4570 for this particular component of the manure handling process.
    On balance, we find that SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 is more stringent than
the Idaho CAF Rule and SCAQMD Rule 1127 given SJVUAPCD Rule 4570
establishes specific requirements for the frequency of flushing manure
from freestall barns, which are a significant source of manure and
ammonia emissions at dairy CAFs in SJV, while the Idaho CAF Rule and
SCAQMD Rule 1127 contain no analogous requirements. In the absence of
specific information about more stringent ammonia control requirements
for CAFs that the District could reasonably have implemented by the
statutory implementation deadline for RACM/RACT in this area (December
14, 2013), we find the requirements of SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 adequate to
satisfy RACM/RACT requirements for CAFs for purposes of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
    Comment 11: Earthjustice argues that the RACM/RACT demonstration
fails to comply with CAA section 189(a)(1)(C), which requires a plan to
include provisions to assure that RACM is implemented no later than
four years after a moderate nonattainment designation. Earthjustice
asserts that this section required the District to implement RACM for
the 2006 PM2.5 standards by December 14, 2013. According to
Earthjustice, because the District has not implemented controls
identified by Earthjustice as RACM/RACT and has delayed additional
charbroiling and residential furnace controls, the EPA must disapprove
the demonstration and place the District on a clock to ensure that the
missing measures are adopted expeditiously.
    Response 11: We disagree. Section 107(a) of the CAA provides states
with both the authority and primary responsibility to develop SIPs that
meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for attaining,
maintaining, and enforcing the NAAQS. States have discretion in
formulating their SIPs, and the EPA is required to approve a SIP
submission that satisfies the applicable requirements of the Act.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Comments Regarding Interpollutant Trading Ratios for NNSR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. Comments on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The commenter has not identified any information that compels us to

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

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

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

G. Other Comments

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

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

III. Final Action

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

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

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

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

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

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

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

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

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

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(476)(ii)(A)(2),
(c)(478), and (c)(479) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

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

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

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