in
emissions from dirty devices when concentrations are between 20-30
[micro]g/m\3\, which will reduce the build-up of emissions during long
periods of stagnation experienced in the wintertime in the Valley.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \237\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-156.
    \238\ Rule 4901 Staff Report, p. 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 4901 incorporates all elements outlined in the EPA's
Strategies for Reducing Wood Smoke \239\ and includes comparable
provisions available in other analogous rules. We are not aware of more
stringent measures for reducing residential wood smoke that are
technically and economically feasible for implementation in the SJV.
Our Technical Support Document to support our separate proposal on Rule
4901 contains a more detailed discussion of this rule in comparison to
analogous rules implemented elsewhere.\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \239\ ``Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke,'' EPA-
456/B-13-001, March 2013.
    \240\ U.S. EPA Region 9, ``Technical Support Document for EPA's
Proposed Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP), San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
Rule 4901 Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters,'' August
2015. See also section 3.f (Conservation Management Practices) of
the EPA's SJV Rules TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paved and Unpaved Roads
    SJVUAPCD Rule 8061 (``Paved and Unpaved Roads''), as amended August
19, 2004, is designed to limit fugitive dust emissions generated from
paved and unpaved roads. The rule establishes control measures and
design criteria for existing public and private paved or unpaved roads,
road construction projects, and road modification projects, such as
requirements to stabilize unpaved roads by applying water, a uniform
layer of washed gravel, chemical/organic dust stabilizers/suppressants,
paving, or any other method demonstrated to effectively limit visible
dust to 20% opacity.\241\ The EPA approved this rule into the SIP on
February 17, 2006.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ SJVUAPCD Rule 8061, as amended August 19, 2004, at section
5.2.1.
    \242\ 71 FR 8461 (February 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District compared Rule 8061 to SCAQMD Rule 1156 (``Further
Reductions of Particulate Emissions from Cement Manufacturing
Facilities''); SCAQMD Rule 1157 (``PM-10 Emission Reductions from
Aggregate and Related Operations''); SMAQMD Rule 403 (``Fugitive
Dust''); VCAPCD Rule 55 (``Fugitive Dust''); Clark County

Department of Air Quality Section 91 (``Fugitive Dust from Unpaved
Roads, Unpaved Alleys, and Unpaved Easement Roads''), and Section 93
(``Fugitive Dust from Paved Roads and Street Sweeping
Equipment'').\243\ Based on these evaluations, SJVUAPCD concluded that
no other areas implemented requirements more stringent than those
already in Rule 8061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-194 to C-
197.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District also considered the feasibility of requiring control
measures on paved and unpaved roads with less than 26 annual average
daily trips (AADT). Such a measure would require more road owners/
operators to implement control measures to reduce fugitive emissions
from paved and unpaved roads. SJVUAPCD's analysis of the emission
inventory indicates that the majority of the particulate emissions
attributable to unpaved roads are from roads with more than 26 AADT.
Because these roads are already subject to the mitigation requirements
of Rule 8061, the District concluded that the remaining emissions from
unpaved roads with less than 26 AADT provide very little opportunity
for additional emissions reductions. Additionally, the District noted
that emissions from unpaved roads are lowest in the winter months, when
exceedances of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard tend to occur. For
these reasons, SJVUAPCD concluded that additional control measures for
paved and unpaved road with less than 26 AADT would not achieve
emission reductions.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \244\ Id. at p. C-196.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Asphalt/Concrete Operations
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4101 (``Visible Emissions''), as amended February 17,
2005, establishes limits on opacity, which is often used as an
indicator of PM emissions. SJVUAPCD Rule 4309 (``Dryers, Dehydrators,
and Ovens''), as amended December 15, 2005, establishes NOX
and CO emission limits for dryers, dehydrators and ovens firing gaseous
or liquid fuel with a total rated heat input of at least 5.0 MMBtu/hr.
Under Rule 4309, asphalt/concrete manufacturing plants that operate
equipment of this size are subject to NOX emission limits of
4.3 ppm (gaseous fuel) and 12.0 ppm (liquid fuel).\245\ The EPA
approved Rule 4101 into the California SIP on August 11, 2005 \246\ and
approved Rule 4309 into the California SIP on May 30, 2007.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4309, as adopted December 15, 2005, at p. 5.
    \246\ 70 FR 46770 (August 11, 2005).
    \247\ 72 FR 29886 (May 30, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the District, there are no state regulations that
apply to this source category and no analogous rules in the Bay Area,
Sacramento Metro, or Ventura County areas.\248\ The District evaluated
analogous rules implemented in the South Coast and found no
requirements more stringent than those in SJVUAPCD Rule 4101 and Rule
4309.\249\ We are not aware of more stringent control requirements for
visible emissions or NOX emissions in other California
districts for asphalt plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \248\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan at Appendix C, pp. C-219, C-
220.
    \249\ Id. (citing SCAQMD Rule 1157 and Rule 403).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of using warm mix asphalt (WMA), a newer substance which is produced at
temperatures 25 to 90 degrees (Fahrenheit) lower than hot mix asphalt
(HMA) and which results in lower emissions because it requires less
fuel to heat the asphalt. Although the use of WMA has grown steadily in
the U.S., the District concluded that use of WMA at asphalt production
facilities in the SJV is not technically and economically feasible at
this time given the high costs of, and technical difficulties
associated with, converting equipment.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ Id. at pp. C-221, C-225.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 8 of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan includes a commitment
by the District to evaluate and promote the use of WMA in the SJV, in
close coordination with stakeholders (including asphalt plant
operators, Caltrans, city and county planning agencies, CARB, and the
EPA); to have a draft report available for public review and comment by
December 1, 2015; and to develop a final report by March 31, 2016,
after addressing public comments. As part of this evaluation, the
District committed to (1) evaluate opportunities to further encourage
transportation and county agencies to continue transitioning from HMA
to WMA as feasible, (2) to explore the potential feasibility of
additional control measures and the granting of mitigation credits for
WMA usage through the District's Indirect Source Review (ISR) program,
and (3) to consider outreach and education opportunities for
encouraging project developers and construction managers to increase
the use of WMA.\251\ The District issued its draft report on WMA on
December 1, 2015, starting a 30-day public comment period.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ Id. at Chapter 8, Section 8.2, p. 8-3.
    \252\ SJVUAPCD, ``Draft Further Study, Warm Mix Asphalt,''
December 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Confined Animal Facilities (CAFs)
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (``Confined Animal Facilities''), as amended
October 21, 2010, applies to large dairy, poultry, beef cattle feeding
and swine CAFs and requires operators of such facilities to implement
measures to control VOC emissions for each major stage of operation,
e.g., feeding, silage, milking (dairy), housing, waste management, and
waste storage/application.\253\ According to the District, although
Rule 4570 was developed to limit VOC emissions, the work practice
standards contained in the rule also reduce ammonia emissions--for
example through mitigation measures for nutritional management,
increased cleaning and removal of manure and litter from housing areas,
and land incorporation of manure and litter.\254\ The EPA approved Rule
4570 into the California SIP on January 17, 2012.\255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \253\ See generally Rule 4570, as amended October 21, 2010; see
also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-240.
    \254\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan at Appendix C, p. C-241.
    \255\ 77 FR 2228 (January 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District compared the requirements of Rule 4570 with those in
analogous prohibitory rules implemented in other areas, including the
South Coast, Bay Area, Sacramento Metro, Ventura County, Imperial
County, and the State of Idaho, and concluded that Rule 4570 is more
stringent than all of these rules.\256\ For example, Rule 4570 contains
applicability thresholds that are more stringent than those in
analogous rules implemented in the South Coast (Rule 233) and Idaho
(Rule 58.01.01).\257\ We note that it is difficult to directly compare
the requirements among these rules because of the widely varying rule
structures and operations of confined animal facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \256\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan at Appendix C, pp. C-236 to C-
267.
    \257\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of alternative control techniques for CAFs, including episodic
application of sodium bisulfate (SBS) on manure at dairies, which
converts a greater fraction of ammonia to non-volatile ammonium.\258\
Given the costs of SBS application and its potential adverse impacts on
worker safety and health, cattle health, and water quality, the
District concluded that SBS application this control option is not
technically and economically feasible for implementation in the SJV at
this time.\259\ The District also evaluated the use of covers to reduce
ammonia from

lagoons and solid manure storage piles and found no definitive evidence
that such techniques would reduce ammonia emissions. To the contrary,
the District stated, several studies indicated that anaerobic lagoon
covers might increase ammonia emissions.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \258\ Id. at pg. C-267.
    \259\ Id.
    \260\ Email dated June 25, 2015, from Sheraz Gill, SJVUAPCD to
Andy Steckel, EPA, re: Requested Information, and attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compost Operations
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 (``Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter
Operations''), as adopted March 15, 2007, establishes requirements for
facilities that landfill, land apply, compost, or co-compost biosolids,
animal manure, or poultry litter.\261\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4566 (``Organic
Material Composting''), as adopted August 18, 2011, establishes
requirements for facilities that stockpile and compost greenwaste and
foodwaste materials.\262\ According to the District, although both of
these rules were designed to control VOC emissions, both rules
establish work practice standards that have the co-benefit of reducing
ammonia emissions.\263\ The EPA approved Rules 4565 and 4566 into the
California SIP on January 17, 2012 \264\ and November 29, 2012,\265\
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \261\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4565, as adopted March 15,
2007; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-276.
    \262\ See generally SJVUAPCD Rule 4566, as adopted August 18,
2011; see also 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-272.
    \263\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-272 and C-
276.
    \264\ 77 FR 2228 (January 17, 2012).
    \265\ 77 FR 71129 (November 29, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District compared the requirements of Rule 4565 and Rule 4566
with those in an analogous prohibitory rule implemented in the South
Coast area (Rule 1133.2) and found that the SCAQMD rule requires in-
vessel composting with 70% to 80% control efficiency for existing and
new facilities, respectively, while SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 requires 10% to
80% control efficiency based on annual throughput.\266\ According to
the District, however, the lower control efficiencies required by
SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 are appropriate because in-vessel composting is not
cost-effective for smaller or medium-sized facilities, and SCAQMD does
not regulate any facilities of the size that is subject to the 80%
control requirement.\267\ Moreover, the District states that Rule 4565
contains a more stringent applicability threshold (100 tpy of
biosolids, animal manure or poultry litter) compared to the
applicability threshold in SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 (1,000 tpy VOC).\268\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \266\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-272, C-
273.
    \267\ Id.
    \268\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District also considered the technical and economic feasibility
of alternative control techniques for compost operations, including
finished compost covers and water systems, but found that these control
techniques are not technically and economically feasible for compost
operations in the SJV at this time.\269\ The District also noted that
it has funded a project through its Technology Advancement Program that
could potentially reduce ammonia and other emissions at large
greenwaste and/or foodwaste composting facilities--specifically, an
``extended aerated stack pile (eASP) method'' which substitutes diesel-
powered loaders with electronic conveyor systems to build piles, uses
solar-powered blowers to replace diesel-powered windrow turners, and
uses finished compost biofilter covers.\270\ According to the District,
the study authors note that this demonstration project is the first
test of this technology and recommend further testing and evaluation to
assure results on an industry-wide basis.\271\ We note that there are
other environmental benefits associated with composting operations,
including diversion of material from landfills, which should be
considered in evaluating the feasibility of additional controls for
this source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \269\ Id. at pp. C-275 to C-276 and C-279.
    \270\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix E, p. E-15.
    \271\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. State Measures for Mobile Sources
    CARB's BACM and MSM demonstration for mobile sources is in Appendix
D of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan. CARB has primary responsibility
for reducing emissions in California from new and existing on-road and
off-road engines and vehicles, motor vehicle fuels, and consumer
products. Given the need for significant emissions reductions from
mobile sources to meet the NAAQS in California nonattainment areas,
CARB has been a leader in the development of stringent control measures
for on-road and off-road mobile sources, fuels and consumer
products.\272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \272\ The Plan does not address CARB's consumer products program
because it is primarily designed to reduce emissions of VOCs, which
the State has excluded from its control strategy for attaining the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is charged with establishing
national emission limits for mobile sources. States are generally
preempted from establishing such limits except for California, which
can establish these limits subject to EPA waiver or authorization under
CAA section 209 (referred to herein as ``waiver measures''). Over the
years, the EPA has issued waivers (for on-road vehicles and engines
measures) or authorizations (for non-road vehicle and engine measures)
\273\ for many mobile source regulations adopted by CARB.\274\
California attainment and maintenance plans, including the 2015
PM2.5 Plan for the SJV, rely on emissions reductions from
implementation of the waiver measures through the use of emissions
models such as EMFAC2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \273\ California regulations use the term ``off-road'' to refer
to ``nonroad'' vehicles and engines.
    \274\ The Clean Air Act assigns mobile source regulation to EPA
through title II of the Act and assigns stationary source regulation
and SIP development responsibilities to the states. In so doing, the
CAA preempts various types of state regulation of mobile sources as
set forth in section 209(a) (preemption of state emissions standards
for new motor vehicles and engines), section 209(e) (preemption of
state emissions standards for nonroad vehicles and engines), and
section 211(c)(4)(A) [preemption of state fuel requirements for
motor vehicles, i.e., other than California's motor vehicle fuel
requirements--see section 211(c)(4)(B)]. For certain types of mobile
source standards, the State of California may request a waiver or
authorization for state emission standards.
     CAA section 209(b)(1) and (e)(2) give California unique
authority under the CAA to regulate emissions from new motor
vehicles and nonroad engines, except for locomotives and engines
used in farm and construction equipment less than 175 horsepower. To
exercise its authority, California must obtain a waiver from EPA
demonstrating that the standards, in the aggregate, are at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal
standards. Additionally, EPA must grant a waiver unless California's
``protectiveness determination'' is arbitrary and capricious;
California does not need the standards to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions; or California's standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures are not consistent with CAA Sec.  202(a). EPA
has previously stated that consistency with section 202(a) requires
that California's standards must be technologically feasible within
the lead time provided, giving due consideration of costs. See,
e.g., 74 FR 32767 (July 8, 2009) regarding the greenhouse gas
waiver. Once a waiver is granted, compliance with California's new
motor vehicle or engine standards is treated as compliance with
applicable federal standards. In the absence of a waiver, the
applicable federal mobile source standards apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Historically, California has not submitted, and the EPA has not
required that California submit, its mobile source rules that have been
granted a waiver or authorization by the EPA for inclusion in 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.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \275\ Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th
Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the Court's ruling, CARB has submitted its mobile
source control rules that have been granted waivers or authorizations
but have not been included in the SIP, and, in a separate rulemaking,
the EPA has proposed to approve these rules into the SIP.\276\ Upon the
EPA's final approval of these rules into the SIP, which the EPA intends
to complete before or concurrent with final action on the 2015
PM2.5 Plan, the measures will be enforceable by the EPA or
private citizens under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to waiver measures, CARB has adopted operational
requirements for in-use vehicles, rules that limit the amounts of
pollutants allowed in transportation fuels, and incentive programs that
provide funding to replace or retrofit older, dirtier vehicles and
equipment with cleaner technologies.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \277\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D-9 to D-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA previously determined that California's mobile source
control programs constituted BACM for PM10 purposes in the
San Joaquin Valley.\278\ Since then, the State has adopted additional
mobile source control measures including the Advanced Clean Cars
program, heavy-duty vehicle idling rules, revisions to the State's
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, in-use rules for on-
road and non-road diesel vehicles, and emissions standards for non-road
equipment, farm and cargo handling equipment, and recreational
vehicles.\279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \278\ 69 FR 5412 at 5419 (February 4, 2004).
    \279\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pages D-4 to D-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's BACM and MSM analysis provides a discussion of the measures
adopted and implemented for each of the identified source categories.
We discuss each of these mobile source categories below.
Light and Medium Duty Vehicles
    This category includes light-duty passenger cars, light-duty
trucks, and medium-duty trucks. The source category's emissions are
32.2 tpd NOX and 1.9 tpd direct PM2.5.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \280\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, p. D-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB has a long history of adopting programs for reducing emissions
from this source category. Light-duty and medium-duty motor vehicles
are currently subject to California's ``Low-Emission Vehicle III'' (LEV
III) standards as well as a ``Zero Emission Vehicle'' (ZEV)
requirement. The LEV III standards are consistent, or harmonized, with
the subsequently adopted national Tier 3 standards for the same
vehicles. California's ZEV program, however, does not have a national
counterpart and results in additional emissions reductions as it phases
in a requirement that 15% of new light-duty vehicle sales consist of
ZEV or partial ZEV.\281\ Taken as a whole, California's standards for
light and medium-duty vehicles are more stringent than the federal
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \281\ 78 FR 2112 at 2119 (January 9, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California has also adopted regulations for gasoline fuel
(California Reformulated Gasoline or CaRFG) which reduce emissions from
light-duty and medium-duty vehicles. On July 10, 2009, the EPA approved
the CaRFG regulations into the California SIP.\282\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \282\ 74 FR 33196 (July 10, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heavy-Duty Vehicles
    This category includes heavy-duty gas and diesel trucks, heavy-duty
gas and diesel urban buses, school buses and motor homes. The emissions
from this category are 130.6 tpd NOX and 4.8 tpd direct
PM2.5.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \283\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, p. D-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California has the most stringent heavy-duty vehicle emissions
control measures in the nation, including engine standards for diesel
and gasoline vehicles, idling requirements, certification procedures,
on-board diagnostic requirements, and verification measures for
emissions control devices. Many of these control measures are subject
to the CAA waiver process and have also been submitted for inclusion in
the SIP.\284\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \284\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, p. D-8 to D-12.
See also 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California has also adopted many in-use requirements to help reduce
emissions from the vehicles already on the road, which may remain in
use for many years. The most recently adopted in-use requirement is the
Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks measure (``Truck and Bus Regulation
and Drayage Truck Regulation''), which became effective in 2011 and the
EPA approved into the SIP in 2012.\285\ The Truck and Bus Regulation
and Drayage Truck Regulation are designed to reduce emissions of diesel
particulate matter, NOX, and other pollutants from in-use
trucks and buses and establish, among other things, phased-in PM
control requirements from 2014 through 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \285\ 77 FR 20308, April 4, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, California has adopted regulations for diesel fuel that
further reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks. The EPA approved these
diesel fuel regulations into the California SIP on July 10, 2009.\286\
Off-Road Vehicles and Engines
    This category includes off-road compression ignition (diesel)
engines and equipment, small spark ignition (gasoline) off-road engines
and equipment less than 25 horsepower (hp) (e.g., lawn and garden
equipment), off-road large gasoline engines and equipment greater than
25 hp (e.g., forklifts, portable generators), and airport ground
service equipment. The emissions from this category total 19.2 tpd
NOX and 1.1 tpd direct PM2.5.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \287\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D-12 to D-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As it has done for the on-road categories discussed above, CARB has
adopted stringent new emissions standards subject to EPA authorization
under CAA section 209(e) and in-use measures or requirements for this
source category (e.g., incentives for early introduction of cleaner
engines and equipment and requirements to limit vehicle idling). CARB
has been regulating off-road equipment since the 1990s and its new
engine standards for off-road vehicles and engines are generally as
stringent as the corresponding federal standards. For larger off-road
equipment, which can have a slow turnover rate, CARB adopted an in-use
off-road regulation in 2007 that requires owners of off-road equipment
in the construction and other industries to retrofit or replace older
engines/equipment with newer, cleaner models. The off-road regulation
also imposes idling limitations.\288\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \288\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Farm Equipment
    The farm equipment category includes agricultural equipment such as
tractors, harvesting equipment and sprayers. The category's emissions
are 50.4 tpd NOX and 2.9 tpd PM2.5. CARB has
adopted standards identical to the EPA's standards for this off-road
engine category. CARB notes also that State, District, and federal
incentive funds have resulted in the replacement of over 3,000 pieces
of agricultural equipment earlier than required by state and federal
regulations.\289\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \289\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Mobile Source Categories
    Other mobile source categories identified by CARB in the Plan
include cargo handling equipment, motorcycles, recreational boats, off-
road recreational vehicles and commercial harbor craft. The emissions
from all of these

categories total 3.5 tpd NOX and 0.5 tpd direct
PM2.5. Although CARB considers these categories
``insignificant'' for BACM purposes in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan,
CARB provided a discussion of the emission standards and other measures
it has adopted to control emissions from these categories.\290\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \290\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, pp. D-15 to D-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Local Jurisdiction Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
    TCMs are, in general, measures designed to reduce emissions from
on-road motor vehicles through reductions in vehicle miles traveled or
traffic congestion. TCMs can reduce PM2.5 emissions in both
the on-road motor vehicle exhaust and paved road dust source categories
by reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips. They can
also reduce vehicle exhaust emissions by relieving congestion. EPA
guidance states that where mobile sources contribute significantly to
PM2.5 violations, ``the state must, at a minimum, address
the transportation control measures listed in CAA section 108(f) to
determine whether such measures are achievable in the area considering
energy, environmental and economic impacts and other costs.'' \291\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \291\ Addendum at 42013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current efforts by the SJV's eight local jurisdiction
metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) \292\ to implement cost-
effect transportation control measures (TCM) are described in Chapter
6.5.6 of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan.\293\ The Plan includes a
discussion of the on-going implementation of a broad range of TCMs in
the Valley. There is also a discussion of the MPOs' Congestion
Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding policy, which is a
standardized process across the Valley for distributing 20% of the CMAQ
funds to projects that meet a minimum cost-effectiveness.\294\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \292\ These eight MPOs represent the eight counties in the San
Joaquin Valley air basin: The San Joaquin Council of Governments,
the Stanislaus Council of Governments, the Merced County Association
of Governments, the Madera County Transportation Commission, the
Council of Fresno County Governments, Kings County Association of
Governments, the Tulare County Association of Governments and Kern
Council of Governments.
    \293\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6.5.6, p. 6-19.
    \294\ For an example of the CMAQ funding policy implemented by
the eight SJV MPOs, see ``Resolution To Adopt The Local Cost-
Effectiveness Congestion Mitigation And Air Quality (CMAQ) Program
Policy,'' San Joaquin Council Of Governments (SJCOG), R-08-03, July
26, 2007,'' and ``Exhibit A, Local Cost-Effectiveness CMAQ Policy,''
SJCOG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each Valley MPO is required to update its Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) at least once every four years.\295\ The RTP is a long-term
regional transportation plan that provides a vision for transportation
investments throughout the Valley. To further illustrate the eight SJV
MPOs' commitment to the implementation of TCMs, the RTPs contain a host
of improvements to the regional multimodal transportation system
including: Active transportation (e.g., biking and walking),
transportation demand management, transportation system management,
transit, passenger rail, goods movement, aviation and airport ground
access, highways, arterials, and operations and maintenance. Included
within these transportation system improvements are TCM projects that
reduce vehicle use or change traffic flow or congestion conditions,
such as: Improved transit, high occupancy vehicle lanes, traffic flow
improvements, park and ride lots, ridesharing/trip reduction programs,
and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.\296\ These projects are listed in
each MPO's conformity analysis for the 2014 RTP and 2015 Federal
Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP).\297\ The FTIP is a four-year
spending plan that lists every transportation project that will receive
federal funds or that is subject to a federally required action, such
as a review and approval of environmental documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \295\ 23 CFR 450.322(c)
    \296\ See, e.g., Fresno Council of Government's Conformity
Analysis for 2014 RTP and Sustainable Community Strategy, adopted
June 26, 2014, Appendix D, Timely Implementation Documentation for
Transportation Control Measures. The 2014 RTP is combined with the
Sustainable Communities Strategy to integrate land use and
transportation planning to achieve, where feasible, regional
greenhouse gas (GHG) targets set by the CARB pursuant to Senate Bill
375, which identifies specific GHG reduction goals for each of
California's MPOs in 2020 and 2035.
    \297\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SJV has a long history of adopting and then enhancing programs
to reduce emissions from on-road motor vehicles by reducing vehicle
miles traveled, vehicle trips, and/or congestion. For example, Rule
9410 (``Employer Based Trip Reduction'' or ``eTRIP''), requires larger
employers to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan
to encourage employees to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, thus
reducing emissions, including PM2.5 and NOX,
associated with work commutes.\298\ The MPOs implement public outreach
programs to encourage people to reduce driving, programs to improve
bicycling and pedestrian travel, and an extensive program to
synchronize traffic lights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \298\ EPA, Final rule, ``Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District; Employer Based Trip Reduction
Programs,'' pre-publication notice signed December 11, 2015; see
also 80 FR 51153 (August 24, 2015) (proposed rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our approval of California's Serious area plan for the 1987
PM10 NAAQS in the SJV \299\ (``2003 PM10 Plan''),
we determined that the measures in the ``Regional Transportation
Planning Agency Commitments for Implementation Document'' (April 2002)
\300\ satisfied the PM10 BACM requirement for TCMs.\301\ In
May 2003, the San Joaquin Valley MPO Executive Directors committed to
conduct feasibility analyses as part of each successive RTP in support
of the 2003 PM10 Plan. The MPOs retained this commitment in
the PM10 maintenance plan for the SJV area adopted September
20, 2007.\302\ In accordance with their commitment and in preparation
for their 2014 RTPs, the MPOs reviewed several PM10 Plans
adopted in other areas since 2009.\303\ From their reviews, the MPOs
concluded no additional on-road fugitive dust controls measures were
available for consideration. In consultation with CARB and the
District, however, the MPOs considered priority funding allocations in
the 2014 RTPs for PM10 and NOX emission reduction
projects for the measures listed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \299\ SJVUAPCD, ``2003 PM10 Plan, San Joaquin Valley
Plan to Attain Federal Standards for Particulate Matter of 10
Microns and Smaller,'' submitted August 19, 2003 as amended by
subsequent submission of December 30, 2003.
    \300\ SJVUAPCD, ``Regional Transportation Planning Agency
Commitments for Implementation Document,'' April 2002.
    \301\ 69 FR 30006 at 30020, 30035 (May 26, 2004).
    \302\ SJVUAPCD, ``2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and
Request for Redesignation,'' submitted November 16, 2007. Chapter 7,
p. 21.
    \303\ PM10 Plans reviewed included: Puerto Rico,
Municipality of Guaynabo, PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan;
Nogales, AZ, PM10 Attainment Demonstration; Coso
Junction, CA, PM10 Maintenance Plan, May 17, 2010;
Sacramento, CA, PM10 Implementation/Maintenance Plan,
October 28, 2010; Truckee Meadows, NV, PM10 Maintenance
Plan, May 2009; and Eagle River, AK, PM10 Maintenance
Plan, adopted August 2010.

 Paving or Stabilizing Unpaved Roads and Alleys
 Curbing, Paving, or Stabilizing Shoulders on Paved Roads
 Frequent Routine Sweeping or Cleaning of Paved Roads (i.e.,
funding allocation for the purchase of PM10 efficient street
sweepers for member jurisdictions); and
 Repave or Overlay Paved Roads with Rubberized Asphalt.\304\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \304\ See, e.g., Fresno Council of Government's Conformity
Analysis for 2014 RTP and Sustainable Community Strategy, adopted
June 26, 2014, Chapter 4, Section E, p. 42.

    In their implementation of the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program, the SJV MPOs evaluate and
prioritize the

reduction of PM10 emissions in the CMAQ scoring criteria.
The MPOs continue to implement the adopted San Joaquin Valley CMAQ
Policy, which was included in the District's plan for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS \305\ and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The CMAQ policy
includes a standardized process for distributing 20% of the CMAQ funds
to projects that meet a minimum cost effectiveness beginning in fiscal
year 2011. This policy focuses on achieving the most cost effective
emissions reductions, while maintaining flexibility to meet local
needs. The 2015 FTIP includes a listing of all transportation-related
projects requiring federal funding or other approval by the federal
transportation agencies. The aggregate funding allocated \306\ for TCMs
in the eight SJV 2015 FTIPs includes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \305\ SJVUAPCD, ``2007 Ozone Plan,'' April 30, 2007, which EPA
approved on March 1, 2012. (78 FR 12652).
    \306\ Source: 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 6, Figure 6-2
Illustration of Valley MPO Funding for Sample TCM Categories, p. 6-
20. The funding in the 2015 FTIPs covers the federal fiscal years
(i.e., October 1-September 30) 2014/2015 through 2017/2018. An
example 2015 FTIP, the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement
Program, Fresno Council of Governments, is included in the docket
for today's action and available at http://www.fresnocog.org/sites/default/files/publications/FTIP/2015_FTIP/FINAL_2015_FTIP_8-13-14.pdf.

 Improved transit; ($928,000,000)
 traffic flow improvements ($499,381,000)
 park and ride lots; ($2,666,346)
 ridesharing/trip reduction programs; ($7,630,000)
 bicycle/pedestrian facilities ($6,650,000)
3. Conclusion
    Based on all of these evaluations, we propose to find that the 2015
PM2.5 Plan provides for the implementation of BACM and MSM
for sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors
as expeditiously as practicable, in accordance with the requirements of
CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e).

E. Extension of Serious Area Attainment Date Under CAA Section 188(e)

    Section 188(e) of the Act allows the EPA to extend the attainment
date for a serious area for up to five years if attainment by the
applicable date is impracticable. However, before we may grant an
extension of the attainment date, the State must first:
    (1) Apply to the EPA for an extension of the PM2.5
attainment date beyond 2015,
    (2) demonstrate that attainment by 2015 is impracticable,
    (3) have complied with all requirements and commitments applying to
the area in its implementation plan,
    (4) demonstrate to our satisfaction that its serious area plan
includes the most stringent measures that are achieved in practice in
any state and are feasible for the area, and
    (5) submit SIP revisions containing a demonstration of attainment
by the most expeditious alternative date practicable.
    We evaluate the 2015 PM2.5 Plan's compliance with each
of these requirements below.
1. Application for an Attainment Date Extension
    As discussed in section IV.D of this proposed rule, for the SJV,
the Serious area attainment date for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
under CAA section 188(c)(2) is December 31, 2015. The first criterion
of an extension of the attainment date beyond this statutory attainment
date is that the State must apply for such extension. In the 2015
PM2.5 Plan, CARB and SJVUAPCD submit a complete application
for an extension of the Serious area attainment date for the SJV to
December 31, 2020 for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard and to
December 31, 2018 for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard.\307\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \307\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan: CARB Resolution 15-9, May 21,
2015 (submitting the Plan to EPA as a SIP revision); SJVAPCD,
Governing Board Resolution 15-4-7A, paragraph 1 (adopting the 2015
PM2.5 Plan); and Chapter 4, p. 4-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Demonstration That Attainment by Serious Area Attainment Date Is
Impracticable
    Despite the implementation of BACM as expeditiously as practicable,
as discussed in section V.D. above, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan
shows that attainment by the Serious area attainment date is
impracticable. We discuss below the air quality data that support the
State's and District's demonstration of impracticability.
    Chapter 4, Section 4.1 of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan presents
data showing that the SJV area cannot attain the 1997 PM2.5
annual and 24-hour standards by December 31, 2015.\308\ Specifically,
the District provided ambient PM2.5 air quality data from
monitoring sites in the SJV, including 2013 measured concentrations and
2014 measured and estimated concentrations, and then calculated the
maximum 2015 annual average and 24-hour concentrations for each
monitoring site that would result in a 3-year average PM2.5
concentration of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ (i.e., annual design value), and 3-
year average 98th percentile concentration of 65 [micro]g/m\3\ (i.e.,
24-hour design value), at each monitoring site. The District states
that several of the maximum allowable 2015 concentrations are so low,
and in one instance a negative number, that attaining the standards by
December 31, 2015 is impracticable.\309\ A separate analysis is
presented for the annual and 24-hour standards and we have evaluated
each with respect to demonstrating impracticability of attaining the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \308\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, pp. 4-1 to 4-5.
    \309\ Id. at pp. 4-3 to 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The annual average value for a given year is calculated using the
quarterly average concentrations for that year, while the 24-hour value
for a given year is calculated using the 98th percentile of 24-hour
average concentrations for that year.\310\ At the time the District
compiled monitoring data for this purpose in January 2015, actual
PM2.5 measurements were available for 2013 and most of 2014
from the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. For the remainder of
the 2014 data, preliminary monitoring measurements were used for the
latter portion of 2014 and, for four of the 16 monitors used in the
analysis, the District used 2013 4th quarter data for the 2014 4th
quarter data, since the 2014 filter data from those monitors were not
yet available.\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \310\ 40 CFR 50, Appendix N, sections 4.4 and 4.5, respectively.
    \311\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4-1, p. 4-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impracticability of Attaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5 Standard
by December 31, 2015
    According to the District, the maximum 2015 annual average
concentration at the Bakersfield-Planz site (which recorded the area's
highest annual average in 2013, and is estimated to have the highest
annual average in 2014) that will enable the site to show a design
value at or below 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ for 2015 is negative 2.4 [micro]g/
m\3\.\312\ In addition, the District calculates that the Hanford,
Visalia-Church, and Bakersfield-California monitoring sites (which are
in the three southern-most counties in the SJV) would have to each
average under 10 [micro]g/m\3\, and states that such concentrations are
unlikely given historical PM2.5 concentrations in the
SJV.\313\ Based on these preliminary data and analyses, the 2015
PM2.5 Plan concludes that it is impracticable for the
Hanford, Visalia-Church, Bakersfield-California, and Bakersfield-Planz
monitoring sites, to show an annual PM2.5 NAAQS design value
at or below 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ by December 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \312\ Id.
    \313\ Id. at p. 4-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA independently evaluated 2013 and 2014 PM2.5 air
quality data

that had been uploaded to AQS as of June 30, 2015, and as of January
20, 2016, to assess the District's representations.\314\ Table 4 shows
the annual average PM2.5 concentrations that were recorded
in 2013 and 2014 and that the EPA estimated for 2015 at selected
monitoring sites. The average annual concentrations in 2013 and 2014
were higher than in 2012, and in several cases the 2013 and 2014 values
were significantly higher than the 2012 value, especially at the
Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site, whose annual average concentrations
for 2013 and 2014 were each over 20 [micro]g/m\3\.\315\ Based on the
annual average concentrations observed in 2013 and 2014, the EPA
calculated the maximum annual average concentration for seven
monitoring sites that would enable each site to show a 2015 annual
average PM2.5 design value at or below 15.04 [micro]g/
m\3\.\316\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \314\ See Section III (``Analysis of Practicability of
Attainment'') and Appendix A (``Data Worksheets for Analysis of
Practicability of Attainment'') of the EPA's General TSD.
    \315\ The 2015 PM2.5 Plan cites weather conditions
associated with the extreme drought in California, including low
precipitation, high stagnation, and strong inversions, among the
reasons for the high PM2.5 concentrations observed in the
winter of 2013-2014. See 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, pp.
4-2 to 4-3 and 4-5.
    \316\ The small differences between the District's and EPA's
calculations of ``maximum 2015'' values are due to EPA's use of
certified, rather than preliminary, 2014 data and different rounding
conventions. EPA's calculations of maximum 2015 values are based on
the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, which
provides that intermediate calculations are not rounded, and that a
design value with a decimal lower than 15.05 [micro]g/m\3\ is
rounded down to 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix N,
section 4.3. In computing the maximum 2015 concentration consistent
with attainment and consistent with 2013 and 2014 annual mean
concentrations, EPA did not round the 2013 and 2014 means in the
intermediate steps of the calculation, and used 15.04 [micro]g/m\3\
as the highest design value consistent with the standard. In
contrast, the calculations presented in the 2015 PM2.5
Plan rounded the 2013 and 2014 means to one decimal place initially,
and used 15.00 [micro]g/m\3\ as the highest attaining design value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA found that four monitoring sites located in the three
southern-most counties of the SJV would have to have 2015 annual mean
concentrations 35% or more below their corresponding historical lows in
order to attain by the end of 2015.\317\ The most extreme example is
the Bakersfield-Planz Rd. monitoring site, which would require
approximately 95% below the previously recorded low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \317\ See section III and Appendix A of the EPA's General TSD.

  Table 4--2013 and 2014 Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations (in [micro]g/m\3\) for Selected Sites in SJV and Calculation of Annual Average Maximum To
                                                                     Attain in 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                EPA Estimate for   Lowest recorded
                                                                     Annual          Annual       max. 2015 annual    annual average    Max. 2015% below
                                                                   average  in     average  in    average allowed    1999-2014 (year)   lowest  recorded
                                                                    2013 \a\        2014 \a\       to attain \b\           \b\          annual  average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanford........................................................           18.18           17.47               9.47       14.79 (2012)                 36
Visalia........................................................           18.90           17.88               8.34       13.58 (2010)                 39
Bakersfield-California.........................................           19.95           18.55               6.62       13.03 (2012)                 49
Bakersfield-Planz..............................................           22.79           21.61               0.72       14.45 (2011)                 95
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 2014 AQS Design Value Report, AMP480.
\b\ See Appendix A of the EPA's General TSD.

    In sum, air quality data for the 2013-2014 period indicate that it
is not practicable for the Hanford, Visalia-Church, Bakersfield-
California, and Bakersfield-Planz monitoring sites to show an annual
PM2.5 NAAQS design value at or below 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ by
December 31, 2015. While our analyses resulted in slightly different
numbers for the maximum annual average concentrations allowed to attain
for 2015, they are consistent with the analysis and conclusion in the
2015 PM2.5 Plan that attainment is impracticable at these
sites. As such, we propose to determine that the SJV area cannot
practicably attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of December 31, 2015.
Impracticability of Attaining the 1997 24-Hour PM2.5
Standard by December 31, 2015
    According to the District, the maximum 2015 24-hour average
PM2.5 concentration at the Bakersfield-Planz site (which
recorded the area's highest 24-hour average in 2013 and was estimated
to have recorded the highest 24-hour average concentration in 2014)
that will enable the site to show a design value at or below 65
[micro]g/m\3\ for 2015 is 15.9 [micro]g/m\3\.\318\ In addition, the
District states that other monitoring sites in the southern portion of
the SJV would have to record improbably low 2015 average
concentrations, of which the lowest are the Hanford and Bakersfield-
California sites at 44.6 [micro]g/m\3\ and 44.4 [micro]g/m\3\,
respectively.\319\ Based on these preliminary data and analyses, the
2015 PM2.5 Plan concludes that it is not possible for the
Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site, and extremely unlikely for the
Hanford and Bakersfield-California sites, to show a 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS design value at or below 65 [micro]g/m\3\ by
December 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \318\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 4-2, p. 4-5.
    \319\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the annual standard, the EPA independently evaluated 2013
and 2014 PM2.5 air quality data available in AQS as of June
30, 2015, and as of January 20, 2016, to assess the District's
representations.\320\ Table 5 shows the 98th percentile 24-hour average
PM2.5 concentrations that were recorded in 2013 and 2014 and
the maximum concentrations allowed to attain that the EPA estimated for
2015 at selected monitoring sites. The 98th percentile 24-hour
concentrations in 2013 and 2014 were higher than in 2012, and in some
cases the 2013 and 2014 values were significantly higher than the 2012
value, especially at the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site, whose 98th
percentile concentration for 2013 was over 95 [micro]g/m\3\.\321\ Based
on the 98th percentile values observed in 2013 and 2014, the EPA
calculated the maximum 98th percentile 24-hour concentration for six
monitoring sites that would enable the site to show a 2015 24-hour
PM2.5 design value at or below 65.4 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \320\ See section III and Appendix A of the EPA's General TSD.
    \321\ The 2015 PM2.5 Plan cites weather conditions
associated with the extreme drought in California, including low
precipitation, high stagnation, and strong inversions, among the
reasons for the high PM2.5 concentrations observed in the
winter of 2013-2014. See 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, pp.
4-2 to 4-3 and 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA found that the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site would have
to have a 2015 annual mean concentration recorded at 44% below its

corresponding historical low in order to attain by the end of
2015.\322\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \322\ See Appendix A of the EPA's General TSD.

       Table 5--2013 and 2014 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations (in [micro]g/m\3\) for Selected Sites in SJV and Calculation of Maximum 98th Percentile
                                                                 Concentrations for 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                EPA estimate for
                                                                      98th            98th        max. 2015  98th    Lowest recorded   Max. 2015%  below
                                                                  Percentile in   Percentile in      percentile      98th percentile    lowest  recorded
                                                                    2013 \a\        2014 \a\     allowed to attain  1999-2014  (year)   annual  average
                                                                                \b\                \b\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanford........................................................            67.6            81.9               46.7        48.3 (2012)                  3
Bakersfield-California.........................................            71.8            79.9               44.5        53.3 (2010)                 17
Bakersfield-Planz..............................................            96.7            76.7               22.8        40.6 (2012)                 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 2014 AQS Design Value Report, AMP480.
\b\ Appendix A of the EPA's General TSD.

    For these three sites, the EPA's analysis largely confirms the
analysis presented in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan of the maximum
98th percentile concentration allowed for the SJV to attain the 1997
24-hour PM2.5 standard by December 31, 2015 (e.g., EPA
estimated maximum is 22.8 [micro]g/m\3\ at Bakersfield-Planz compared
to District estimated maximum of 15.9 [micro]g/m\3\, both of which are
well below the historic low). For the Bakersfield-California site, the
estimated maximum 98th percentile concentrations are 17% below the
historic low, which is quite low, while the estimated maximum 98th
percentile concentration at Hanford site is not drastically different
than its historic low. However, such values would appear very unlikely
given the 98th percentile values in 2013 and 2014 and do not alter the
clear impracticability of attaining the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
standard at the Bakersfield-Planz site.
    In sum, air quality data for the 2013-2014 period indicate that it
is not practicable for the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site to show an
annual PM2.5 NAAQS design value at or below 15.0 [micro]g/
m\3\ by December 31, 2015. While our analysis resulted in slightly
different numbers for the maximum annual average concentrations for
2015, they are consistent with the Plan's analysis and conclusion that
attainment is impracticable at this site. As such, we propose to
determine that the SJV area cannot practicably attain the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December
31, 2015.
3. Compliance With All Requirements and Commitments in the
Implementation Plan
    We interpret this criterion to mean that the State has implemented
the control measures and commitments in the plan revisions it has
submitted to address the applicable requirements in CAA sections 172
and 189 for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. For a Serious area
attainment date extension request being submitted simultaneously with
the initial Serious area attainment plan for the area, the EPA proposes
to read section 188(e) not to require the area to have a fully approved
Moderate area attainment plan and to allow for extension of the
attainment date if the area has complied with all Moderate area
requirements and commitments pertaining to that area in the State's
submitted Moderate area implementation plan. This interpretation is
based on the plain language of section 188(e), which requires the State
to comply with ``all requirements and commitments pertaining to [the]
area in the implementation plan.'' \323\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \323\ The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this
interpretation of section 188(e) in Vigil v. Leavitt, 366 F.3d 1025,
amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between 2007 and 2011, California made six SIP submissions to
address nonattainment area planning requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV,\324\ which we refer to collectively
as the ``2008 PM2.5 Plan.'' On November 9, 2011, the EPA
approved all elements of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan except for the
contingency measures, which the EPA disapproved.\325\ As part of this
action, the EPA approved, among other things, commitments by CARB and
the SJVUAPCD to take specific actions with respect to identified
control measures and to achieve specific amounts of NOX,
SOX, and direct PM2.5 emission reductions by
2014.\326\ In July 2013, the State submitted a revised PM2.5
contingency measure plan for the SJV, which the EPA fully approved in
May 2014.\327\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \324\ 76 FR 69896 at n. 2 (November 9, 2011).
    \325\ Id. at 69924.
    \326\ Id. at 69926 (codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2),
52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2), and 52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)(2)).
    \327\ 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 20, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its
decision in a challenge to the EPA's November 9, 2011 action on the
2008 PM2.5 Plan.\328\ In Committee for a Better Arvin et. al
v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (CBA), the court held that the
EPA violated the CAA by approving the 2008 PM2.5 Plan even
though the plan did not include certain state-adopted mobile source
emission standards on which the plan relied to achieve its emission
reduction goals.\329\ The CBA court remanded the EPA's action on the
2008 PM2.5 Plan for further proceedings consistent with the
decision but did not vacate the EPA's action.\330\ Thus, absent an EPA
rulemaking to withdraw or revise the EPA's November 2011 approval of
the control measure and emission reduction commitments in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan, all of these commitments remain enforceable
components of the California SIP.\331\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \328\ Committee for a Better Arvin et al v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169
(9th Cir. 2015).
    \329\ Id.
    \330\ Id.
    \331\ As a consequence of the CBA decision, EPA recently
proposed to withdraw its May 2014 approval of the District's
PM2.5 contingency measure submission and to disapprove
this submission in its entirety. 80 FR 49190 (August 17, 2015). Upon
EPA's final withdrawal of this action and disapproval of the
PM2.5 contingency measure submission, the measures and
commitments in this submission will no longer be required components
of the California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specific State and District commitments that the EPA approved
into the California SIP as part of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan are
as follows:
    (1) A commitment by the District to ``adopt and implement the rules
and measures in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan'' in accordance with the
timetable specified in Table 6-2 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, as

amended June 17, 2010, and to submit these rules and measures to CARB
for transmittal to the EPA as SIP revisions; \332\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \332\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2), SJVUAPCD Governing Board
Resolution No. 08-04-10 (April 30, 2008), and SJVUAPCD Governing
Board Resolution No. 10-06-18 (June 17, 2010); see also 76 FR 69896
at 69921, Table 1 (November 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) A commitment by CARB to propose specific measures identified in
Appendix B of the ``Progress Report on Implementation of
PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast
and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions,'' dated
April 28, 2011 (2011 Progress Report), in accordance with the timetable
specified therein; \333\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \333\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(395)(ii)(A)(2), CARB Resolution No. 07-
28, Attachment B (September 27, 2007), CARB Resolution No. 09-34
(April 24, 2009), and CARB Resolution No. 11-24 (April 28, 2011);
see also 76 FR 69896 at 69921-69922, Table 2 (November 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) A commitment by the District to achieve a total of 8.97 tpd of
NOX emission reductions, 6.7 tpd of direct PM2.5
emission reductions, and 0.92 tpd of SOX emission reductions
by 2014 as described in Table 6-3a, Table 6-3b, and Table 6-3c,
respectively, of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan; and
    (4) A commitment by CARB to achieve a total of 17.1 tons per day
(tpd) of NOX emission reductions and 2.3 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions by 2014 as described in CARB
Resolution No. 07-28, Attachment B, as amended in 2009 and 2011.\334\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \334\ 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of November 9, 2011, the date of the EPA's final action on the
2008 PM2.5 Plan, CARB and the District had each satisfied
substantial portions of these control measure and emission reduction
commitments. Specifically, the District had adopted 12 of the 13
measures that it had committed to adopt and implement as part of its
control strategy for attaining the PM2.5 standards, leaving
one additional measure that was scheduled for adoption in 2014 (Rule
4905 (``Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type Residential Central
Furnaces'').\335\ CARB had proposed action on six of the seven measures
that it had committed to propose for Board consideration as part of its
PM2.5 control strategy for the SJV, leaving one additional
measure that was scheduled for proposal in 2013 (``New Emissions
Standards for Recreational Boats'').\336\ Finally, together CARB and
the District had achieved all of the SOX emission reduction
commitments and substantial portions of the direct PM2.5 and
NOX emission reduction commitments through implementation of
State and District control strategy measures, leaving 3.0 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions and 12.9 tpd of NOX
emission reductions yet to be achieved by the beginning of 2014.\337\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \335\ 76 FR 69896 at 69921, Table 1 (``San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District 2008 PM2.5 Plan Specific Rule
Commitments'').
    \336\ 76 FR 69896 at 69922, Table 2 (November 9, 2011) (``2007
State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for Consideration and
Current Status'').
    \337\ Id. at 69923, Table 4 (``Reductions Needed for Attainment
Remaining as Commitments Based on SIP-Creditable Measures'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CARB Staff Report for the 2015 PM2.5 Plan \338\
contains the State's demonstration that both CARB and the District have
satisfied the commitments in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan that
remained outstanding as of November 9, 2011, as follows. First, on
January 22, 2015, the District adopted Rule 4905 and on April 7, 2015,
CARB submitted this rule to the EPA as a revision to the California
SIP.\339\ Second, on February 19, 2015, CARB proposed for Board
consideration, and the Board adopted, new emission standards for
recreational boats entitled ``Evaporative Emissions Control
Requirements for Spark-Ignited Watercraft.'' \340\ These State and
District rulemaking actions satisfied the last remaining commitments
concerning specific control measures in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \338\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, CARB Staff Report, pp. 17-22
and Appendix B.
    \339\ CARB Staff Report, Table 7, p. 19 and letter dated April
7, 2015, from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared