[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69896-69926]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27232]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 217

November 9, 2011

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 50

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; 2008 San
Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516; FRL-9482-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California;
2008 San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part state
implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by California to provide
for attainment of the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
national ambient air quality standards in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV).
These SIP revisions are the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan (revised
2010 and 2011) and SJV-related provisions of the 2007 State Strategy
(revised 2009 and 2011). EPA is approving the emissions inventory, the
reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control
technology demonstration, reasonable further progress demonstration,
attainment demonstration and associated air quality modeling, and the
transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA is also
granting California's request to extend the attainment deadline for the
SJV to April 5, 2015 and approving commitments to measures and
reductions by the SJV Unified Air Pollution Control District and the
California Air Resources Board. Finally, it is disapproving the SIP's
contingency provisions and issuing a protective finding for
transportation conformity determinations under 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3) for
this disapproval.

DATES: The rule is effective January 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some may be publicly available only at
the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material) and some may not be
publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section below.
    Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at
the following locations:
     California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Sacramento,
California 95812
     San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 1990 E.
Gettysburg, Fresno, California 93726.
    The SIP materials are also electronically available at: http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/PM_Plans.htm and http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 972-
3957<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of EPA's Proposed and Final Actions on the 2008 State
Implementation Plan for Attainment of the 1997 PM2.5
Standards in the San Joaquin Valley
II. Response to Public Comments Received on the Proposals
III. Approval Status of the Control Strategy Measures and Final
Actions on the Attainment Demonstration and Enforceable Commitments
IV. Approval of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets and Trading
Mechanism for Transportation Conformity
V. Final Actions and Resulting Clean Air Act Consequences
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of EPA's Proposed and Final Actions on the 2008 State
Implementation Plan for Attainment of the 1997 PM2.5
Standards in the San Joaquin Valley

    On July 13, 2011, EPA proposed to approve in part and disapprove in
part California's state implementation plan (SIP) for attaining the
1997 fine particulate (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV). See 76 FR 41338.
California developed this SIP to provide for expeditious attainment of
the PM2.5 standards in the SJV and to meet other applicable
PM2.5 planning requirements in Clean Air Act (CAA) section
172(c) and EPA's PM2.5 implementation rule.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``The Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007) and
codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z (PM2.5
implementation rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In all, California has made six submittals to address the
PM2.5 SIP planning requirements for the SJV. The two
principal ones are the SJV Unified Air Pollution Control District's
(SJVUAPCD or District) 2008 PM2.5 Plan (amended 2010 and
2011) and the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) State Strategy
for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (amended 2009 and
2011).\2\ Together, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 State
Strategy present a comprehensive and innovative strategy for attaining
the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These SIP submittals are:
    1. SJVUAPCD, 2008 PM2.5 Plan, adopted on April 30, 2008 by the
SJVUAPCD and on May 22, 2008 by CARB, submitted on June 30, 2008.
    2. CARB, Proposed State Strategy for California's 2007 State
Implementation Plan, as amended and adopted on September 27, 2007 by
CARB, submitted on November 16, 2007.
    3. CARB, Status Report on the State Strategy for California's
2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revisions to the
SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy (pages 11-
27 only), adopted on April 24, 2009 by CARB, submitted on August 12,
2009.
    4. SJVUAPCD, 2008 PM2.5 Plan Amendment to Extend the Rule 4905
Amendment Schedule, adopted on June 17, 2010 by the SJVUAPCD,
submitted on September 15, 2010
    5. CARB, 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 (Appendices B, C and D
only), adopted on April 28, 2011 by CARB, submitted on May 18, 2011.
``2011 Progress Report.''
    6. CARB, 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and
Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan
Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San
Joaquin Valley Air Basins, adopted on July 21, 2011 by CARB and
submitted on July 29, 2011. (``2011 Ozone SIP Revisions'') Only the
PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions budgets in this submittal
are addressed in today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our July 2011 notice, EPA proposed multiple approval actions on
the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP. First, we proposed to approve the
SIP's reasonably available control measure/reasonably available control
technology (RACM/RACT) demonstration, reasonable further progress (RFP)
demonstration, attainment demonstration and associated air quality
modeling, base year emissions inventory; air quality modeling; and
motor vehicle emissions budgets.\3\ Second, we proposed to approve
enforceable commitments by both the District and CARB to certain
measures and specific amounts of emissions reductions. Third, we
proposed to concur with the State's determination that volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and ammonia are not attainment plan precursors for
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in

the SJV. Lastly, we proposed to grant California's request to extend
the attainment date for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
nonattainment area to April 5, 2015. See 76 FR 41338, 41361.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 2011 Progress Report contained budgets that were not
approvable because they included emissions reductions from a rule
that was ineligible for SIP credit. These budgets also included data
entry errors. See 76 FR 41338, 41360. We proposed instead to approve
alternative budgets that CARB had developed and posted for public
comment as part of its 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions and stated that the
approval was contingent on our receipt of the SIP revision
containing the revised budgets. Id. CARB submitted that SIP revision
on July 29, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also proposed to disapprove the contingency measures provisions
of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP for failing to provide sufficient
emissions reductions.\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We also proposed to disapprove a commitment by the District
to adopt revisions to its Rule 4702 ``Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines'' by December 2010 because that date had passed
and the District had not adopted revisions to the rule. We stated in
the proposal that we would not finalize this proposed disapproval if
the District adopted revisions to the rule by the time of our final
action on the SIP. See 76 FR 41338, 41361. On August 18, 2011, the
District adopted the revisions to Rule 4702; therefore, we are not
finalizing our proposed disapproval of this commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A more detailed discussion of each of California's SIP submittals
for the SJV area, the CAA and EPA requirements applicable to them, and
our evaluation and proposed actions can be found in our July 2011
proposal (76 FR 41338) and the technical support document (TSD) for
this final action.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Technical Support Document and Response to Comments Final
Rule on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 State
Implementation Plan,'' Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, September
30, 2011. The TSD can be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our July 2011 proposal was the second time that EPA proposed action
on California's SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP. On November 30, 2010 (75
FR 74518), EPA proposed to disapprove the majority of the provisions in
this SIP. During the comment period for the November 2010 proposal, we
received several comment letters from the public as well as comment
letters from CARB and the District. Subsequent to the close of the
comment period, CARB adopted and submitted revisions to the SJV
PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy. After considering
information contained in the comment letters and the supplemental SIP
submittals, we issued the July 2011 proposed rule which substantially
amended our November 2010 proposal.
    EPA is today approving most elements of the SJV 2008
PM2.5 SIP based on our conclusion that they comply with
applicable CAA requirements and provides for expeditious attainment of
the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the San Joaquin Valley. We are
also today disapproving the SIP's contingency measure provisions
because they do not provide sufficient emissions reductions. We are
continuing to working with the State and District to identify
additional control measures and incentive programs that meet the CAA's
requirements for contingency measures consistent with EPA regulations
and policy.

II. Response to Public Comments Received on the Proposals

    As part of this final action, EPA has considered and provided
responses to the comments submitted in response to both the November
2010 and the July 2011 proposals. Comments on our proposals were
received from:
    The Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment on behalf of the
Association of Irritated Residents (AIR) and other San Joaquin Valley-
based environmental and community organizations. AIR submitted comments
on both proposals.
    Earthjustice, on behalf of Medical Advocates for Healthy Air and
other San Joaquin Valley-based environmental and community
organizations. Earthjustice submitted comments on both proposals.
    SJVUAPCD provided comments on the November 2010 proposal.
    CARB provided two comment letters on our November 2010 proposal.
The first transmitted air quality modeling documentation and the second
provided comments on the proposal.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The majority of CARB's and the District's comments addressed
the November 2010 proposed disapprovals and EPA's grounds for them.
These comments were, for the most part, addressed by our July 2011
amended proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tom Frantz, President, AIR, submitted comments on our November 2010
proposal.
    Arthur D. Unger submitted comments on our November 2010 proposal.
    A copy of these comment letters and their attachments can be found
in the docket for this final rule.
    In the following sections, we summarize our responses to the most
significant comments received on the proposals. Our full responses to
all comments received can be found in the ``Response to Comments''
section (section III) of the TSD for this final rule.

A. Comments on the Proposed Action on the Emissions Inventory

    Comment: Earthjustice comments on the importance of emissions
inventories, noting that CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that
nonattainment plans ``include a comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant
pollutant or pollutants in such area.'' Earthjustice objects to EPA's
proposal to approve the inventories in the 2008 PM2.5 SIP
because they were current and accurate ``at the time the Plan was
developed and submitted,'' arguing that such language is not in the CAA
and is not a reasonable extension of Congress's intent, which is to
ensure the adoption and approval of SIPs that will achieve clean air
meeting the NAAQS. Earthjustice argues that an inventory that is
``known to be wrong'' undermines the modeling demonstration of the
emissions reductions needed to attain, and that EPA's interpretation
suggests that revisions to an inventory are needed only when it is
found that the inventory is not current or accurate as of the date it
is submitted. Earthjustice argues that such an interpretation
undermines any assurance that ``the requirements of [Part D of the CAA]
are met.'' Finally, Earthjustice asserts that ``EPA cannot approve
these inventories as complying with the requirements of section
172(c)(3) knowing that the data are not valid for purposes of building
an attainment plan.''
    Response: EPA does not dispute the importance of emissions
inventories. We evaluated the emissions inventories in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan to determine whether they satisfy the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and adequately support the Plan's
RACM, RFP and attainment demonstrations. Based on this evaluation, we
have concluded that the Plan's 2005 base year emissions inventory was
based on the most current and accurate information available to the
State and District at the time the Plan was developed and submitted and
comprehensively addresses all source categories in the SJV area,
consistent with applicable CAA requirements and EPA guidance. See 76 FR
41338 at 41342-41343 and 2011 Proposal TSD \7\ at section IIA; see also
``General Preamble for Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR 13498 at 13502 (April 16, 1992) (``General
Preamble'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Technical Support Document for the Revised Proposed
Rulemaking Action on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5
Plan and the San Joaquin Valley Portions of the Revised 2007 State
Strategy,'' Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9, June 29, 2011, ``2011
Proposal TSD.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not agree with Earthjustice's suggestion that EPA interprets
the CAA to require revisions to an emissions inventory only when it is
found that such inventory is not current or accurate as of the date it
is submitted. Significant changes to a base year inventory that
undermine the assumptions in an attainment demonstration may, on a case
by case basis, call for a reevaluation of the modeling or other
planning analyses supporting that demonstration. In this case, however,
as discussed in the proposed rule (76 FR 41562, 41567) and in section
II.A. below, we have concluded that the State's changes to its
methodologies for estimating future

emissions do not significantly affect the 2002 base year inventories
and, consequently, do not undermine the modeling or other analyses that
rely on those inventories and that support the attainment demonstration
in the Plan. Based on this technical assessment, we have concluded that
it is not necessary in this case for the State to submit a revised base
year inventory. We note that states are required to report
comprehensive emissions inventories to EPA every three years under the
Air Emissions Reporting Requirements in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. See
40 CFR 51.30(b).
    CAA section 172(b) provides that ``the State containing [a
nonattainment] area shall submit a plan or plan revision (including the
plan items) meeting the applicable requirements of [section 172(c) and
section 110]'' on the schedule established by EPA, and section 172(c)
contains, inter alia, the requirement that nonattainment plans ``shall
include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in
such area.'' We believe it is reasonable to read these provisions
together as requiring that the State submit an inventory that is
``comprehensive, accurate, [and] current'' at the time the State
submitted it to EPA, rather than requiring that the State continually
revise its plan as new emissions data becomes available. See Brief of
Respondents, EPA, in Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., Case Nos.
10-71457 and 10-71458 (consolidated), May 5, 2011. States could never
effectively plan for air quality improvements if they had to constantly
revise their inventories as new data became available. Air quality
planning is an iterative process and states and EPA must rely on the
best available data at the time the plans are created.
    Comment: Throughout its comments, AIR uses the term ``recession
reductions'' which it defines as ``the emissions reductions the [C]ARB
claims have occurred as a result of the recession.''
    Response: In its comments, AIR calculates what it considers ``the
total reductions from baseline reductions without recession
reductions'' as 11 tpd of PM2.5, 195 tons per day (tpd) of
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and 0.9 tpd of sulfur oxides
(SOX). These figures are the same as the calculated
reductions from the baseline measures prior to the updates to the 2014
baseline inventory.\8\ Based on these calculations, AIR seems to
consider the ``recession reductions'' to be the difference between the
2014 baseline inventory submitted with the 2008 PM2.5 Plan
in 2008 and the revised 2014 baseline inventory submitted with the 2011
Progress Report in 2011. By labeling this difference as ``recession
reductions,'' AIR attributes the differences entirely to revisions to
the economic forecasts. This is not entirely correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See line D on Table 7 in the November 30, 2010 proposed
action on the SJV PM2.5 SIP at 75 FR 74518. On this
table, the baseline NOX reductions are listed as 199.2
tpd but include 4.2 tpd of uncreditable reductions that are not
included in AIR's numbers. By ``baseline inventories'' or
``projected baseline inventories,'' we mean projected emissions
inventories for future years that account for, among other things,
the ongoing effects of economic growth and adopted emissions control
requirements. A 2014 baseline inventory is important because this
year is the ``attainment year,'' the year by which all reductions
needed for attainment need to be in place for the SJV. See 40 CFR
51.1007(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes to the 2014 baseline inventory include revisions not only
to the economic forecasts but also to a variety of other factors (out-
of-state vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates, cumulative mileage,
equipment populations, load factors, and hours of use, etc.) used to
calculate emissions from trucks, buses, and certain off-road equipment
categories. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E. CARB estimates that
revisions to the truck inventory excluding recession impacts reduced
truck emissions statewide by 10 percent from the 2014 baseline levels
estimated when the Truck rule was adopted in 2008 while recession
impacts reduced the baseline level by a further 7 percent. See 2010
Truck Rule ISOR, p. 19.\9\ For off-road equipment, CARB estimates that
inventory changes independent of the recession were responsible for
half the overall reduction in projected statewide emissions. See 2010
Off Road Rule ISOR, p. 17.\10\ We note that these figures are average
statewide figures and not specific to the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ CARB, ``Staff Report: Initial State of Reasons for Proposed
Rulemaking, Proposed Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulations,
The Drayage Truck Regulation and the Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas
Regulation,'' October 2010 (``2010 Truck Rule ISOR'').
    \10\ CARB Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for
Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-
Fueled Fleets and the Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Fleet
Requirements, October 2010, including Appendix D1 (``2010 Off-Road
Rule ISOR'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: AIR contends that in the 2011 Progress Report, CARB first
claims that the reduced economic activity caused by the recession has
reduced 2014 emissions levels in the SJV by 2.7 tpd of
PM2.5, 63.1 tpd of NOX and 0.1 tpd of
SOX. AIR further contends that CARB claims that the
recession has caused current inventories of the goods movement and
construction sectors to be lower than projected in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan. Finally, citing EPA's statement in the 2011
Proposal TSD about the effect of the 2007-2009 economic recession on
activity levels in the State's construction and goods movement sectors,
AIR asserts that accounting for the recession through inventory
adjustments is improper.
    Response: CARB does not claim that the recession alone has reduced
the projected 2014 baseline emissions in the SJV nor did it provide the
numbers cited by AIR. As discussed in the response to the preceding
comment, revisions to the baseline inventory took into account not only
changes to the State's economic forecasts but also updated information
on out-of-state VMT estimates, cumulative mileage, equipment
populations, and other data used to calculate emissions from trucks,
buses, and certain off-road equipment. The emissions reduction figures
that AIR ascribes to CARB are figures EPA calculated using data
provided by CARB.
    EPA uses the phrase ``adjustments to the baseline'' to refer to the
difference between the 2014 baseline initially submitted in the 2008
SJV PM2.5 Plan and the recently revised 2014 baseline as
submitted in the 2011 Progress Report. This ``adjustments to baseline''
figure is nothing more than EPA's summary of the overall impact of both
recession and non-recession related changes between the two projected
inventories. EPA calculated this adjustment from summary data CARB
provided in Appendix E of the 2011 Progress Report. The adjustment
represents the net results of CARB's changes to its inventories rather
than the changes themselves.
    CARB revised its inventories for trucks and diesel off-road
equipment to incorporate new and better data including new research on
truck travel within California. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, Appendix G.
These revisions were not mere adjustments to previous inventories but
thorough reviews of much of the data that goes into estimating
emissions from these sources. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, Appendix G and
2010 Off-Road Rule ISOR, Appendix D.\11\ These inventory revisions also
included review of current and future activity data (such as fuel
consumption, diesel fuel sales,

trucking industry tonnage reports, truck sales trends, and truck
registration data) for these categories as well as economic forecasts
from a number of reputable sources.\12\ Throughout its development of
these revisions, CARB held workshops seeking public review and input
into its work. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For an overview of these changes and their results, see the
presentation to the CARB Board by CARB's Planning and Technical
Support Division on November 18, 2010, entitled, ``Diesel Inventory
Improvements for Regulatory Development,'' available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/books/2010/111810/10-10-9pres.pdf and in the
docket for this rule.
    \12\ See CARB, ``ARB Staff Assessment of the Impact of the
Economy on California Trucking Activity and Emissions 2006-2014,''
draft December 2009, available in the docket for this rule. Sources
of economic data included California Department of Finance,
California Legislative Analyst's Office, California Energy
Commission, UCLA Anderson School, Beacon Economics, University of
the Pacific, Congressional Budget Office, and US Energy Information
Agency. Id. pp. 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emissions projections are a function of change in activity (growth
or decline) combined with changes in the emissions rate or controls
applicable to emissions sources. Projected inventories are, therefore,
necessarily affected by forecasts of industrial growth, population
growth, and transportation growth, among other factors.\13\ EPA
guidance emphasizes the importance of developing reliable methods for
estimating future source activity levels as part of the SIP planning
process.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See ``Emission Projections,'' STAPPA/ALAPCO/EPA Emissions
Inventory Improvement Project, Volume X (December 1999) at 1-1
(available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume10/x01.pdf).
    \14\ See ``Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections,'' EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-450/4-91-019 (July
1991) at p. 6 and section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with AIR's assertion that ``EPA claims that the ARB has
opted to take credit for the decrease in the inventory in the
attainment demonstration as `a line-item adjustment to the baseline
inventories.' '' EPA stated in the 2011 Proposal TSD (pg. 18) that
``California is reflecting these recession impacts as a line-item
adjustment to the baseline inventories.'' This statement was incorrect
and should have read that EPA (not CARB) is reflecting the recession
impacts as a line-item adjustment to the baseline inventories. EPA
believes this adjustment is appropriate in light of the impact of these
emissions changes on the baseline. We should have also been clearer
that the 2014 adjustments included the technical revisions to the
inventory that are discussed on page 19 of the 2011 Proposal TSD.
    Finally, we note that although AIR objects categorically to the
revisions to the projected emissions inventories based on CARB's
revised economic forecasts, it provides no information to refute CARB's
extensive documentation of the impact of the economic recession on air
pollution generating activity. It also provides no information to
refute CARB's non-recession related revisions to the projected
inventories.

B. Comments on the Proposed Action on the Air Quality Modeling

    Comment: Earthjustice and AIR comment that CARB's emissions
inventory update necessitates new attainment demonstration modeling.
AIR alleges that EPA's 2011 Proposal TSD stated that updates should
trigger new modeling. AIR notes EPA's statement in that TSD that the
model underpredicts. In addition, AIR questions EPA's reliance on
unreviewed model sensitivity results from CARB as the basis for not
requiring new modeling. Earthjustice comments that the difficulty of
performing new modeling is not a valid reason for approving an
erroneous attainment demonstration. It adds that EPA's method for
assessing the effect of the inventory update has the ``obvious flaw''
that it relies on design value changes to within hundredths of a
percent, starting from design values that are, according to
Earthjustice, acknowledged to be erroneous.
    Response: While some large emissions inventory changes might indeed
necessitate new modeling, EPA does not agree that the inventory changes
were large enough to substantially affect the SJV modeling conclusions,
or to invalidate the SJV attainment demonstration. As EPA stated in the
2011 Proposal TSD (p. 47), ideally new modeling would be performed when
an area's emissions inventory is changed. However, since the cost in
time and resources of remodeling and consequent reworking of a plan is
not trivial, administrative necessity requires a judgment call about
when changes are large enough to merit new modeling; there is no
automatic trigger. An important criterion in making this judgment is
whether the changes would affect the conclusion that the plan's
emissions reductions are adequate for attaining the NAAQS. Another
consideration is the uncertainty inherent in modeling; although model
results may be reported to several decimal places, model performance
goals for fractional bias are typically in the range of 30 percent.
Plan's Regional Model Performance Analysis,\15\ p.12, and EPA Guidance
\16\ Appendix B. Small changes in the emissions inventory could be in
the range of the ``noise'' of the model. This is not to discount the
importance of an accurate emissions inventory, but rather to make the
point that relatively small changes in inventory estimates do not
necessarily invalidate a model application. EPA finds that the 5-6
percent base year emissions decreases due to the inventory updates in
this case are relatively small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The ``Regional Model Performance Analysis'' is an appendix
to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.
    \16\ EPA ``Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze,'' April 2007. (``EPA
Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA did assess the effect of the emissions inventory improvements
on the attainment demonstration, using a procedure described in the
2011 Proposal TSD and other supporting documents. EPA did note in the
2011 Proposal TSD (p. 48) that the emissions update revealed some model
bias. The model appears to be underpredicting (biased low): Its
emissions inputs are now known to be too high, so its predicted
concentrations should have been higher, too. Model bias is an important
issue that modelers address in developing the model application for a
specific area and pollution episode, through testing and refinement of
a model's many inputs. The bias problem is somewhat ameliorated by the
use of models in a relative sense via ``relative reduction factors''
(RRFs), as recommended in EPA Guidance (p. 20). The various influences
that lead to model underestimation in the base year would also be
expected to cause underestimation in the attainment year, and these
tend to cancel out in the RRF ratio calculation used to project the
future effect of controls. In other words, the effect of model bias is
minimized when it is accounted for at both end points, the base and
attainment years. In a similar vein, EPA assessed the effect of the
emissions update on the attainment demonstration, essentially by
removing the bias revealed by the update from both the base year and
the attainment year.\17\ The bias was estimated by combining the
emissions changes with an estimate of model PM2.5
sensitivity per unit of emissions change. The effect of removing the
bias by this procedure was to increase predicted attainment year annual
PM2.5 design values by 1-2 percent. EPA finds that this is
small enough to be considered

within the ``noise'' of the model and does not change the overall
modeling conclusions. But even with this increase added in, the
predicted concentrations meet the NAAQS. This is a quantitative showing
that the emissions updates are small enough that they do not invalidate
the attainment demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This procedure is in some ways parallel to but not the same
as the RRF calculation and could be applied even if the model were
not used in a relative sense. The inventory estimates the emissions
reduction between the base and future years. An RRF scales the
monitored design value using the relative model response to a given
emissions reduction estimate, in order to account for that
reduction. The procedure here scales the model's future predictions
using model sensitivity, in order to account for changes in the
emissions reduction estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in the 2011 Proposal TSD (section II.B), EPA reviewed
the development of the model application, the procedures used to
develop the model inputs, model testing methods and performance
statistics, and the methods used to compute RRFs and attainment year
PM2.5 design values. EPA finds that CARB applied these
methods appropriately, including to the sensitivity results and
believes that these modeling inputs and RRF calculations were carried
out as described by CARB. As a result, we find that the sensitivity
results provide a reasonable basis for assessing the effect of the
inventory update on the attainment demonstration.
    EPA does not agree with Earthjustice that starting from the Plan's
modeled design values and ending with small design value changes
constitute flaws in the procedure for estimating the effect of the
baseline inventory revisions. All modeling has uncertainty and bias
including any new modeling that would be done using the updated
emissions inventory estimates. Every modeling result is an
approximation and is likely to contain errors. Administrative
necessity, therefore, requires a judgment call about whether such
problems are substantial enough to impact regulatory decisions.
Modeling experts from regulatory agencies, academia, and consulting
firms were involved in developing the SJV modeling. It underwent
successful diagnostic testing and performs well. EPA finds that it
continues to constitute an adequate basis for the attainment
demonstration.
    Further, EPA believes that the original modeling is basically sound
in how it portrays SJV atmospheric chemistry and transport and that
results derived from model sensitivity tests are a reasonable
approximation to what would result from new modeling with the updated
inventory. EPA's procedure for estimating the effect of the inventory
changes using model sensitivity results does make a number of
assumptions: Emissions changes are small enough that the model response
is linear, model sensitivity is similar in the starting and ending
years, and the spatial and temporal distribution of emissions is little
changed with the inventory update. EPA believes that these assumptions
are reasonable and that the procedure it used provides strong evidence
for the attainment demonstration's validity.
    As for the smallness of the design value changes resulting from the
procedure, EPA does not believe this is a substantive issue. Any
procedure (even new modeling) that starts with small emissions changes
will necessarily result in small design value changes. Within a small
range, over which the chemistry does not shift fundamentally, ambient
concentrations are approximately proportional to emissions, by the law
of conservation of matter. This is not a case of an overly precise tiny
number being added to a large erroneous random number, but rather of an
adjustment ratio applied to a number derived from extensive data and
analysis. Some intermediate steps in the calculation procedure that EPA
used to evaluate the emissions inventory change did involve tenths of a
percent (not hundredths as stated by the commenter), but this is
largely an artifact of showing the procedure in multiple steps for
comprehensibility. EPA could have done the calculation in a single step
to avoid this artifact. When modeling a 10 percent change in
NOX emissions results in a design value change of 1.4
percent, a calculation using this model sensitivity result will
necessarily involve fractions of 1 percent or less. In this case, the
emissions inventory update involved a change in NOX
emissions of less than 10 percent, and thus, would also be expected to
yield relatively small design value changes.
    Comment: Earthjustice comments that a simple screening analysis
cannot substitute for an unmonitored area analysis, as it is inadequate
to address the sharp ambient concentration gradients that occur in
near-highway areas.
    Response: EPA agrees that the simple screening analysis in the Plan
as originally submitted in June 2008 is not an adequate substitute for
an unmonitored area analysis (UAA) and noted this deficiency in our
November 2010 proposal. See 75 FR 74518, 74530. As noted in the 2011
proposal (76 FR 41388, 41348), CARB subsequently submitted a modeling
supplement that included a UAA that follows EPA Guidance. See CARB
modeling supplement, p. 139.\18\ The UAA led to the conclusion that
there would not be any NAAQS violations at locations away from
monitors, and EPA has evaluated and accepted that conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Letter and enclosure, John DaMassa, Chief, Modeling and
Meteorology Branch; California Air Resources Board, January 28, 2011
(``CARB modeling supplement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for whether the UAA itself adequately addresses the commenter's
underlying concern about sharp concentration gradients, the EPA
Guidance states:

    ``The unmonitored area analysis is intended to be the primary
means for identifying high PM2.5 concentrations outside
of traditionally monitored locations. * * * Based on the monitoring
guidance, we believe that an unmonitored area analysis conducted at
12 km or finer resolution is sufficient to address unmonitored
PM2.5 for the annual NAAQS. Conducting the unmonitored
analysis at 4 km or finer resolution will provide an even more
detailed analysis of the spatial gradients of primary
PM2.5, especially when evaluating violations of the 24-
hr. NAAQS.''

    This modeling guidance recommendations are consistent with the
requirements of the EPA's PM2.5 monitoring rules. The
modeling guidance UAA spatial scale recommendations are intended to
capture neighborhood scale and larger areas, since the monitoring rules
do not require micro or middle scale monitors for either the annual or
24-hr PM2.5 standards. CARB's UAA was conducted at a
resolution of 4 km, so it is more detailed than EPA's recommended
approach for UAA. In addition, it is intended for areas with a large
primary PM2.5 contribution (that is, directly emitted rather
than formed chemically over time), and relying on local primary PM
controls to reach attainment. EPA Guidance, p.100. By contrast, the
attainment demonstration in the 2008 p.m.2.5 Plan mainly relies on
area-wide control of NOX, a PM2.5 precursor,
rather than on control of local primary PM2.5.
    Comment: Earthjustice comments that air quality worsened after 2005
despite the economic downturn, so that new air quality modeling should
be performed to account for this upward trend.
    Response: EPA did review the evaluation of air quality progress
presented in the Plan and also independently examined air quality data.
See 2011 Proposal TSD, p.6 and p.45. Air quality monitoring data is
useful for a general understanding of the SJV's air quality problem, as
well as for use in supplemental analyses that accompany the modeled
attainment demonstration. Downward trending emissions and ambient
concentrations would tend to support the conclusion that the area is on
track toward attainment of the NAAQS, although evaluation of such
trends should account for the particular location, time period, and air
quality metric examined. In addition, overall trends may be hard

to discern given the year-to-year variability of meteorology and other
factors.
    The Plan used the data that was available at the time it was
developed, focusing on 2001-2006, for which the Plan's Weight of
Evidence analysis makes a strong case for air quality progress
according to several metrics, including design value concentrations,
frequency of high concentrations, concentration of PM2.5
component species, and emissions. We conclude that these analyses
adequately support the attainment demonstration. EPA also looked at a
longer period, 2000-2010, and found that the slight PM2.5
concentration increase shown in the Plan for 2006 continued through
2008 and flattened in 2009. Although PM2.5 concentrations
continued to improve in 2010, the Bakersfield area's annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 design values calculated from 2008-2010 data were the
highest in the U.S. See 76 FR 41338, 41339. We note, however, that data
over the longer time frame shows there has been substantial air quality
progress over the past decade. See TSD, section I.B.1.
    The concentration increases during 2006-2009 are not well
understood but may have been partly a result of unfavorable meteorology
during that time. District and CARB efforts to evaluate the effect of
meteorology on air quality trends are under way. The higher values
during that period do weaken the case made in the Plan's Weight of
Evidence analysis, which is a supplemental analysis to the attainment
demonstration itself, but are not themselves grounds for disapproving
the attainment demonstration or the Plan.
    Comment: Citing 40 CFR 51.1000 and 72 FR at 20600, Earthjustice
asserts that attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS by April 5, 2015
will require review of ambient data from 2012, 2013, and 2014.
Earthjustice also asserts that the majority of emissions reductions in
the Plan are delayed until 2014 and argues that modeling ambient
concentration in 2014 does not provide an accurate picture of what
emissions will be in 2012 and 2013. It further states that the modeling
year must be adjusted to give a more reasonable prediction of what a 3-
year average concentration from 2012-2014 will be since it is this
concentration that will determine if the Valley has attained the
PM2.5 standards by the attainment date. Finally,
Earthjustice asserts that the fact that the majority of reductions are
in 2014 violates the reasonable further progress requirement.
    Response: We disagree with Earthjustice's assertion that the Plan
delays the majority of emissions reductions until 2014 and therefore
fails to satisfy RFP requirements. As explained in our amended proposal
(76 FR 41338 at 41355-41357) and further in section II.H. of the TSD,
the majority of the reductions needed for attainment occur well before
2014. The Plan's RFP demonstration shows that more than 87 percent of
the NOX, 80 percent of the PM2.5 and all the
SOX reductions needed for attainment will occur by 2012. See
2011 Progress Report, Appendix C, p. 1. We explain further in section
II.H. of the TSD our reasons for concluding that the 2008
PM2.5 SIP provides for RFP consistent with the CAA and the
PM2.5 implementation rule.\19\ We also explain in section
II.D. our reasons for concluding that the Plan demonstrates that all
control measures needed for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5
standards will be in place as expeditiously as practicable and no later
than the beginning of 2014, consistent with the CAA and 40 CFR
51.1007(b) (requiring ``implementation of all control measures needed
for attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the
beginning of the year prior to the attainment date''). See section
II.G. and II.D. of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586
(April 25, 2007), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z
``PM2.5 implementation rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also concluded that the attainment demonstration in the Plan was
developed consistent with procedures in EPA's modeling guidance. In
addition, to a degree the modeling procedures already reflect the
expected continuing emissions decreases during the years before the
attainment year. The monitored base year design value reflects an
emissions decrease over the three years of 2004-2006, not just the
single 2005 emissions year. The projected design value reflects a
modeled change to that monitored design value, so it too is consistent
with some decreases occurring over multiple years, not just the single
year of 2014.
    Finally, we note that Earthjustice conflates the requirements
governing EPA's action on an attainment demonstration under CAA section
172(c)(1) with those governing an attainment determination under CAA
section 179(c). Earthjustice appears to assume that a demonstration of
attainment by April 5, 2015, requires a demonstration that the area
will have air quality measurements at or below the levels of the
standards three years prior to that date. This is incorrect. An
attainment determination under CAA 179(c) is a fact-based determination
made after the attainment date based on air quality monitoring
data.\20\ An attainment demonstration, on the other hand, is a
predictive tool for assessing what air quality will be at a future
time. An attainment demonstration is based on air quality modeling
showing that the projected design value of the relevant pollutant in
attainment year will be at or below the level of the relevant ambient
air quality standard. See 72 FR from 20605 to 20609.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ A determination of attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard is based on monitoring data that shows a
3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations of
less than 15 microgram per cubic meter ([mu]/m\3\), and a
determination of the attainment of the 1997 24-hour PM2.5
standard is based on monitoring data that shows the 3-year average
of 98th percentile 24-hour concentrations is less than 65 [mu]/m\3\.
See 40 CFR 50.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, for a PM2.5 nonattainment area subject
only to the requirements of subpart 1 of title I, part D of the CAA, a
State may demonstrate that in the attainment year, the area will have
air quality such that the area could be eligible for the first of two
one-year extensions allowed under CAA section 172(a)(2)(C). Under CAA
section 172(a)(2)(C), an area that does not have three years of
monitored data demonstrating attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS
but has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to
the area in the applicable SIP, and that has no more than minimal
number of exceedances of the NAAQS in the attainment year, may receive
a one-year extension of its attainment date. If the same conditions are
met in the following year, the area may receive an additional one-year
extension. Should the SJV area qualify for both of these extensions,
the relevant 3-year period for determining whether the area has
attained the PM2.5 NAAQS would be 2014-2016.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ EPA has long interpreted analogous provisions for ozone
nonattainment areas in CAA sections 181(a)(5) and 182(c)(2) in this
same manner. See Brief of Respondents, EPA, in Sierra Club, et al.
v. U.S. EPA, et al., Case Nos. 10-71457 and 10-71458 (consolidated),
May 5, 2011; see also Environmental Defense v. U.S .EPA, 369 F.3d
193 (2nd Cir. 2004) (denying petition for review of EPA's approval
of New York's 1-hour ozone attainment plan based on, inter alia,
EPA's reasonable interpretation of the extension provision in CAA
section 181(a)(5)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Earthjustice comments that given the problems it has
described with the air quality modeling, the 9:1 NOX to
PM2.5 relative effectiveness ratio cannot be used for
transportation conformity or other purposes, unless it is supported
with new modeling.
    Response: EPA does not agree with Earthjustice that the modeling
problems are substantial enough to invalidate the 9:1 ratio for
NOX to direct PM2.5 emissions trading in the
transportation

conformity context. As discussed above, EPA believes that the modeling
is basically sound, including the model's (relative) sensitivity to
emissions changes. There is no established method for determining
trading ratios in conformity, but as discussed in the 2011 Proposal TSD
(p.148), EPA finds that the model sensitivity-based method used by CARB
for determining an equivalency or relative effectiveness ratio is
adequate for assessing the effect of area-wide emissions changes, such
as are used in conformity budgets. The method modeled ``across the
board'' emissions changes over the entire modeling domain; emissions
considered in transportation conformity are also domain-wide. Trading
in other contexts could involve additional consideration of spatial and
temporal variation of the emissions, and would require an additional
technical demonstration by the State and evaluation by EPA. EPA is not
approving the trading ratio for any other purpose than in conformity
budgets.

C. Comments on the Identification of PM2.5 Attainment Plan
Precursors

    Comment: Earthjustice comments that EPA should rely on the November
2010 proposal's technical demonstration that VOC should be considered a
PM2.5 plan precursor and should disapprove the Plan for its
failure to address control of VOC emissions. The commenter states that
EPA reversed its earlier VOC finding without receiving any new credible
evidence on the issue.
    Response: The PM2.5 implementation rule establishes a
presumption that VOC is not a PM2.5 plan precursor requiring
controls. See 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3). This presumption may be overturned
if either EPA or the State provides an appropriate technical
demonstration showing that VOC emissions from sources in the State
significantly contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the
nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3)(i) and (ii). The preamble
to the implementation rule suggests various analyses that could be part
of such a demonstration, such as emissions inventory, speciation data,
modeling information, or other special studies. But the preamble is not
prescriptive on required technical demonstrations, and neither the
preamble nor the rule defines ``significantly.'' Under the rule,
excluding VOC as an attainment plan precursor does not require a
showing that VOC controls are ineffective or counterproductive. Rather,
since VOC is already excluded by presumption, the lack of a clear
showing that VOC controls are effective is sufficient for it to remain
excluded.
    For the November 2011 proposal, EPA reviewed various monitoring and
modeling studies on the role of VOC as a PM2.5 precursor in
the SJV. EPA proposed to find that these studies constitute a technical
demonstration that VOC is a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor,
and used that as a basis to propose disapproval of the Plan, which
lacks VOC controls.
    Earthjustice correctly notes that CARB did not submit any new study
results per se in response to our 2010 proposal but rather
reinterpretation of the same modeling studies that EPA had already
examined. For the 2011 proposal, EPA reviewed and accepted several of
CARB's arguments made in its VOC supplement.\22\ CARB noted the
importance of considering simultaneous VOC and NOX
reductions, a more realistic scenario than VOC-only or NOX-
only reductions, given the various controls that are already in place
for the ozone plan. The only study to consider simultaneous reductions
found a disbenefit from VOC control, while NOX control
continued to be beneficial. CARB discounted one study that had found
VOC control to be beneficial by noting that it had used artificially
doubled VOC emissions in order to perform reasonably well at predicting
PM2.5. For another study, CARB pointed out some features of
the multi-day model response to VOC reductions that are inconsistent
with the photochemical VOC pathway to PM2.5 formation and
that the benefits from VOC reduction were seen only at high
PM2.5 concentrations that are seldom seen today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to
Frances Wicher, Office of Air Planning, EPA Region 9, January 28,
2011, Attachment 4, ``Air Resources Board comments on U.S. EPA's
November 30, 2010 proposal that VOC be considered a significant
PM2.5 Precursor for the San Joaquin Valley 2008
PM2.5 State Implementation Plan (SIP).'' (``CARB VOC
supplement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA found these arguments persuasive enough to raise questions
about the efficacy of VOC controls for reducing PM2.5 levels
in the SJV. Even setting aside the concern that VOC control could
worsen PM2.5 concentrations in some circumstances, EPA finds
that the evidence of the effectiveness of VOC controls is at this time
not clear enough to overcome the presumption in the PM2.5
implementation rule that VOC should not be an attainment plan
precursor. However, EPA also believes it is important that reductions
of VOC, ammonia, and other PM2.5 precursors be more
thoroughly explored with realistic model sensitivity and other analyses
as part of future modeling efforts in the SJV.
    In its comment letter, Earthjustice also included additional
information in favor of VOC as a precursor. We have reviewed this
information (which mainly duplicates information EPA has already
reviewed) and concluded that it does not provide sufficient grounds to
reverse the presumption that VOC is not a PM2.5 attainment
plan precursor in the SJV. Our complete analysis of Earthjustice's
information can be found in the response to comments section (section
III.D.) of the TSD.

D. Comments on the Proposed Action on the Reasonably Available Control
Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration

    Comment: Earthjustice asserts that EPA must disapprove the Plan's
RACM/RACT demonstration because many of the rules that the District and
CARB rely on have not been approved as satisfying RACT requirements.
Earthjustice also states that the demonstration fails to address VOC
controls or to provide adequate air quality modeling documentation.
Finally, Earthjustice asserts that several of the rules intended to
provide the majority of NOX and PM reductions from
stationary sources in the Valley were adopted with substantially
weakened controls from what was anticipated during plan development and
will now provide only a fraction of what is needed to bring the area
into attainment by 2014.
    Response: Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires that each
attainment plan ``provide for the implementation of all reasonably
available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including
such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may
be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available
control technology), and shall provide for attainment of the national
primary ambient air quality standards.'' For over 30 years, EPA has
consistently interpreted this provision to require that States adopt
only those ``reasonably available'' measures necessary for expeditious
attainment and to meet RFP requirements. 40 CFR 51.1010; see also 44 FR
20372 (April 4, 1979) (Part D of title I of the CAA ``does not require
that all sources apply RACM if less than all RACM will suffice for
[RFP] and attainment''); 57 FR 13498 at 13560 (April 16, 1992) (``where
measures that might in fact be available for implementation in the
nonattainment area could not be implemented on a schedule that would
advance the date for attainment in the area, EPA would not consider it
reasonable to require

implementation of such measures''); ``Guidance on the Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment
Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,'' November 30,
1999 (1999 Seitz Memo) (a State may justify rejection of a measure as
not ``reasonably available'' for that area based on technological or
economic grounds); and 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005) at 71661 (noting
that States ``need adopt measures only if they are both economically
and technologically feasible and will advance the attainment date or
are necessary for RFP''). EPA's interpretation of section 172(c)(1) has
been upheld by several courts. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, et al.,
294 F. 3d 155 (DC Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735 (5th
Cir. 2002).
    Under the PM2.5 implementation rule at 40 CFR 51.1010, a
RACM demonstration must include ``the list of the potential measures
considered by the State, and information and analysis sufficient to
support the State's judgment that it has adopted all RACM, including
RACT.'' 40 CFR 51.1010(a). In addition, ``[p]otential measures that are
reasonably available considering technical and economic feasibility
must be adopted as RACM if, considered collectively, they would advance
the attainment date by one year or more.'' As explained in the preamble
to the PM2.5 implementation rule, Congress provided EPA and
States broad discretion to determine what measures to include in an
attainment plan, and the language in section 172(c)(1) requiring only
``reasonably available'' measures and implementation of these measures
``as expeditiously as practicable'' indicates that Congress intended
for the RACT/RACM requirement to be driven by an overall requirement
that the measure be ``reasonable.'' 72 FR 20586 at 20610 (April 25,
2007). Thus, the rule of ``reason'' drives the decisions on what
controls to apply, what should be controlled, by when emissions must be
reduced, and finally, the rigor required in a State's RACT/RACM
analysis. See id. States may, as part of a RACM analysis, consider the
costs of potential control measures and whether the measures can be
readily and effectively implemented without undue administrative
burden. See id. (citing 55 FR 38327 and 66 FR 26969).
    As a threshold matter, we note that VOC controls are not a required
element of the RACM demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan
because EPA agrees with the State's determination that VOCs are not
attainment plan precursors for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in the SJV area. See 76 FR at 41343 (citing 40 CFR 51.1002(c) and
51.1010) and our responses to comments on attainment plan precursors,
in section II.C. above.
    Second, as to air quality modeling documentation, we explain in
section II.B. above in our responses to comments on the air quality
modeling our reasons for concluding that the modeling in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan adequately supports the Plan's RACM and
attainment demonstration.
    Third, as to Earthjustice's assertions about RACT, we note that
although CAA section 182(b)(2) requires States to implement RACT for
specific types of sources in ozone nonattainment areas classified as
moderate or above, there is no specific RACT control mandate for
PM2.5 purposes that applies to specific sources in
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Rather, under the
PM2.5 implementation rule, RACT and RACM are those measures
that a state finds are both reasonably available and contribute to
attainment as expeditiously as practicable in the specific
nonattainment area. See 76 FR at 41343 (citing 40 CFR 51.1010 and 72 FR
20586 at 20612). EPA has, therefore, evaluated the collection of
reasonably available control measures that CARB and the District have
adopted and submitted with the attainment demonstration in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan to meet the RACM/RACT requirement in CAA section
172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1010. See 76 FR 41338 at 41343-41346 and 2011
Proposal TSD at section II.D.
    Finally, as to the specific NOX and PM control options
that Earthjustice asserts should also be required as RACM, we have
considered whether these additional control options are reasonably
available for implementation in SJV considering technical and economic
feasibility, and as to those measures that are potentially reasonable,
whether they would considered collectively would advance the attainment
date in the SJV by one year or more. For the reasons discussed below,
we conclude that the control options identified by Earthjustice are not
required RACM for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
SJV area.
    Comment: Earthjustice states that EPA should not approve Rule 4692
(Commercial Charbroiling) as RACT because there is no justification for
the District's decision to exclude control requirements for under-fired
charbroilers (UFC) from the rule. In support of this assertion,
Earthjustice states, among other things, that: (1) SJVUAPCD had
initially found certain control options for UFC units to be cost-
effective and that its later revisions to these cost estimates in
response to comments were based on inappropriate criteria, such as its
``10 percent of the industry's profits'' test; (2) that BAAQMD's
adoption of UFC control requirements in 2007 indicates that such
controls are considered feasible; and (3) that SJVUAPCD's failure to
control UFCs means that PM emissions reductions from this rule are
reduced from more than 2 tons per day (tpd) to just 0.02 tpd.
    Response: EPA recently determined that Rule 4692 satisfied
applicable CAA requirements and fully approved the rule into the SJV
portion of the California SIP.\23\ See 76 FR 38340 (June 30, 2011)
(proposed rule) and ``Revisions to the California State Implementation
Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District'' final
rule, pre-publication notice signed September 30, 2011 (Rule 4692). As
part of that action, EPA reviewed the District's evaluation of
potential UFC controls and concurred with the District's conclusion
that those controls are not reasonably available for implementation in
the SJV area at this time, considering technological and economic
feasibility (see EPA's June 9, 2011 Proposal TSD at pp. 4-5). Given
EPA's long-standing position that States may justify rejection of
certain control measures as not ``reasonably available'' based on
economic grounds (among others), we believe that it is appropriate for
the District to consider the cost of controls at sources actually
located within the specific area to determine if they are economically
feasible with respect to those sources. Although we do not endorse the
District's use of a ``10 percent of the industry's profit'' test for
economic feasibility, we agree with the District's conclusion that UFC
controls are not economically feasible based on the facts and
circumstances related to actual cost of those controls in the SJV area.
For the reasons stated in our separate proposed and final rules on Rule
4692, we conclude in this final action on the 2008 PM2.5
Plan that Rule 4692 requires all RACM for charbroilers in SJV, and that
the additional controls for UFC identified by Earthjustice are not
required RACM for purposes of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan because
they are not

reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ As explained in our June 30, 2011 proposal to approve Rule
4692 (76 FR 38340), the specific ozone RACT requirement in CAA
section 182(b)(2) does not apply to this rule because there are no
Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) documents for this source
category and no major sources of NOX or VOC subject to
this rule in the SJV area. See 76 FR at 38341. We therefore
interpret the commenters' reference to RACT as referring to the
general requirement for reasonably available control measures
(including RACT for stationary sources) in CAA section 172(c)(1).
See 40 CFR 51.1010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Earthjustice asserts that Rule 4103 (Open Burning)
achieves far less than what was anticipated in the Plan, and that the
District had inappropriately relied on the 10 percent of profits test
to exempt from control the three largest source categories of
NOX, PM, and VOC covered by the Rule. Earthjustice asserts
that this resulted in foregone emissions reductions of 1,030 tpy
NOX, 1,262 tpy PM2.5 and 1,138 tpy VOC.
    Response: EPA recently determined that Rule 4103 satisfied
applicable CAA requirements and fully approved the rule into the SJV
portion of the California SIP. See 76 FR 40660 (July 11, 2011)
(proposed rule) and ``Revisions to the California State Implementation
Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District;''
final rule, pre-publication notice signed September 30, 2011 (Rule
4103)). As part of that action, EPA reviewed the District's evaluation
of the postponements of certain burning prohibitions for certain
agricultural crop categories and concurred with the District's
conclusion that alternatives to open burning for these crop categories
are not reasonably available for implementation in the SJV area at this
time, considering technological and economic feasibility (see, e.g.,
EPA's June 2011 TSD at pp. 5-7). For the reasons stated in those
separate proposed and final rules on Rule 4103, we conclude in this
final action on the 2008 PM2.5 Plan that Rule 4103 requires
all RACM for open burning in SJV, and that the additional controls
identified by Earthjustice are not required RACM for purposes of the
2008 PM2.5 Plan because they are not reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility.
    Comment: Earthjustice stated that SJVUAPCD added a contingency
provision to Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning
Heaters) stating that, should the Valley fail to attain the 1997
PM2.5 standards by the attainment date, the PM2.5
concentration triggering a mandatory wood burning curtailment would be
lowered from 30 to 20 [mu]g/m\3\. Earthjustice contends that, given the
underperformance of other SJVUAPCD rules, this ``contingency'' should
be adopted now to achieve additional reductions before the attainment
date.
    Response: EPA determined that Rule 4901 satisfied applicable CAA
requirements and fully approved the rule into the SJV portion of the
California SIP. See 74 FR 57907 (November 10, 2009). As part of that
action, EPA reviewed the District's evaluation of available controls
and concluded that Rule 4901 requires implementation of Best Available
Control Measures under CAA section 189(b) for particulate matter of 10
microns or less (PM-10) in the SJV area. This conclusion was based in
part on our finding that SJV's 30 [mu]g/m\3\ threshold for mandatory
wood burning curtailment is more stringent than the 35 [mu]g/m\3\
threshold adopted in other areas such as Sacramento, South Coast and
Bay Area. See SJVUAPCD, ``Final Draft Staff Report, Proposed Amendments
to Rule 4901 ``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters,''
October 16, 2008, at pp. 5-6.
    Earthjustice has provided no information to support an argument
that reducing the threshold for mandatory wood burning curtailment in
the SJV from 30 to 20 [mu]g/m\3\ is a ``reasonably available'' control
measure, nor any information to support an argument that such a measure
would, individually or in combination with other reasonable measures,
advance attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV by
at least a year. We have, nonetheless, evaluated in the section
entitled ``Evaluation of potential to advance attainment'' below the
additional PM emissions reductions that could be achieved by
implementing a mandatory wood burning curtailment at a 20 [mu]g/m\3\
threshold (1.6 tons per winter average day, see 76 FR at 41358) to
determine whether this measure could, in combination with other
potentially reasonable measures, advance attainment in the SJV area.
    Comment: Earthjustice asserts that the exemption in Rule 4354
(Glass Melting Furnaces) for furnaces that actually emit less than 8
tons per year of NOX or VOC (but are located at major
sources) is ``illegal'' because the CAA requires that RACT be
implemented for all major sources. Earthjustice states that this
exemption cost the Valley 1.6 tons per day of SOX reductions
and 2.9 tons per day of PM reductions. Earthjustice also states that
the District had adopted a previous version of Rule 4354 that had
earlier compliance deadlines than the version EPA ultimately approved
into the SIP. Earthjustice asserts that the District should have
removed the exemption for small furnaces at large facilities and should
not have delayed compliance requirements, and that ``it is unacceptable
for the District to forego any emissions reductions in the years
leading up to attainment.''
    Response: EPA recently determined that Rule 4354 satisfied
applicable CAA requirements and fully approved the rule into the SJV
portion of the California SIP. \24\ See 76 FR 53640 (August 29, 2011).
As part of that action, we determined that the VOC and NOX
emission limits in Rule 4354 meet the CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f)
RACT requirements for major sources of VOC and NOX. The
compliance schedule for NOX and VOC limits in the SIP-
approved rule requires implementation of all technologically and
economically feasible controls by January 2014. See SJVUAPCD, Final
Draft Staff Report, ``Proposed Amendments to Rule 4354 (Glass Melting
Furnaces),'' August 19, 2010, at pp. 10-12. We conclude, therefore,
that this rule implements all VOC and NOX controls that are
reasonably available for this source category in the SJV. We did not
fully evaluate in that action the stringency of the rule's requirements
for SOX and PM10 emissions, as there is no
specific RACT control mandate for SOX or PM10
purposes that necessarily applies to sources covered by this rule.\25\
We disagree with Earthjustice's assertion that the exemption from the
SOX and PM10 limits for certain furnaces that
actually emit less than 8 tpy of VOC or NOX (see Rule 4354,
section 4.3) is ``illegal,'' as the CAA does not establish a specific
RACT control mandate for major sources of SOX or
PM10. Under CAA section 172(c)(1), however, the State/
District are required to adopt all RACM necessary to demonstrate
attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet RFP
requirements. 40 CFR 51.1010. Given the need for substantial
NOX and PM2.5 emissions reductions in the SJV to
meet both the 1997 PM2.5 standards and the more stringent
2006 PM2.5 standard by the applicable attainment dates, we
encourage the SJVUAPCD to reevaluate the PM10 control
requirements in Rule 4354 and to adopt, as expeditiously as
practicable, any additional PM10 and PM2.5
control requirements that are reasonably available for implementation
in the Valley. For purposes of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan,
additional PM control requirements for glass melting facilities

may, upon SIP approval, be credited toward the District's remaining
enforceable commitments. See 76 FR at 41354, Table 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ As explained in our June 30, 2011 proposal to approve Rule
4692 (76 FR 38340), the specific ozone RACT requirement in CAA
section 182(b)(2) does not apply to this rule because there are no
Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) documents for this source
category and no major sources of NOX or VOC subject to
this rule in the SJV area. See 76 FR at 38341. We therefore
interpret the commenters' reference to RACT as referring to the
general requirement for reasonably available control measures
(including RACT for stationary sources) in CAA section 172(c)(1).
See 40 CFR 51.1010.
    \25\ The CAA requires implementation of RACT at any major source
of NOX or VOC in ozone nonattainment areas classified as
moderate or above (see CAA 182(b)(2)(C) and 182(f)) but does not
contain such a major source RACT control mandate for SOX
or PM purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earthjustice asserts that the exemption in Rule 4354 for furnaces
emitting less than 8 tpy of NOX or VOC cost the Valley 1.6
tons per day of SOX reductions and 2.9 tons per day of PM
reductions. For purposes of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the
foregone SOX emissions reductions do not affect the RACM and
attainment demonstration because SJV has exceeded its target level of
SOX reductions needed for attainment. See 76 FR at 41354,
Table 8. As to PM, we have evaluated the additional emissions
reductions that Earthjustice claims could have been achieved from glass
melting facilities \26\ in our evaluation below of the potential for
such additional controls, in combination with other potential control
options, to advance attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards
in the SJV. See section ``Evaluation of potential to advance
attainment'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ For this assessment, we use Earthjustice's estimate of the
foregone PM reductions and assume conservatively that all such PM
reductions are PM2.5 reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Earthjustice states that EPA recently rejected all of the
NOX emission limits in Rule 4352 (Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers,
Steam Generators and Process Heaters) for failing to satisfy RACT and
asserts that substantial NOX reductions could be achieved if
the District amended this rule to meet the stringent limits in place in
other areas of the Country.
    Response: Earthjustice correctly notes that EPA recently
disapproved all of the NOX emission limits in Rule 4352
based on our conclusion that the District had failed to adequately
demonstrate that these limits satisfy CAA section 182 RACT
requirements. See 75 FR 60623 (October 1, 2010). Earthjustice did not
provide any specific information about additional control measures that
are reasonably available, nor has it provided information about the
amount of emissions reductions that might be achieved by such controls.
We have, however, developed a conservative (high) estimate of the
additional NOX reductions that could be achieved under this
rule if the emission limits are strengthened. We developed this
estimate based on the NOX emission limits in the SIP-
approved version of Rule 4352, the emissions attributed in the 2008
PM2.5 plan to solid fuel-fired boilers, steam generators,
and process heaters in the SJV, emissions data from existing solid
fuel-fired boilers in the SJV, and technical information about
available control options from EPA's 1994 Alternative Control
Techniques Document for NOX Emissions from Industrial/
Commercial/Institutional Boilers, U.S. EPA 453/R-94-022 (1994 Boiler
ACT). Based on this information, we have conservatively estimated that
more stringent control requirements for solid fuel-fired boilers, steam
generators, and process heaters in SJV could achieve an additional 3.16
tpd of NOX reductions.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Documentation of this estimate can be found in the TSD,
section III.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Earthjustice states that EPA's proposal fails to address
the fact that the RACM/RACT analysis ``does not include reasonable
controls for condensable [PM2.5] emissions'' and contains no
discussion of such controls. Earthjustice references 40 CFR 51.1002(c)
to support its assertion that ``[t]he transition period allowing
agencies to ignore controls on condensable emissions ended on January
1, 2011,'' and also quotes EPA's statement in the preamble to the
PM2.5 implementation rule (72 FR at 20652) that ``[w]e
expect States to address the control of direct PM2.5
emissions, including condensables with any new actions taken after
January 1, 2011.'' Earthjustice asserts that EPA must disapprove the
RACM demonstration for failure to assess reasonably available controls
on condensable emissions.
    Response: EPA's PM2.5 implementation rule states that
``[a]fter January 1, 2011, for purposes of establishing emission limits
under 51.1009 and 51.1010, States must establish such limits taking
into consideration the condensable fraction of direct PM2.5
emissions.'' 40 CFR 51.1002(c). Prior to this date, the rule required
that nonattainment area SIPs identify and evaluate sources of
PM2.5 direct emissions and PM2.5 attainment plan
precursors as part of the RFP and RACM/RACT demonstrations but did not
specifically require states to address condensable PM2.5.
See id.\28\ Because the attainment, RFP and RACM demonstrations in the
2008 PM2.5 Plan were adopted on May 22, 2008 (see 76 FR at
41340), California was not required to address condensable PM in
establishing the emission limits contained in these demonstrations as
originally submitted, or in adopting any other PM emission limits under
40 CFR sections 51.1009 and 51.1010 prior to January 1, 2011.
Consistent with these requirements, EPA has evaluated the RFP and RACM
demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and concluded that
these elements of the Plan appropriately address all sources of direct
PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 attainment plan
precursors (SO2 and NOX) in the SJV. See 76 FR
41338 at 41343.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See also Letter dated April 25, 2011, from Lisa P. Jackson,
EPA, to Paul Cort, Earthjustice, denying Petition for
Reconsideration with respect to the deferral of the requirement to
establish emission limits for condensable particulate matter (CPM)
until January 1, 2011.
    \29\ In our proposed rule, we noted that the SJVUAPCD has
deferred limits for CPM in its rules but that this limited deferral
does not affect the Plan's RACM/RACT and expeditious attainment
demonstrations. 76 FR 41338 at 41342, n. 12. We also noted that we
would evaluate any PM2.5 rule adopted or revised by the
District after January 1, 2011 to assure that it appropriately
addresses CPM. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2008 PM2.5 Plan relies on several rules regulating
direct PM2.5 emissions as part of the PM2.5
control strategy (e.g., Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling, adopted 9/
17/09), Rule 4103 (Open Burning, adopted 4/15/10), Rule 4354 (Glass
Melting Furnaces, adopted 9/16/10) and Rule 4901 (Wood Burning
Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters, adopted 10/16/08)) as well as
rules controlling NOX and SOX emissions. See 2011
Proposal TSD at Tables F-2, F-3, and F-4. Of the rules that control
direct PM2.5 emissions, only two establish emission limits
for particulate matter (Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) and Rule
4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces)). EPA has not yet acted on any District
rule adopted or revised after January 1, 2011 that regulates direct
PM2.5 emissions. As part of our action on any such rule, we
will evaluate the emission limits in the rule to ensure that they
appropriately address CPM as required by 40 CFR 51.1002(c). We note
that the revised version of Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) that
EPA has recently proposed to approve (see 76 FR 38340 (June 30, 2011))
requires testing in accordance with the SCAQMD Protocol, which requires
measurement of both condensable and filterable PM in accordance with
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Test Method
5.1.\30\ We also note that the SIP-approved version of Rule 4354 (Glass
Melting Furnaces) requires testing for condensable PM emissions using
EPA Method 202. See 76 FR 53640 (August 29, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See SCAQMD Protocol, Determination of Particulate and
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Restaurant Operations,
November 14, 1997 (available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/
R9Testmethod.nsf/0/3D4DEB4D21AB4AAF882570AD005DFF69/$file/
SC%20Rest%20emiss.pdf) and SCAQMD Test Method 5.1, Determination of
Particulate Matter Emissions From Stationary Sources Using a Wet
Impingement Train, March 1989 (available at http://aqmd.gov/tao/methods/stm/stm-005-1.pdf).

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

Evaluation of Potential to Advance Attainment
    Table E-2 of our 2011 Proposal TSD indicates that to advance
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV by one
year, i.e., from 2014 to 2013, the area would need an additional 15.6
tpd of NOX reductions and an additional 3.9 tpd of direct
PM2.5 reductions. These figures represent the difference
between the 2013 ``controlled inventory'' and the 2014 ``NOX
emissions level needed for PM2.5 attainment.'' See 2011
Proposal TSD at Table E-2 (pg. 80).\31\ The 2013 ``controlled
inventory'' figures were based on the District's expected emissions
reductions from individual measures as identified in the 2008
PM2.5 Plan. See Plan at pp. 6-11 and 6-12 (Table 6-3).\32\
Following adoption of these measures, however, the District updated its
estimates of the emissions reductions associated with several of these
measures. See 2011 Proposal TSD at Table F-4 (pg. 91). Based on these
updated estimates of the reductions associated with specific control
measures, which alter the 2013 ``controlled inventory'' estimates, we
have re-calculated the amount of PM2.5 reductions needed to
advance attainment by one year as 6.4 tpd.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ For NOX, 15.6 tpd represents the difference
between the 2013 ``controlled inventory'' (306.8 tpd) and the 2014
``NOX emissions level needed for PM2.5
attainment'' (291.2 tpd). For PM2.5, 3.9 tpd represents
the difference between the 2013 ``controlled inventory'' (67.2 tpd)
and the 2014 ``Direct PM2.5 emissions level needed for
PM2.5 attainment'' (63.3 tpd).
    \32\ For example, the 2013 ``controlled inventory'' for
PM2.5 (67.2 tpd) is the sum of the expected emissions
reductions from four PM2.5 control measures identified in
Table F-2. See 2011 Proposal TSD at Table E-2 (pg. 87).
    \33\ The updates to the PM2.5 emissions reduction
estimates reduced the creditable reductions from 6.7 tpd to 4.2 tpd,
which in turn increased the 2013 ``controlled inventory'' from 67.2
tpd to 69.7 tpd. 6.4 tpd is the difference between the updated 2013
``controlled inventory'' (69.7 tpd) and the 2014 ``Direct
PM2.5 emissions level needed for PM2.5
attainment'' (63.3 tpd).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, with respect to Rule 4692 (Charbroiling) and
Rule 4103 (Open Burning), we have concluded that the additional PM
emissions control options that Earthjustice identified are not
reasonably available considering economic and technical feasibility.
Therefore, these potential control measures are not required RACM for
purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the Valley. With
respect to Rule 4901 (Wood Burning), Rule 4354 (Glass Melting
Furnaces), and Rule 4352 (Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers), we assume for
purposes of this analysis that additional control options are
reasonably available for implementation in the SJV. We therefore
evaluate whether the emissions reductions from these additional control
options would, collectively, advance attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 standards in the SJV by at least one year.
    Our estimate of the total reductions of direct PM2.5
that could be achieved by the potential control options for wood
burning (1.6 tpd) and glass melting furnaces (2.9 tpd) identified by
Earthjustice is 4.5 tpd. As to NOX reductions, although
Earthjustice did not provide any estimate of the reductions that could
be achieved by more stringent requirements for solid fuel-fired
boilers, steam generators, and process heaters, we have conservatively
estimated that such controls could result in an additional 3.12 tpd of
NOX reductions from existing emissions units in the SJV.
These combined emissions reductions (4.5 tpd of direct PM2.5
and 3.12 tpd of NOX) are significantly lower than the total
reductions necessary to advance attainment by one year in the SJV (6.4
tpd of direct PM2.5 and 15.6 tpd of NOX).
Therefore, even assuming that additional control options for these
three source categories are reasonably available for implementation in
the SJV, they are not required RACM for purposes of the 1997
PM2.5 standards because they would not advance the
attainment date in SJV by at least one year. See 40 CFR 51.1010(b).
Conclusion on RACM Demonstration
    For all of these reasons and as discussed in our proposed rule (76
FR 41338) and 2011 Proposal TSD, we conclude that the 2008
PM2.5 Plan includes all RACM (including RACT for stationary
sources) necessary for RFP and expeditious attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 standards in the SJV and, therefore, satisfies the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1010.

E. Comments on the Proposed Actions on the Control Strategy and
Enforceable Commitments

1. Baseline Measures
    Comment: Earthjustice and AIR assert that the baseline inventories
are flawed because they include emissions reduction credit from both
``waiver measures'' and ``non-waiver measures'' adopted before December
2006 (together referred to as ``baseline measures'') that have not been
approved into the SIP, and that the inclusion of credit for these
baseline measures undermines the attainment and progress demonstrations
attached to these inventories. For example, both commenters object to
the inclusion of credit for CARB's anti-idling requirements in the
baseline inventories because these requirements have never been
submitted for SIP approval, and Earthjustice suggests that EPA should
have adjusted the credit for these anti-idling requirements based on
CARB's failure to enforce them. Both commenters assert that EPA has not
specifically evaluated these baseline measures to determine how they
should be credited in the baseline inventories, and Earthjustice
asserts that the measures upon which the attainment and progress
demonstrations rely must be enforceable, creditable controls approved
into the SIP subject to the CAA's anti-backsliding provisions.
    In addition, based on information provided in Table 7 of the 2011
Proposal and tables F-7 and F-9 of the 2011 Proposal TSD, AIR provides
its own calculations of the total amount of emissions reduction credits
attributed to baseline measures and requests that EPA confirm the
accuracy of AIR's calculations.
    Finally, AIR asserts that these additional ``non-waiver'' baseline
measures should also be SIP-approved:
     Heavy Duty Diesel Chip Reflash (adopted March 27, 2004);
     Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road
Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies
and Utilities (adopted December 8, 2005);
     Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule (adopted September 24,
2003);
     Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment (adopted May 26,
2006);
     Pesticides--Field Fumigant Limits (submitted to EPA
October 12, 2009).
    Response: We disagree that there is any inadequacy in the emissions
projections that undermines the RACM, RFP or attainment demonstrations
in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. We explained in our 2011 proposal
(76 FR 41338 at 41342, 41343) our reasons for concluding both that the
2005 base year inventory in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan is
comprehensive, accurate, and current as required by CAA section
172(c)(3) and that the projected baseline inventories for 2009, 2012
and 2014 provide adequate bases for the RACM, RFP and attainment
demonstrations in the Plan.
    With respect to mobile source emissions, we believe that credit for
emissions reductions from implementation of California mobile source
rules that are subject to CAA section 209 waivers (``waiver measures'')
is appropriate notwithstanding the fact that such rules are not
approved as part of the California SIP. In the TSD supporting our 2011
proposal, we explained why we believe such credit is appropriate. See
2011 Proposal TSD at section

II.F.4.a.i. Historically, EPA has granted credit for the waiver
measures because of special Congressional recognition, in establishing
the waiver process in the first place, of the pioneering California
motor vehicle control program and because amendments to the CAA (in
1977) expanded the flexibility granted to California in order ``to
afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the
best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public
welfare'' (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977)). In
allowing California to take credit for the waiver measures
notwithstanding the fact that the underlying rules are not part of the
California SIP, EPA treated the waiver measures similarly to the
Federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always
allowed States to credit in their SIPs without submitting the program
as a SIP revision.
    EPA's historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motor-
vehicle-related waiver measures by allowing California to include motor
vehicle emissions estimates made by using California's EMFAC (and its
predecessors) motor vehicle emissions factor model in SIP inventories.
EPA verifies the emissions reductions from motor-vehicle-related waiver
measures through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updated from
time to time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as well
as newly-established emissions standards. (Emissions reductions from
EPA's motor vehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known
as MOVES.\34\) The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan was developed using a
version of the EMFAC model referred to as EMFAC2007, which EPA has
approved for use in SIP development in California. See 73 FR 3464
(January 18, 2008). Thus, the emissions reductions that are from the
California on-road ``waiver measures'' and that are estimated through
use of EMFAC are as verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied
upon by states other than California in developing their SIPs based on
estimates of motor vehicle emissions made through the use of the MOVES
model. All other states use the MOVES model (and prior to release of
MOVES, the MOBILE model) in their baseline inventories without
submitting the federal motor vehicle regulations for incorporation into
their SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ MOVES replaced the MOBILE model as EPA's on-road mobile
source emissions estimation model for use in SIPs and conformity in
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, emissions reductions that are from California's waiver
measures for non-road engines and vehicles (e.g., agricultural,
construction, lawn and garden and off-road recreation equipment) are
estimated through use of CARB's OFFROAD emissions factor model.\35\
(Emissions reductions from EPA's non-road engine and vehicle standards
are reflected in an analogous model known as NONROAD). Since 1990, EPA
has treated California non-road standards for which EPA has issued
waivers in the same manner as California motor vehicle standards, i.e.,
allowing credit for standards subject to the waiver process without
requiring submittal of the standards as part of the SIP. In so doing,
EPA has treated the California non-road standards similarly to the
Federal non-road standards, which are relied upon, but not included in,
various SIPs. See generally 2011 Proposal TSD at section II.F.4.a.i.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Information about CARB's emissions inventories for on-road
and non-road mobile sources, and the EMFAC and OFFROAD models used
to project changes in future inventories, is available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's EMFAC and OFFROAD models employ complex routines that
predict vehicle fleet turnover by vehicle model years and include
control algorithms that account for all adopted regulatory actions
which, when combined with the fleet turnover algorithms, provide future
baseline projections. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 7-8. For
stationary sources, the California Emissions Forecasting System (CEFS)
projects future emissions from stationary and area sources (in addition
to aircraft and ships) using a forecasting algorithm that applies
growth factors and control profiles to the base year inventory.\36\ See
id. at 7. The CEFS model integrates the projected inventories for both
stationary and mobile sources into a single database to provide a
comprehensive statewide forecast inventory, from which nonattainment
area inventories are extracted for use in establishing future baseline
planning inventories. See id. In 2011, CARB updated the baseline
emissions projections for several source categories to account for,
among other things, more recent economic forecasts and improved
methodologies for estimating emissions from the heavy duty truck and
construction source categories. See 2011 Progress Report at Appendix E.
These methodologies for projecting future emissions based on growth
factors and existing Federal, State, and local controls were consistent
with EPA guidance on developing projected baseline inventories. See
2011 Proposal TSD at section II.A; see also ``Procedures for Preparing
Emissions Projections,'' EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, EPA-450/4-91-019, July 1991; ``Emissions Projections,''
STAPPA/ALAPCO/EPA Emissions Inventory Improvement Project, Volume X,
December 1999 (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume10/x01.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Information on base year emissions from stationary point
sources is obtained primarily from the districts, while CARB and the
districts share responsibility for developing and updating
information on emissions from various area source categories. See
2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the 2005 base year and future projected baseline
inventories in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan were prepared using a
complex set of CARB methodologies to estimate and project emissions
from stationary sources, in addition to the most recent emissions
factors and models and updated activity levels for emissions associated
with mobile sources, including: (1) The latest EPA-approved California
motor vehicle emissions factor model (EMFAC2007) and the most recent
motor vehicle activity data from each of the metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) in the San Joaquin Valley; (2) improved
methodologies for estimating emissions from specific source categories;
and (3) CARB's non-road mobile source model (the OFFROAD model). See
TSD Section II.A (referencing, inter alia, 2007 State Strategy at
Appendix F) and 2011 Progress Report. EPA has approved numerous
California SIPs that rely on base year and projected baseline
inventories including emissions estimates derived from the EMFAC,
OFFROAD, and CEFS models. See, e.g., 65 FR 6091 (February 8, 2000)
(proposed rule to approve 1-hour ozone plan for South Coast) and 65 FR
18903 (April 10, 2000) (final rule); 70 FR 43663 (July 28, 2005)
(proposed rule to approve PM-10 plan for South Coast and Coachella
Valley) and 70 FR 69081 (November 14, 2005) (final rule); 74 FR 66916
(December 17, 2009) (direct final rule to approve ozone plan for
Monterey Bay). The commenter has provided no information to support a
claim that these methodologies for developing base year inventories and
projecting future emissions in the SJV are inadequate to support the
RACM, RFP, and attainment demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5
Plan.
    For all of these reasons and as discussed in our 2011 proposal (76
FR 41338 at 41342, 41343), we have concluded that the 2005 base year
inventory in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan is a ``comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the
relevant pollutant or pollutants'' in the SJV area, consistent

with the requirements for emissions inventories in CAA section
172(c)(3), 40 CFR 51.1008, and 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. In addition,
we conclude that the projected baseline inventories for 2009, 2012 and
2014 were prepared consistent with EPA's guidance on development of
emissions inventories and attainment demonstrations and, therefore,
provide an adequate basis for the RACM, RFP and attainment
demonstrations in the Plan. See 2011 Proposal TSD at section II.A.
    As to the six specific baseline measures that CRPE asserts should
be SIP-approved, we note first that the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP
does not rely on credit for emissions reductions from the Pesticides
regulations (Field Fumigant Limits) as those regulations address only
VOC and therefore do not apply to any pollutant that is a
PM2.5 attainment plan precursor in the SJV
(PM2.5, NOX, or SO2).
    Second, both the Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New
and In-Use Trucks (effective November 15, 2006) \37\ and the Fork Lifts
and Other Industrial Equipment measure (adopted May 26, 2006) are
pending EPA waiver determinations under CAA section 209(b) or section
209(e).\38\ We expect that EPA will act on these requests for waivers
of preemption or authorization under CAA section 209 in the near term,
and that our final approval of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan based in
part on its reliance on the emissions reductions associated with these
rules is, therefore, reasonable and appropriate. If, however, EPA
either denies or does not issue the State's requested waiver for any of
these measures prior to the effective date of today's action, we will
take appropriate remedial action to ensure that our action on the plan
is fully supportable or to reconsider that action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ EPA is currently reviewing a request from CARB for a
determination as to whether certain requirements of these anti-
idling rules are preempted by section 209(a) of the CAA; certain
provisions are conditions precedent pursuant to section 209(a) of
the Act; certain provisions are within-the-scope of previous waivers
and authorizations issued pursuant to sections 209(b) and 209(e) of
the Act, respectively; and at least one provision requires and
merits a full authorization pursuant to section 209(e) of the Act.
See 75 FR 43975 (July 27, 2010). CARB estimates that the operational
requirement of the anti-idling rule, which is not subject to a CAA
section 209 waiver, achieves 0.2 tpd of NOX in the SJV.
See Memorandum, Doris Lo, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR-2); to
the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2010-
0516, ``SIP Credit for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Low-NOX
Software (``Chip Reflash'')''; from, September 28, 2011.
    \38\ See letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to
Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, EPA RE: Request for Authorization
Determination Pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 209(e) for
Amendments to California's Off-Road Emissions Standards Regulation
for large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engines and Fleet Requirement for In-
Use LSI Forklifts and Other Industrial Equipment and California
State Motor Vehicle and Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards;
Truck Idling Requirements; Opportunity for Public Hearing and
Request for Public Comment; Notice Of Opportunity For Public Hearing
And Comment. 75 FR 43975 (July 27, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, as to the Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-
Road Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public
Agencies and Utilities (adopted December 8, 2005), CARB's staff report
on this measure indicates that the projected baseline inventories have
attributed emissions reductions of 0.1 tpd PM2.5 and 0.18
tpd NOX statewide to this measure. See Staff Report:
Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-
Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and
Utilities, October 2005, at pg. 55. Assuming less than 25 percent of
these reductions are attributed to the SJV area, the de minimis amounts
of emissions reductions attributed to this measure in the 2008
PM2.5 SIP do not affect our evaluation of the attainment and
RFP demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 SIP.
    Similarly, as to the Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule (adopted
September 24, 2003), CARB's staff report on this measure indicates that
the projected baseline inventories have attributed emissions reductions
of 0.17 tpd PM2.5 and 2.3 tpd NOX statewide to
this measure. See Supplemental Staff Report: Proposed Diesel
Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty Residential
and Commercial Solid Waste Collection Vehicles, August 8, 2003, at pg.
18. Assuming less than 25 percent of these reductions are attributed to
the SJV area, the de minimis amounts of emissions reductions attributed
to this measure in the 2008 PM2.5 SIP also do not affect our
evaluation of the attainment and RFP demonstrations in the 2008
PM2.5 SIP.
    Finally, the Heavy Duty Diesel Engine-Chip Reflash rule (adopted
March 27, 2004) (``Chip Reflash'' rule) was intended to ensure
expeditious compliance with CARB's NOX emissions standard
for heavy-duty diesel (HDD) engines by requiring installation of ``Low-
NOX Software.'' The Chip Reflash rule was invalidated in
part by a California State Court, and CARB repealed the related
regulations in June 2007. The emissions reduction credit attributed to
Chip Reflash in CARB's baseline inventories is limited to vehicles that
have been ``reflashed,'' i.e., physically installed the Low-
NOX Software,\39\ removal of which would constitute a
violation of the CAA and/or California state law. See the statutory
anti-tampering laws in CAA section 203(a)(3) and California Vehicle
Code section 27156. Thus, the NOX emissions reductions
attributed to ``reflashed'' engines are enforceable under the CAA and/
or California state law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, ``Emissions Inventory
Output Tables'' documents the adjustment in the baseline that CARB
made to account for Chip Reflash (or Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine
Software Upgrade). As described in appendix A, CARB staff estimates
that the overall benefits of the software upgrade regulation plus
related actions provided approximately 38 tons per day of
NOX emissions reductions statewide in year 2007. CARB
also indicates that it took into account the fact that the software
upgrade regulation had been invalidated by including no additional
emissions reductions from chip reflash other than those that had
already occurred due to compliance with the regulation (prior to
invalidation by the court), voluntary upgrade programs, ongoing
engine rebuilds, engine upgrades by manufacturers exempt from the
regulation, and interstate trucks. CARB staff recently confirmed
that the baseline adjustment for chip reflash in the 2007 State
Strategy reflects emissions reduction credit only for engines that
have been ``reflashed''. See Memorandum, Doris Lo, Air Division,
Planning Office (AIR-2); to the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516, ``SIP Credit for Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engine Low-NOX Software (``Chip Reflash'')''; from
September 28, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to AIR's calculation of the reductions from baseline measures,
AIR calculates what it considers ``the total reductions from baseline
reductions without recession reductions'' to be 11 tpd of
PM2.5, 195 tpd of NOX, and 0.9 tpd of
SOX. These figures are not correct because they do not take
into account CARB's recent updates to the projected 2014 inventory.
    For the 2008 PM2.5 SIP, ``baseline reductions'' are
calculated by subtracting the 2005 base year inventory form the
projected 2014 pre-control-strategy inventory. As we have discussed
above, CARB revised its projected 2014 inventories to incorporate not
only the continuing effects of the recent economic recession but also
many non-recession related changes. These revisions have resulted in a
more accurate projected 2014 inventory.
    As we have discussed previously, projected emissions inventories
are a function in part of changes in activity. Projected inventories
are, therefore, necessarily affected by forecasts of industrial growth,
population growth, and transportation growth, among other factors. EPA
guidance emphasizes the importance of developing reliable methods for
estimating future source activity levels as part of the SIP planning
process. We believe that CARB has done this.

2. Waiver Measures
    Comment: Earthjustice and CRPE object to our proposal to grant
emissions reduction credit to California's mobile source control
measures that have received a waiver of preemption under CAA section
209 without first approving them into the SIP. Both commenters argue
that our reliance for this proposal on the general savings clause in
CAA section 193 is inappropriate for several reasons.
    First, the commenters assert that CAA section 193 only saves those
``formal rules, notices, or guidance documents'' that are not
inconsistent with the CAA. They argue that both the CAA and EPA's long-
standing policies and regulations require SIPs to contain the state and
local emission limitations and control measures that are necessary for
attainment and RFP and to meet other CAA requirements. They assert that
our position on the treatment of California's waived measures is
inconsistent with this requirement. CRPE asserts that EPA has, in
contrast, approved other (non-mobile source) state measures into the
SIP, e.g., the consumer products rules and fuel standards. Earthjustice
also argues that only SIP approval provides for the CAA's enforcement
oversight (CAA sections 179 and 304) and anti-backsliding (CAA section
110(l) and 193) safeguards.
    Second, the commenters argue that we cannot claim that our position
was ratified by Congress because section 193 saves only regulations,
standards, rules, notices, orders and guidance ``promulgated or
issued'' by the Administrator and we have not identified documents
promulgated or issued by EPA that establish our position here.
Earthjustice further asserts that our interpretation has not been
expressed through any affirmative statements and the only statements of
relevant statutory interpretations are contrary to our position on
California's waived measures.
    Third, Earthjustice argues that there is no automatic presumption
that Congress is aware of an agency's interpretations and we have not
provided any evidence that Congress was aware of our interpretation
regarding the SIP treatment of California's mobile source control
measures. Similarly, CRPE argues that our positions that Congress must
expressly disapprove of EPA's long-standing interpretation and
Congressional silence equates to a ratification of EPA's interpretation
are incorrect.
    Finally, CRPE argues that waiver measures may not be used in
attainment demonstrations because EPA makes no finding during the
waiver process that the rules achieve the reductions claimed or that
the measures are SIP creditable. CRPE also notes that these issues are
the subject of litigation in the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in
Sierra Club v. EPA, Consolidated Case Nos. 10-71457 and 10-71458.
    Response: We continue to believe that credit for emissions
reductions from implementation of California mobile source rules that
are subject to CAA section 209 waivers (``waiver measures'') is
appropriate notwithstanding the fact that such rules are not approved
as part of the California SIP. In our 2011 proposal and the 2011
Proposal TSD, we explained why we believe such credit is appropriate.
See 76 FR 41338 at 41345 and 2011 Proposal TSD at section II.F.4.a.i.
Historically, EPA has granted credit for the waiver measures because of
special Congressional recognition, in establishing the waiver process
in the first place, of the pioneering California motor vehicle control
program and because amendments to the CAA (in 1977) expanded the
flexibility granted to California in order ``to afford California the
broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the
health of its citizens and the public welfare,'' (H.R. Rep. No. 294,
95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977)). In allowing California to take
credit for the waiver measures notwithstanding the fact that the
underlying rules are not part of the California SIP, EPA treated the
waiver measures similarly to the Federal motor vehicle control
requirements, which EPA has always allowed States to credit in their
SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision. As we explained
in the 2011 Proposal TSD (pp. 100-102), credit for Federal measures,
including those that establish on-road and nonroad standards,
notwithstanding their absence in the SIP, is justified by reference to
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which establishes the following content
requirements for SIPs: ``* * * enforceable emission limitations and
other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic
incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions
rights), * * *, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirements of this chapter.'' (emphasis added). Federal
measures are permanent, independently enforceable (by EPA and
citizens), and quantifiable without regard to whether they are approved
into a SIP, and thus EPA has never found such measures to be
``necessary or appropriate'' for inclusion in SIPs to meet the
applicable requirements of the Act. Section 209 of the CAA establishes
a process under which EPA allows California's waiver measures to
substitute for Federal measures, and like the Federal measures for
which they substitute, EPA has historically found, and continues to
find, based on considerations of permanence, enforceability, and
quantifiability, that such measures are not ``necessary or
appropriate'' for California to include in its SIP to meet the
applicable requirements of the Act.
    First, with respect to permanence, we note that, to maintain a
waiver, CARB's on-road waiver measures can be relaxed only to a level
of aggregate equivalence to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
(FMVCP). See section 209(b)(1). In this respect, the FMVCP acts as a
partial backstop to California's on-road waiver measures (i.e., absent
a waiver, the FMVCP would apply in California). Likewise, Federal
nonroad vehicle and engine standards act as a partial backstop for
corresponding California nonroad waiver measures. The constraints of
the waiver process thus serve to limit the extent to which CARB can
relax the waiver measures for which there are corresponding EPA
standards, and thereby serve an anti-backsliding function similar in
substance to those established for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l)
and 193.\40\ Meanwhile, the growing convergence between California and
EPA mobile source standards diminishes the difference in the emissions
reductions reasonably attributed to the two programs and strengthens
the role of the Federal program in serving as an effective backstop to
the State program. In other words, with the harmonization of EPA mobile
source standards with the corresponding State standards, the Federal
program is becoming essentially a full backstop to most parts of the
California program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ In addition, the commenters' concerns over the potential
for relaxation by the State of the waiver measures because the
underlying regulations are not subject to EPA review and approval as
a SIP revision are not a practical concern for this particular plan
given that the plan's horizon is very short term (next couple of
years), and the on-road and nonroad vehicles that in part will
determine whether the area attains the standard are already in
operation or in dealer showrooms. There is no practical means for
the State to relax the standards of vehicles already manufactured,
even if the State wanted to relax the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, as to enforceability, we note that the waiver process
itself bestows enforceability onto California to enforce the on-road or
nonroad standards for which EPA has issued the waiver. CARB has as long
a history of enforcement of

vehicle/engine emissions standards as EPA, and CARB's enforcement
program is equally as rigorous as the corresponding EPA program. The
history and rigor of CARB's enforcement program lends assurance to
California SIP revisions that rely on the emissions reductions from
CARB's rules in the same manner as EPA's mobile source enforcement
program lends assurance to other state's SIPs in their reliance on
emissions reductions from the FMVCP. While it is true that citizens and
EPA are not authorized to enforce California waiver measures under the
Clean Air Act (i.e., because they are not in the SIP), citizens and EPA
are authorized to enforce EPA standards in the event that vehicles
operate in California without either California or EPA certification.
    As to quantifiability, EPA's historical practice has been to give
SIP credit for motor-vehicle-related waiver measures by allowing
California to include motor vehicle emissions estimates made by using
California's EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions
factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reductions
from motor-vehicle-related waiver measures through review and approval
of EMFAC, which is updated from time to time by California to reflect
updated methods and data, as well as newly-established emissions
standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA's motor vehicle standards are
reflected in an analogous model known as MOVES.) The EMFAC model is
based on the motor vehicle emissions standards for which California has
received waivers from EPA but accounts for vehicle deterioration and
many other factors. The motor vehicle emissions estimates themselves
combine EMFAC results with vehicle activity estimates, among other
considerations. See the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, and the related
EPA rulemakings approving the plan (see 48 FR 5074 (February 3, 1983)
for the proposed rule and 48 FR 57130 (December 28, 1983) for the final
rule) as an example of how the waiver measures have been treated
historically by EPA in California SIP actions. The San Joaquin Valley
plan was developed using a version of the EMFAC model referred to as
EMFAC2007, which EPA has approved for use in SIP development in
California. See 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). Thus, the emissions
reductions that are from the California on-road ``waiver measures'' and
that are estimated through use of EMFAC are as verifiable as are the
emissions reductions relied upon by states other than California in
developing their SIPs based on estimates of motor vehicle emissions
made through the use of the MOVES model.
    Moreover, EPA's waiver review and approval process is analogous to
the SIP approval process. First, CARB adopts its emissions standards
following notice and comment procedures at the state level, and then
submits the rules to EPA as part of its waiver request. When EPA
receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of
opportunity for public hearing and comment and then publishes a
decision in the Federal Register following the public comment period.
Once again, in substance, the process is similar to that for SIP
approval and supports the argument that one hurdle (the waiver process)
is all Congress intended for California standards, not two (waiver
process plus SIP approval process). Second, just as SIP revisions are
not effective until approved by EPA, changes to CARB's rules (for which
a waiver has been granted) are not effective until EPA grants a new
waiver, unless the changes are ``within the scope'' of a prior waiver
and no new waiver is needed. Third, both types of final actions by
EPA--i.e., final actions on California requests for waivers and final
actions on state submittals of SIPs and SIP revisions may be challenged
under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA in the appropriate United States
Court of Appeals.
    In the 2011 Proposal TSD (pp. 102-103), we indicated that we
believe that section 193 of the CAA, the general savings clause added
by Congress in 1990, effectively ratified our long-standing practice of
granting credit for the California waiver rules because Congress did
not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA's treatment of
California's motor vehicle standards inconsistent with the Act. Rather,
Congress extended the California waiver provisions to most types of
nonroad vehicles and engines, once again reflecting Congressional
intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in
selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the
public welfare. Requiring the waiver measures to undergo SIP review in
addition to the statutory waiver process is not consistent with
providing California with the broadest possible discretion as to on-
road and nonroad vehicle and engine standards, but rather, would add to
the regulatory burden California faces in establishing and modifying
such standards, and thus would not be consistent with Congressional
intent. In short, we believe that Congress intended California's mobile
source rules to undergo only one EPA review process (i.e., the waiver
process), not two.
    In summary, we disagree that our interpretation of CAA section 193
is fundamentally flawed. EPA has historically given SIP credit for
waiver measures in our approval of attainment demonstrations and other
planning requirements such as reasonable further progress and
contingency measures submitted by California. We continue to believe
that section 193 ratifies our long-standing practice of allowing credit
for California's waiver measures notwithstanding the fact they are not
approved into the SIP, and correctly reflects Congressional intent to
provide California with the broadest possible discretion in the
development and promulgation of on-road and nonroad vehicle and engine
standards.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ In this regard, we disagree that we are treating the waiver
measures inconsistently with other California control measures, such
as consumer products and fuels rules, for the simple reason that,
unlike the waiver measures, there is no history of past practice or
legislative history supporting treatment of other California
measures, such as consumer products rules and fuels rules, in any
manner differently than is required as a general rule under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A), i.e., state and local measures that are relied
upon for SIP purposes must be approved into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CRPE correctly notes that EPA's treatment of California waiver
measures in SIP actions is the subject of current litigation in Sierra
Club v. EPA, Consolidated Case Nos. 10-71457 and 10-71458 (9th
Circuit).
3. Enforceable Commitments
    Comment: AIR argues that EPA cannot make a finding that the
``recession reductions'' are an ``enforceable'' measure within the
meaning of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) because ``recession
reductions'' are only voluntary behavior to reduce activity for
economic reasons and nothing prevents such an increase in activity as
the economy improves. Based on this argument, AIR asserts that EPA's
approval of the attainment demonstration is arbitrary and capricious
and not in accordance with the law. AIR asserts that CARB concedes that
the reductions coming from reduced activity may change in the future.
    Response: EPA is not making a finding that emissions ``reductions''
related to the economic recession are ``enforceable'' measures under
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6). As explained in our amended
proposal (76 FR 41338 at 41354-41356), we are concluding that CARB's
2011 SIP revisions, which updated the State's projected (``baseline'')
emissions inventories based on improved

methodologies for estimating emissions and more recent growth factors,
reduced the total amount of emissions reductions needed for attainment
and that the control strategy in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, as
revised in 2011, demonstrates expeditious attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV from the revised baseline.
    Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA requires that each implementation
plan submitted by a State include ``enforceable emission limitations
and other control measures, means, or techniques * * * as well as
schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of [the CAA].'' Section
172(c)(6) contains substantively identical requirements for all
nonattainment area plans. Baseline emissions inventories, however, are
not ``enforceable emission limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques'' or ``schedules and timetables for compliance''
that are necessary or appropriate to meet CAA requirements. See El
Comite Para El Bienestar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam, 539 F.3d 1062 (9th
Cir. 2008) (concluding that a baseline inventory is not an enforceable
``standard or limitation'' as defined by the CAA and is not, therefore,
an independently enforceable aspect[] of the SIP''). Rather, baseline
emissions inventories provide the basis for, among other things, the
demonstrations of attainment and progress toward attainment required by
CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 172(c)(2). Specifically, CAA section
172(c)(3) requires that each plan for a nonattainment area include ``a
comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all
sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area * * *'').
After developing this ``base year'' emissions inventory, States use
modeling and other analyses to calculate future emissions projections
and ``target'' emissions levels, which then inform the State's
development of progress milestones and control strategies for attaining
the NAAQS. See General Preamble at 13507-13510. In short, emissions
inventories provide estimates of current and future emissions that, in
turn, provide the starting point for the State's attainment
demonstration and enforceable control strategy.
    Nothing in the CAA precludes a State from revising a submitted plan
to take into account revised emissions estimates and projections. All
projections of future emissions-generating activity (including the
original projections in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan that AIR would
have CARB and EPA continue to use) are based on projections of
population and employment and other growth factors that reflect
voluntary behavior, all of which can increase or decrease as economic
conditions change. However, reliance on projections from reputable
sources of economic behavior based on established methods of predicting
such behavior is the historic practice for development of emissions
inventories. CARB's revised projections of future emissions-generating
activity are based on reputable sources, represent the most current
understanding of expected economic conditions through at least 2014,
and were subject to extensive public review and comment before CARB
adopted its 2011 SIP revisions containing these updated projections.
Given the magnitude of the economic recession's impact on emissions-
generating activity in SJV and other parts of California, and the
resulting impact on the State's assessment of the control strategy
necessary to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 PM2.5
standards, we conclude that it is appropriate to take these updated
emissions projections into account as part of our action on the 2008
PM2.5 Plan. Other than asserting generally that CARB and EPA
should not rely on the revised economic data to determine the
reductions needed for attainment and that future conditions may change,
AIR provides no information that undermines the State's revised
economic data or the related changes to the projected inventories.
    We disagree with AIR's unsupported assertion that ``CARB concedes
that the reductions coming from reduced activity may change in the