Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 signed the following final rule on August 13, 2014, and 

EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy 

of this Internet version of the rule, it is not the official version of the rule for purposes of public comment. Please 

refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the Government Printing Office's 

FDsys website (http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and on Regulations.gov 

(http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0185.

Billing code: 6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0185; FRL-] 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 

California; South Coast 1-Hour and 8-Hour Ozone 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving 

the portions of a State implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of California on February 13, 2013 that 

relate to attainment of the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards in the Los Angeles-South 

Coast area. Specifically, the EPA is approving the portions of 

the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Final 2012 Air 

Quality Management Plan that update the approved control 

strategy for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and that provide a 

demonstration of attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by 

December 31, 2022. In approving this SIP revision, the EPA finds 

that an attainment date of December 31, 2022 is appropriate in 

light of the severity of the 1-hour ozone problem in the Los 

Angeles-South Coast area and the limited emissions remaining 

that can be regulated given the extent to which emissions 
2 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

sources in the South Coast have already been controlled. As part 

of this action, the EPA is approving new commitments adopted by 

the South Coast Air Quality Management District to develop, 

adopt, submit and implement certain near-term measures to 

achieve certain aggregate emission reduction targets, updated 

new technology provisions, and a new commitment by the 

California Air Resources Board to submit contingency measures in 

2019 as necessary to meet the emission reduction targets for 

2022 from implementation of new technology measures. 

DATES: This rule is effective on [Insert date 30 days from the 

date of publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: You may inspect the supporting information for this 

action, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0185, by 

one of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking portal, http://www.regulations.gov,

please follow the online instructions; or, 

2. Visit our regional office at, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-

3901. 

Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 

electronically on the www.regulations.gov website and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California, 94105. While all documents in the docket are listed 
3 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

in the index, some information may be publicly available only at 

the hard copy location (e.g., voluminous records, large maps, 

copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., Confidential Business Information). 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office 

(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 

947-4192, tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” 

and “our” refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Public Comments and the EPA’s Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On February 13, 2013, the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) submitted the Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan

(“2012 AQMP”) to EPA as a revision to the Los Angeles-South 

Coast Air Basin (“South Coast”) portion of the California State 
4 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Implementation Plan (SIP).1

,

2 The South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD or District) and CARB prepared the 

2012 AQMP in response to EPA’s “SIP call” under section 

110(k)(5) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) for a new 

attainment demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard for South 

Coast and to meet other CAA requirements.3 

In addition to the 2012 AQMP, CARB’s February 13, 2013 SIP 

revision submittal includes the relevant CARB and SCAQMD board 

resolutions and other supporting material. The 2012 AQMP updates 

the approved 1997 8-hour ozone control strategy,4 includes 

 

1 Under California law, CARB is the state agency that is responsible for 

submitting SIPs and SIP revisions to EPA. CARB is also responsible for the 

regulation of mobile sources in California. Regional air quality management 

districts, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or 

“District”), are responsible for developing and adopting regional air quality 

plans and for regulating stationary sources. Once adopted, the plans 

developed by the regional air quality management districts are submitted to 

CARB for adoption as part of the California SIP and then submitted to EPA for 

approval or disapproval under section 110 of the CAA. 

2 The South Coast includes Orange County, the southwestern two-thirds of Los 

Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino County, and western Riverside 

County (see 40 CFR 81.305).

3 Ground-level ozone is an oxidant that is formed from photochemical 

reactions in the atmosphere between volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) (collectively referred to as the ozone precursors). 

The one-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or 

“standard”) is 0.12 parts per million (ppm). While the 1-hour ozone standard 

was revoked in 2005, certain SIP requirements, such as having an attainment 

demonstration, continue to apply in areas, such as the South Coast, that were 

designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards under EPA’s 

“anti-backsliding” regulations governing the transition from the 1-hour ozone 

to the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. See 40 CFR 51.905. 

4 In 1997, EPA established an 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm (“1997 8-hour 

ozone standard”) to replace the existing 1-hour ozone standard. SCAQMD and 

CARB prepared the 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy (“2007 AQMP”), in part, 

to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the ozone 

control strategy sets for the measures and provisions that the agencies 

intend to fulfill to meet the standard by the applicable attainment date. EPA 

approved the 2007 AQMP at 77 FR 12674 (March 1, 2012). 
5 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

attainment demonstrations for the 1-hour ozone standard and the 

2006 PM2.5 standard, and includes demonstrations intended to 

address the vehicle-miles-traveled emissions offset requirements 

of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour 

ozone standards. With respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 

in adopting the 2012 AQMP, the SCAQMD indicated that, while the 

2012 AQMP updates the approved 1997 8-hour ozone control 

strategy with new measures designed to reduce reliance on CAA 

section 182(e)(5) long-term (i.e., advanced technologies) 

measures for VOC and NOx reductions, it is not intended as an 

update to other elements of the approved 8-hour ozone control 

plan.5 The 2012 AQMP contains a number of SIP elements for a 

number of pollutants, but we are taking action today only on the 

portions of the 2012 AQMP that update the approved 1997 8-hour 

ozone control strategy from the 2007 AQMP and that provide an 

attainment demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard. 

Specifically, the relevant elements of the 2012 AQMP covered by 

our action include: 

· CARB’s resolution of adoption (Resolution 13-3); 

· SCAQMD’s resolution of adoption (Resolution 12-19); 

· The ozone-related portions of chapter 4 of the 2012 AQMP 

(“Control Strategy and Implementation”); 

 

5 See SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution No. 12-19 (December 7, 2012). 
6 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

· Appendices IV-A (“District’s Stationary Source Control 

Measures”), IV-B (“Proposed Section 182(e)(5) 

Implementation Measures”), and IV-C (“Regional 

Transportation Strategy and Control Measures”); and 

· Appendix VII (“South Coast 2012 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration”), which includes 4 attachments, one of which 

includes a demonstration of reasonably available control 

measures (RACM). 

In addition, EPA requested clarification of the commitments made 

by SCAQMD and CARB in connection with the 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration in the 2012 AQMP, and the two agencies 

responded with the following letters clarifying their respective 

commitments: 

· Letter from Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env, SCAQMD Executive 

Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region IX, May 1, 2014 (“Wallerstein Letter”); and 

· Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to 

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, 

May 2, 2014 (“Corey Letter”). 

For simplicity, in referring to the elements on which we are 

acting, we are using the term “2012 AQMP” even though we 

recognize that the 2012 AQMP includes other elements in addition 

to those covered in this final action. 
7 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

On May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29712), the EPA proposed approval of 

the updated control strategy for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

and the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration, including the 

related emissions inventories, control strategy, and 

photochemical modeling. In proposing approval of the 2012 AQMP, 

we agreed with the State that an attainment date of December 31, 

2022 for the 1-hour ozone standard in the South Coast is 

appropriate in light of the severity of nonattainment and the 

extent to which emissions sources have already been controlled 

in the South Coast. References herein to “the proposed rule” or 

“our proposed rule” refer to our proposal published on May 23, 

2014. 

In connection with future baseline emissions in the South 

Coast as presented in the 2012 AQMP, we noted in our proposed 

rule that the baseline reflects regulations adopted by SCAQMD as 

of June 2012 and regulations adopted by CARB by August 2011.6 As 

we noted in our proposed rule, as a general matter, EPA will 

approve a State plan that takes emissions reduction credit for a 

control measure only where EPA has approved the measure as part 

of the SIP, or in the case of certain on-road and nonroad (or 

“off-road”) measures, where EPA has issued the related waiver of 

preemption or authorization under CAA section 209(b) or section 

 

6 See 2012 AQMP, appendix III, page III-1-1. 
8 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

209(e). We also noted that, with certain exceptions, the 

relevant SCAQMD and CARB rules had been approved into the SIP, 

and with respect to the exceptions (recent amendments to SCAQMD 

Rules 1146, 1146.1, and 1147 and CARB’s Consumer Products 

Regulation), we anticipated taking final action prior to taking 

final action on the revised 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration.7 As anticipated, EPA has taken action on CARB’s 

amended Consumer Product Rule and SCAQMD’s amended Rules 1146 

and 1146.1.8 As such, the future baseline in the 2012 AQMP 

reflects, CARB and SCAQMD rules for which EPA has issued 

approvals, waivers, or authorizations and that are therefore 

enforceable for the purposes of the CAA. 

The control strategy for the 1-hour ozone standard includes 

adopted measures (i.e., baseline measures that are reflected in 

the future baseline emissions inventories), committal measures, 

and new technology measures.9 The overall control strategy and 

 

7 With respect to SCAQMD Rule 1147, we determined that the future baseline 

emissions in the 2012 AQMP reflect emissions reductions associated with the 

version of the rule approved by EPA at 75 FR 46845 (August 4, 2010) rather 

than the 2011 amended version, and thus, approval of the revised South Coast 

1-hour ozone attainment demonstration in the 2012 AQMP does not depend upon 

EPA approval of the more recent amendments to that rule. 

8 The EPA Region IX Regional Administrator signed direct final and proposed 

rules for the amended Consumer Product Rule, and the amended Rules 1146 and 

1146.1, on August 5, 2014 and July 25, 2014, respectively. 

9 “New technology” measures is the terms used herein to refer to the 

provisions of the 2012 AQMP that update the corresponding provisions in the 

2007 AQMP that anticipate development of new control techniques or 

improvement of existing control technologies. See section 182(e)(5) of the 

Act. 
9 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

emissions reductions from the various components are presented 

in table 4 of our proposed rule, which we reprint here for ease 

of reference. 

Table 4 (from proposed rule). Summary of South Coast’s 1-hour 

Ozone Attainment Demonstration Control Strategy (Summer Planning 

Inventory (tpd)) 

Emissions Scenario VOC NOx

Year 2008 Base Yeara 593 754 

Emission Reductions from Baseline Measures

153 419 

Year 2022 Baseline 440 335 

SCAQMD’s New Aggregate Emissions Reduction 

Commitment

6 11 

CARB’s Existing Aggregate Emissions Reduction 

Commitment 

7 24 

New Technology Provisions 17 150 

Year 2022 With Fulfillment of Commitments 410 150

a The modeling runs that were used to demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone standard in the 2012 AQMP were based on the base year (2008) summer 

planning inventories (see table 1 from our proposed rule) with adjustments 

made for weekly and daily temperature variations. See 2012 AQMP, appendix 

VII, page VII-51. 

With respect to the ozone control strategy, we proposed 

that the 2012 AQMP provides for implementation of all RACM and 

that the committal measures and new technology measures relied 

upon to achieve necessary emissions reductions were approvable. 

Specifically, we proposed to approve the new commitments by the 

SCAQMD to develop, adopt, submit and implement 15 new measures 

as expeditiously as possible to achieve, in the aggregate, 

emissions reductions of 6 tons per day (tpd) of VOC and 11 tpd 

of NOx by January 1, 2022, and to substitute any other measures 

as necessary to make up any emission reduction shortfall.10 The 

 

10 In our proposed rule, we erroneously described the SCAQMD’s aggregate 
10 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

15 new SCAQMD measures are summarized in table 5 of our proposed 

rule, which we reprint here for ease of reference. For a 

detailed description of the measures to which the SCAQMD has 

committed, please see appendix VI-A of the 2012 AQMP. 

Table 5 (from proposed rule). District Control Measures in 2012 

AQMP 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration 

NUMBER AND TITLE ADOPTION

IMPLEMENTATION 

PERIOD

REDUCTION (tons 

per day (tpd)) by 

2023 

VOC NOx

CTS-01 - Further VOC 

Reductions from 

Architectural Coatings 

(Rule 1113) 

2015 - 

2016 

2018 – 2020 2-4 

CTS-02 - Further Emission 

Reduction from 

Miscellaneous Coatings, 

Adhesives, Solvents and 

Lubricants 

2013 - 

2016 

2015 - 2018 1-2 

CTS-03 - Further VOC 

Reductions from Mold 

Release Products 

2014 2016 0.8-2 

CMB-01 - Further NOx

Reductions from RECLAIM 

2015 2020 3-5 

CMB-02 - NOx Reductions 

from Biogas Flares 

2015 Beginning 2017 TBD 

CMB-03 - Reductions from 

Commercial Space Heating 

Phase I – 

2014 (Tech 

Assessment

), Phase 

II - 2016 

Beginning 2018 0.18 

FUG-01 - VOC Reductions 

from Vacuum Trucks 

2014 2016 1 

FUG-02 - Emission 

Reduction from LPG 

Transfer and Dispensing – 

Phase II 

2015 2017 1-2 

FUG-03 - Further 

Reductions from Fugitive 

VOC Emissions 

2015 - 

2016 

2017 - 2018 1-2 

MCS-01 – Application of 

All Feasible Measures 

Ongoing Ongoing TBD TBD 

 

emissions reductions commitment as 5.8 tpd of VOC and 10.7 tpd of NOx. 

However, as corrected, the commitment is for 6 tpd of VOC and 11 tpd of NOx. 

See pages 7 and 8 of SCAQMD Resolution No. 12-19, table 4-11 of the 2012 

AQMP, and the Wallerstein Letter. 
11 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

MCS-02 - Further Emission 

Reductions from Green 

waste Processing (Chipping 

and Grinding Operations 

not associated with 

composting) 

2015 2016 1 

MCS-03 – Improved Startup, Shutdown and 

Turnaround Procedures 

Phase I – 

2012 (Tech 

Assessment

), Phase 

II - TBD 

Phase I – 2013 

(Tech 

Assessment), 

Phase II - TBD 

TBD TBD 

INC-01 – Economic 

Incentive Programs to 

Adopt Zero and Near-Zero 

Technologies 

2014 Within 12 

months after 

funding 

availability 

TBD 

INC-02 – Expedited 

Permitting and CEQA 

Preparation Facilitating 

the Manufacturing of Zero 

and Near-Zero Technologies 

2014-2015 Beginning 2015 N/A N/A 

EDU-01 – Further Criteria 

Pollutant Reductions from 

Education, Outreach and 

Incentives 

Ongoing Ongoing N/A N/A 

Source: 2012 AQMP, table 4-4. Note: TBD = to be determined once the specific 

inventory and control approach for the measure are identified. N/A = not 

applicable given nature of the measure. 

We noted in our proposed rule that CARB did not make a new 

aggregate emissions reduction commitment for the purposes of 

demonstrating attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by 

December 31, 2022 in the South Coast, but instead relies on the 

EPA-approved aggregate emissions reduction commitment under the 

2007 AQMP, which will provide 7 tpd of VOC and 24 tpd of NOx

reductions by January 1, 2022. Considered together, the SCAQMD’s 

new aggregate emissions reductions commitment and CARB’s 

existing aggregate emissions reductions commitment under the 

2007 AQMP amount to 13 tpd of VOC and 35 tpd of NOx for the 

purposes of 1-hour attainment in the South Coast by December 31, 
12 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

2022. 

We also proposed to approve, as authorized under section 

182(e)(5) of the CAA, provisions that anticipate development of 

new control techniques or improvement of existing control 

technologies. The 2012 AQMP relies on such provisions to achieve 

emissions reductions of 17 tpd of VOC and 150 tpd of NOx by 

January 1, 2022 for 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration 

purposes. Consistent with the requirements for CAA section 

182(e)(5), we proposed to approve a related commitment by CARB 

to develop, adopt, and submit contingency measures by January 1, 

2019 to be implemented if the anticipated technologies do not 

achieve the planned reductions.11 The 2012 AQMP frames the 

section 182(e)(5) provisions in terms of specific measures 

referred to herein as “new technology measures.” These measures 

are summarized in table 6 of our proposed rule, which we reprint 

here for ease of reference. See 2012 AQMP, appendix IV-B for a 

detailed description of the measures. 

Table 6 (from proposed rule). SCAQMD and CARB New 

Technology Measures in 2012 AQMP

2012 AQMP 

Measure 

Identifier Title Description 

 

11 We interpret CARB’s contingency measure commitment to be for January 1, 

2019 based on the requirement in section 182(e)(5) that such measures must be 

submitted “no later than 3 years before proposed implementation of the 

[advanced control technologies measures].” 
13 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

ONRD-01 Accelerated Penetration 

of Partial ZeroEmission and Zero 

Emission Vehicles 

This measure continues implementation 

of CARB’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Project 

(CVRP) through 2023 with a minimum 

number of 1,000 vehicles per year to be 

incentivized through the CVRP, which 

provides individual vehicle incentives 

of up to certain amounts (e.g., $2,500 

for full zero-emission vehicles) for 

clean vehicles. 

ONRD-02 Accelerated Retirement 

of Older Light-Duty and 

Medium Duty Vehicles 

This measure calls for retirement of, 

at a minimum, 2,000 light and mediumduty vehicles per year to 2023, and 

gives first priority to pre-1992 model 

year vehicles identified as high 

emitter and that are off-cycle to 

California’s Smog Check Program. 

Incentives are up to $2,500 per vehicle 

which could include a replacement 

voucher under CARB’s Enhanced Fleet 

Modernization Program. 

ONRD-03 Accelerated Penetration 

of Partial ZeroEmission and Zero 

Emission Light-Heavyand Medium-Heavy-Duty 

Vehicles 

This measure seeks additional emissions 

reductions through the early 

introduction of electric hybrid 

vehicles and continues the state hybrid 

truck and bus voucher incentive project 

(HVIP). Incentives of up to $25,000 per 

vehicle are part of this measure. The 

measure’s goal is to fund 1,000 hybrid 

and zero-emission vehicles each year to 

2023. 

ONRD-04 Accelerated Retirement 

of Older On-Road HeavyDuty Vehicles 

This measure seeks additional emissions 

reductions from older, pre-2010 heavyduty vehicles beyond the emission 

reductions targeted in CARB’s Truck and 

Bus Regulation. A significant number of 

heavy-duty trucks have been replaced 

through Proposition 1B Goods Movement 

Emission Reduction Program funding, the 

Carl Moyer Program, and other local 

incentives programs. This measure 

continues these programs through 2023. 

ONRD-05 Further Emission 

Reductions from HeavyDuty Vehicles Serving 

Near-Dock Railyards 

This measure calls for CARB to adopt a 

regulation or other enforceable 

mechanism to further reduce emissions 

from near-dock railyard drayage trucks. 

The regulation or other enforcement 

mechanism would require, by 2020, all 

containers transported between the 

marine ports and the near-dock 
14 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

railyards to use zero-emission 

technologies. 

OFFRD-01 Extension of the SOON 

Provision for 

Construction/Industrial 

Equipment 

This measure seeks to reduce emissions 

from older, high-emitting off-road 

diesel engines. Under this measure, 

incentive programs, such as the Carl 

Moyer Program and the SOON Provision of 

CARB’s Off-Road rule, would continue to 

be used to fund equipment replacement 

and engine repower projects. This 

measure would extend the current SOON 

program beyond 2014 to 2023. 

OFFRD-02 Further Emission 

Reductions from Freight 

Locomotives 

This measure carries forward the 

freight locomotive new technology 

measures from the 2007 AQMP and calls 

for replacing existing locomotive 

engines with Tier 4 engines beginning 

in 2015 such that by 2023, there will 

be at least 95% Tier 4 locomotives 

operating the South Coast. 

OFFRD-03 Further Emission 

Reductions from 

Passenger Locomotives 

Metrolink’s Board has adopted a 

locomotive replacement plan which 

includes the procurement of Tier 4 

locomotive engines to replace its 30 

Tier 0 locomotives over a three-year 

period. In addition, the replacement 

plans call for repowering the existing 

Tier 2 locomotives to Tier 4 emission 

levels, resulting in 100% Tier 4 

locomotives by 2023. 

OFFRD-04 Further Emission 

Reductions from OceanGoing Marine Vessels 

While at Berth 

This measure focuses on ocean-going 

vessels not subject to CARB’s 

shorepower regulation and seeks to 

deploy shorepower technologies for an 

additional 25 percent of the calls not 

subject to CARB’s shorepower 

regulation. 

OFFRD-05 Emission Reductions 

from Ocean-Going Marine 

Vessels 

This measure calls for incentives to be 

used to maximize the early introduction 

and preferential deployment of vessels 

to the San Pedro Bay Ports with 

cleaner/new engines meeting the new 

Tier 2 and Tier 3 IMO NOx standards. 

ADV-01 Actions for the 

Deployment of Zero and 

Near-Zero Emission OnRoad Heavy-Duty 

Vehicles 

This measure includes two sets of 

actions. The first set involves the 

establishment of an optional NOx

exhaust emission standard that is at 

least 95 percent lower than the current 

2010 on-road exhaust emissions 

standard. The second set is to develop 

zero-emission technologies for heavyduty vehicles that can be deployed in 

the 2015 to 2035 timeframe. 

ADV-02 Actions for the 

Deployment of ZeroThis measure describes actions needed 

to commercialize advanced zero-emission 
15 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Emission and Near-Zero 

Locomotives 

and near-zero emission technologies for 

locomotives that could be deployed in 

the 2020 to 2030 timeframe. 

ADV-03 Actions for the 

Deployment of ZeroEmission and Near-Zero 

Cargo Handling 

Equipment 

This measure describes actions to 

demonstrate and commercialize advanced 

zero-emission and near-zero emission 

technologies for cargo handling 

equipment operated at marine ports, 

intermodal freight facilities, and 

warehouse distribution centers that 

could be deployed in the 2020 to 2030 

timeframe. 

ADV-04 Actions for the 

Deployment of Cleaner 

Commercial Harbor Craft

This measure describes actions needed 

to commercialize advanced engine 

control technologies and hybrid systems 

for commercial harbor craft that could 

be deployed in the 2020 to 2030 

timeframe. 

ADV-05 Actions for Deployment 

of Cleaner Ocean-Going 

Marine Vessels 

This measure describes the actions 

needed to deploy retrofit technologies 

on existing Category 3 marine engines 

to achieve Tier 3 marine engine 

emissions standards. 

ADV-06 Actions for the 

Deployment of Cleaner 

Off-Road Equipment 

This measure describes the actions 

needed to commercialize advanced zeroemission and near-zero emission 

technologies of off-road equipment that 

could be deployed in the 2020 to 2030 

timeframe. 

ADV-07 Actions for the 

Deployment of Cleaner 

Aircraft Engines 

This measure describes the actions 

needed to develop, demonstrate, and 

commercialize advanced technologies, 

procedures, and sustainable alternative 

jet fuels that could be deployed in the 

2020 to 2030 timeframe. 

A more detailed discussion of the ozone NAAQS, ozone SIP 

plans for the South Coast, EPA’s SIP call for a new 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration as well as the 2012 AQMP and our 

evaluation of how it meets the requirements of the CAA can be 

found in our proposed rule. The EPA is approving the 2012 AQMP 

based on our determination that it complies with applicable CAA 

requirements and provides for expeditious attainment of the 1-

hour ozone standard in the South Coast. 
16 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

II. Public Comments and the EPA’s Responses 

Our proposed rule provided a 30-day comment period. During 

this period, we received a comment letter from Earthjustice on 

behalf of a number of community and environmental groups, 

including Communities for a Better Environment, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility 

– Los Angeles, and Sierra Club (herein, referred to collectively 

as “Earthjustice”); and a number of emails and attachments from 

a member of the public representing the Public Solar Power 

Coalition (“PSPC” herein). The attachments from PSPC included a 

copy of the clerk’s transcript of case documents from the 

Superior Court, Los Angeles County, to the Second District Court 

of Appeal upon appeal of Eder v. South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SC 119641).12 We provide our responses to 

the comments in the paragraphs below. We have organized the 

comments and responses under the related major topics.

One-Hour Ozone Attainment Date 

 

12 In its emails to EPA, PSPC did not specify how the 500+ pages of clerk’s 

transcript, included as attachments to their emails, are relevant to our May 

23, 2014 proposed rule. PSPC’s emails also include links to several websites 

and the emails indicate that the documents and studies available through 

these web links are to be included in the record. Again, however, PSPC did 

not specify how these materials relate to our proposed rule. Therefore, other 

than acknowledging receipt of the attachments and web links, EPA has no 

further response to them. 
17 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Comment 1: Earthjustice asserts that EPA erred in relying on 

CAA sections 110(k)(5) and 172(a)(2) to set the South Coast’s 

attainment deadline for the 1-hour standard and was required 

instead to use section 179(d)(3). Earthjustice further asserts 

that, if EPA had acted correctly, the attainment date would be 

no later than 2021 rather than 2022. 

Response 1: This comment is not timely and is not relevant to 

the current rulemaking. The EPA established the new attainment 

date for the 1-hour ozone standard in the South Coast in our 

final SIP call rule, which was issued on January 7, 2013. See 78 

FR 889 (“The SIP must provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment area as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years from the effective 

date of today’s rule, unless the State can demonstrate that it 

needs up to an additional five years to attain in light of the 

severity of the nonattainment problem and the availability and 

feasibility of control measures.”) 

The 2012 AQMP provides a demonstration of attainment by 

December 31, 2022 and our proposed rule finds that an attainment 

date of December 31, 2022 is appropriate in light of the 

severity of the 1-hour ozone problem in the South Coast and the 

extent to which emission sources in the South Coast have already 

been controlled. See 79 FR 29712, at 29724 (May 23, 2014). 
18 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

CAA Section 182(e)(5) 

Comment 2: Earthjustice asserts that the plain language of the 

CAA does not allow for reliance on section 182(e)(5) after the 

attainment date. The Act requires states that plan to rely on 

CAA section 182(e)(5) measures to implement contingency measures 

“adequate to produce emissions reductions sufficient, in 

conjunction with other approved plan provisions, to achieve ... 

attainment by the applicable dates” and that the applicable 

attainment date for “extreme” areas is November 15, 2010 

pursuant to section 181(a)(1). With respect to the South Coast, 

Earthjustice argues that the contingency measures are de facto 

insufficient to achieve attainment by the applicable dates 

because the attainment date of November 15, 2010 has expired, 

and because it has expired, it is no longer possible to satisfy 

the requirements of section 182(e)(5). Thus, Earthjustice 

concludes that the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration in the 

2012 AQMP cannot rely on section 182(e)(5) measures. 

Response 2: We disagree with the contention that the plain 

language of the CAA does not allow for reliance on section 

182(e)(5) when a state fails to meet its initial attainment date 

and a new attainment date must be established. Section 182(e) 

expressly provides EPA with the authority to approve an 
19 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

attainment demonstration for “extreme” ozone areas that 

anticipates “development of new control techniques or 

improvement of existing control technologies,” referred to 

herein as “new technology” measures, if certain conditions are 

met. Nothing in this provision limits its application only to 

the initial designations and classification that occurred 

immediately following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990. 

The commenter does not explain why it is “no longer possible” to 

meet the conditions of section 182(e)(5), and we explain in the 

proposed rule why the State has met those requirements. See 79 

FR at 29722-29724 (May 23, 2014). 

Comment 3: Earthjustice argues that an area that fails to 

attain by its applicable attainment date should not be allowed 

to include CAA section 182(e)(5) measures because it gives 

states no incentive to close the “black box” within the 

attainment time frames of the Act. Earthjustice believes that 

allowing areas to rely on section 182(e)(5) provisions after the 

attainment time frames of the Act creates an incentive to 

continually roll “black” box reductions past the attainment 

date. 

Response 3: We disagree that approving a revised 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration that relies on new technology measures 

under CAA section 182(e)(5) (and referred to as the “black box” 
20 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

by Earthjustice) removes the incentive for states to follow 

through on the related emissions reductions within the 

timeframes of the Act. First, if the new technology measures in 

the 2012 AQMP do not achieve the emissions reductions upon which 

the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration relies (i.e., 17 tpd 

of VOC and 150 tpd of NOx), then CARB must submit contingency 

measures to make up for the shortfall. CARB has made a 

commitment to develop and submit such contingency measures by 

January 1, 2019. 

Given the extent to which emissions sources in the South 

Coast are already controlled, development of section 182(e)(5) 

contingency measures will present a significant regulatory 

challenge to CARB that can only be avoided or reduced if the new 

technology measures achieve a significant portion, if not all, 

of the emissions reductions expected from them in the 2012 AQMP. 

Further, upon the effective date of today’s action, the 

commitment submitted by CARB to submit such contingency measures 

will be part of the California SIP and thus enforceable by EPA 

or private citizens. 

Comment 4: Earthjustice asserts that allowing the 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration in the 2012 AQMP to rely on section 

182(e)(5) measures conflicts with the purpose of section 

182(e)(5) because section 182(e)(5)(A) specifically precludes 
21 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

reliance on new technology measures to comply with emissions 

reductions necessary in the first ten years after enactment of 

the 1990 Amendments to the Act and thereby indicates Congress’s 

intention that a 10-year period is too short to allow reliance 

on “black box” measures to comply with CAA requirements; 

because, as a practical matter, the shortened planning horizon 

for attainment in the 2012 AQMP does not provide the time 

necessary to develop and implement new technology measures; and 

because section 182(e)(5)(B) requires contingency measures to be 

submitted at least three years in advance of implementation of 

the measures if the anticipated technologies do not achieve the 

anticipated emissions reductions. Earthjustice contends that 

emissions reductions must be in place by January 1, 2020 to 

provide the three years of clean data prior to an attainment 

date of December 31, 2022, which means that the contingency 

measures under CAA section 182(e)(5)(B) must be submitted by 

January 1, 2017, less than three years from the present. Given 

the contrast between the planning horizon for the 1-hour ozone 

standard in the 2012 AQMP and the longer (20-year) planning 

horizon for the initial South Coast AQMP established under the 

CAA Amendments of 1990, Earthjustice concludes that section 

182(e)(5) measures cannot be relied upon for the 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration in the 2012 AQMP. 
22 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Response 4: First, the language of section 182(e)(5)(A) does 

not preclude reliance on new technology provisions in the new 1-

hour ozone attainment demonstration. Section 182(e)(5)(A) is the 

first condition necessary to support reliance on new technology 

provisions, and to meet this condition, the EPA must find that 

such provisions “are not necessary to achieve the incremental 

emission reductions required during the first ten years after 

November 15, 1990.” Since the 10-year attainment period for the 

area runs from 2013 until January 1, 2022, by definition the 

State has met this condition. Given the plain language of the 

Act in this regard, there is no ambiguity to resolve and for 

which Congressional intent might be taken into consideration. 

Second, with respect to the practical consideration of 

whether sufficient time is available to develop new technology 

measures to provide emissions reductions by January 1, 2022 to 

provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by December 

31, 2022, we note that the processes used by the relevant air 

agencies to develop and implement the new technology measures 

are not new to the 2012 AQMP, but represent a continuation of 

the effort initiated in the wake of development of the 2007 AQMP 

for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and that is 

unfolding over a longer planning period, similar to that for the 

1-hour ozone plan developed pursuant to the CAA Amendments of 
23 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

1990. Third, with respect to the timeline for emissions 

reductions and submittal of contingency measures under the 2012 

AQMP, we note that the deadline for emissions reductions 

necessary for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by 

December 31, 2022 is January 1, 2022, not January 1, 2020 as 

asserted by Earthjustice. We explain the basis for this 

timeframe in our response to comment #13. Given that all 

emission reductions necessary for attainment of the standard 

must be achieved by January 1, 2022, the contingency measures 

under CAA section 182(e)(5)(B) are due to EPA no later than 

January 1, 2019, not January 1, 2017. Thus, CARB had about six 

years from adoption of the 2012 AQMP, and has about four years 

remaining from the date of this final action, to determine 

whether it will be able to achieve 17 tpd of VOC and 150 tpd of 

NOx reductions in the South Coast for 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration purposes through the new technology measures or 

whether it will need to adopt alternative “contingency” measures 

to cover some or all of the necessary emissions reductions. This 

timeframe does not render application of section 182(e)(5) 

absurd; to the contrary, we believe that it is both practicable 

and reasonable. 

Comment 5: Earthjustice asserts that CAA section 179 governs 

what happens when a region fails to meet an ozone standard, and 
24 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

that section 179 does not permit the use of section 182(e)(5) 

measures. Specifically, Earthjustice notes that section 

179(d)(2) states that the new plan required under section 179 

shall comply with sections 110 and 172 of the CAA and makes no 

reference to allowing for reliance on section 182(e)(5). 

Response 5: This comment appears to take issue with EPA’s 

previous final action determining that the South Coast had 

failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by the November 15, 

2010 applicable attainment date. See 76 FR 82133, at 82145 

(December 30, 2011). In that action, we were clear that the 

basis for our action was CAA sections 301(a) and 181(b)(2) and 

not section 179(c). Thus the new 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration is not governed by the requirements under section 

179(d)(2). Regardless, we note that while section 179(d)(2) 

requires that the new SIP meet the requirements of CAA sections 

110 and 172, it does not speak to nor preclude reliance on 

section 182(e)(5). We do not believe, and the commenter does not 

suggest, how a SIP for an ozone area classified as extreme would 

be inconsistent with the requirements of sections 110 and 172. 

Comment 6: Even if reliance on CAA section 182(e)(5) were 

allowed, EPA’s approval is arbitrary and capricious, contends 

Earthjustice, because EPA has not determined whether the section 

182(e)(5) new technology measures will produce sufficient 
25 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

emission reductions to allow the South Coast to meet the 

attainment deadline. Earthjustice contends that over half of the 

proposed section 182(e)(5) measures in the 2012 AQMP have not 

been evaluated for their potential to reduce emissions. 

Additionally, Earthjustice asserts that, to rely on section 

182(e)(5) measures to demonstrate attainment, the SIP must 

contain enforceable commitments from agencies responsible for 

developing and implementing the measures and that it is unclear 

from EPA’s proposed rule whether such commitments have been 

made. 

Response 6: We disagree that to approve the new technology 

provisions in the 2012 AQMP, we must determine that the 

identified new technology measures will in fact achieve the 

reductions necessary to attain the standard. Section 182(e)(5) 

contemplates that States will rely on measures not yet fully 

evolved and for that reason it is difficult to attribute a 

specific tonnage reduction to such measures. The new technology 

provisions in the 2012 AQMP reflect greater specificity than the 

corresponding provisions from the 2007 AQMP, but do not provide 

evidence that they will produce sufficient emissions reductions 

to allow the South Coast to meet the attainment deadline for the 

1-hour ozone standard. For many of the individual new technology 
26 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

measures, emissions reductions were not estimated because they 

depend upon funding levels, which are uncertain at this time. 

The fact that the specific emissions reduction estimates 

for the individual new technology measures in the 2012 AQMP are 

not available, however, is immaterial. Section 182(e)(5) 

requires, as relevant here, that the State submit “enforceable 

commitments to develop and adopt contingency measures” to be 

implemented if the new technologies do not achieve the planned 

reductions. In this case, the 2012 AQMP is relying on 17 tpd of 

VOC and 150 tpd of NOx reductions from the new technology 

provisions for 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration purposes. 

Such contingency measures must be “adequate to produce emissions 

reductions sufficient, in conjunction with other approved plan 

provisions, to achieve the periodic emission reductions ... and 

attainment by the applicable dates.” CARB has submitted the 

necessary commitment to develop, adopt and submit such 

contingency measures by January 1, 2019. See CARB Resolution 13-

3 and Corey Letter dated May 2, 2014. 

Although section 182(e)(5) does not require an enforceable 

commitment with respect to the new technology measures, we note 

that the State has identified the specific agencies that will be 

responsible for developing and implementing the controls or 

techniques anticipated under the individual new technology 
27 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

measures, and for the 2012 AQMP, the SCAQMD has identified such 

agencies for each of the new technology measures. In addition, 

as noted in connection with the 2007 AQMP, EPA, CARB, the SCAQMD 

and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (SJVUACPD) have signed a memorandum of agreement 

committing the agencies to coordinate efforts to develop and 

test new sustainable technologies to accelerate progress in 

meeting air quality goals. See 76 FR 57872, at 57882 (September 

16, 2011). 

RACM 

Comment 7: Earthjustice asserts that EPA’s interpretation of 

RACM does not comport with the Clean Air Act’s mandate for 

nonattainment area plans to provide for attainment of the NAAQS 

as “expeditiously as practicable” but no later than the 

applicable attainment date. Earthjustice bases this assertion on 

what it perceives to be the inconsistency between the 

“expeditiously as practicable” mandate and EPA guidance, which 

provides that, to address the requirement to adopt all RACM, 

states should consider all potentially reasonable control 

measures in the nonattainment area to determine whether they are 

reasonably available for implementation in that area and whether 

they would, if implemented individually or collectively, advance 
28 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

the area’s attainment date by one year or more. Earthjustice 

contends that the one-year condition is arbitrary and that it 

allows the states to avoid implementation of otherwise feasible 

and cost-effective control measures if implementation of those 

measures would not advance attainment by at least one year. 

Earthjustice also contends that it is arbitrary and capricious 

for EPA to rely on a guidance document that limits RACM to 

measures that advance attainment by one year as opposed to 

measure that may advance attainment by 9 months, 6 months, 3 

months or even 1 month. 

The one-year condition on the RACM requirement, 

Earthjustice asserts, is exacerbated by EPA taking this position 

for extreme ozone nonattainment areas that may rely on new 

technology measures under CAA section 182(e)(5), as well as 

areas that have missed their attainment dates “because the 

region has not even identified enough control measures to attain 

in the first place.” Earthjustice claims that the availability 

of CAA section 182(e)(5) in extreme areas means that measures 

can be rejected arbitrarily as not meeting RACM. 

Lastly, Earthjustice suggests that EPA should instead 

change its interpretation of RACM in extreme nonattainment areas 

that rely on new technology measures to require a demonstration 

that all feasible control measures have been adopted, regardless 
29 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

of whether those control measures can be demonstrated to advance 

attainment by a year. It also requests clarification that RACM 

represents the minimum level of control states are required to 

demonstrate in nonattainment plans and that other measures are 

also required, as necessary or appropriate, to attain the NAAQS 

as expeditiously as practicable, regardless of whether the 

measures are considered RACM. 

Response 7: EPA has consistently interpreted RACM as a 

collection of measures that would advance the attainment date by 

at least one year, and the courts have determined that the 

statutory RACM requirement is ambiguous and deferred to EPA’s 

interpretation of the requirement. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 

F.3d 735, 744-745 (5th Cir. 2002); see also Sierra Club v. EPA, 

294 F.3d, 155, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2002). See also 57 FR 13498, 13560 

(April 16, 1992); 44 FR 20372, 20374 (April 4, 1979).13 In 

considering whether a collection of measures would advance the 

attainment date of an area, EPA has previously interpreted the 

phrase “advance the attainment date” as meaning that the 

attainment date would be advanced by at least one year. See 

e.g., 66 FR 57160, 57182 (November 14, 2001) (approval of 

 

13 Additional relevant EPA guidance includes EPA memorandum titled “Guidance 

on the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and 

Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,” November 

30, 1999, and EPA memorandum titled “Additional Submission on RACM from 

States with Severe One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs,” December 14, 

2000. 
30 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Houston 1-hour ozone SIP); 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001) (approval 

of DC area 1-hour ozone SIP); 76 FR 57872, 57877 (September 16, 

2011)(proposed approval of South Coast 8-hour ozone SIP - 

finalized at 77 FR 12674 (March 1, 2012); and 77 FR 12652, 

12659-12660 (March 1, 2012)(approval of San Joaquin Valley 8-

hour ozone SIP). EPA’s use of a one-year increment in 

determining whether a collection of measures would advance the 

attainment date is reasonable and consistent with the fact that 

determinations of attainment, or failure to attain, the 1-hour 

ozone standard are based on data compiled on a calendar-year 

basis (see 40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H to 40 CFR part 50). 

Furthermore, sections 172(a)(2)(C) and 181(a)(5) use one year as 

the increment by which attainment date extensions can be 

granted. Thus, requiring evaluation of whether control measures 

would advance attainment by an increment of one year is a 

reasonable approach. 

Second, we disagree that the one-year condition for 

consideration of RACM in areas that rely on CAA section 

182(e)(5) new technology measures to demonstrate attainment (and 

thus have not identified the specific measures needed to attain 

the standard) allows for arbitrary rejection of measures as not 

meeting RACM. So long as attainment plans developed for such 

areas identify base year emissions, an attainment date, and 
31 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

attainment-year emission targets, the emissions reductions 

associated with advancement of the attainment date by one year 

can be calculated. Such an estimate can be used to judge whether 

a collection of reasonably available measures would advance 

attainment by one year notwithstanding the reliance on new 

technology measures. Thus, EPA’s long-standing interpretation of 

RACM in terms of a collection of measures that would advance the 

attainment date of an area is not arbitrary as applied to areas 

that rely on section 182(e)(5) new technology measures. 

In the case of the 1-hour ozone standard and the 2012 AQMP, 

the emissions reductions associated with advancement of the 

attainment date by one year are roughly 14 tpd of VOC and 46 tpd 

of NOx based on 2008 base year emissions and the emissions 

targets for attainment by December 31, 2022. As described in 

appendix VI (“Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) 

Demonstration”) of the 2012 AQMP, the SCAQMD updated previous 

RACM demonstrations for purposes of evaluating all feasible 

control measure concepts for inclusion in the 2012 AQMP. 

Ultimately, SCAQMD adopted 15 new committal measures (see table 

5 of our proposed rule) to ensure implementation of RACM. The 

collection of measures that were rejected as RACM were rejected 

because the hypothetical reductions were deemed non-quantifiable 
32 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

and thus they would not collectively advance the attainment 

date. See pages VI-18 and VI-19 of appendix VI of the 2012 AQMP. 

Also, we disagree with the contention that EPA’s one-year 

condition for consideration of RACM is absurd as applied to 

areas that have failed to attain the standard “because the 

region has not even identified enough control measures to attain 

in the first place.” RACM demonstrations and the attainment 

demonstrations upon which they rely are prepared, submitted and 

approved years before the applicable attainment date and are 

based on the best information available at the time. 

Notwithstanding approval of well-conceived and well-grounded 

RACM and attainment demonstrations that meet all CAA 

requirements, the area to which the demonstrations apply may 

still fail to attain the standard by the applicable attainment 

date for any number of reasons, such as assumptions regarding 

atmospheric chemistry or population forecasts that ultimately 

prove to be inaccurate when viewed in retrospect. Thus, the 

failure of an area to attain the standard by the applicable 

attainment date sheds no light on the appropriateness of the 

state’s RACM demonstration or EPA approval of it years before 

but sets the stage for a new attainment date, and the type of 

RACM reevaluation and new attainment demonstration that is 

included in the 2012 AQMP. 
33 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Lastly, the EPA confirms that implementation of RACM as 

expeditiously as practicable represents the minimum level of 

control states are required to demonstrate in nonattainment 

plans. See CAA section 172(c)(1). We clarify that, in such 

plans, other measures are also required, as may be necessary or 

appropriate, to provide for attainment of the NAAQS “by the 

applicable attainment date specified in this part.” See CAA 

section 172(c)(6). 

Comment 8: Even if EPA’s interpretation of RACM is adequate, 

SCAQMD did not perform a proper RACM analysis because SCAQMD did 

not evaluate Indirect Source Rule Fees for RACM, which was a 

RACM commitment in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Response 8: We disagree with the contention that SCAQMD’s RACM 

demonstration for the 2012 AQMP was insufficient because it did 

not evaluate Indirect Source Rule (ISR) Fees. We recognize that 

the San Joaquin Valley air district has adopted, and EPA has 

approved, an ISR rule, Rule 9510 (“Indirect Source Review”), 

which includes an off-site fee element. However, in doing so, 

the air district and EPA acted under CAA section 110(a)(5). See 

76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011). Under that section of the CAA, EPA is 

prohibited from requiring states to include ISR programs in 

SIPs. Specifically, CAA section 110(a)(5)(A)(i) states in 

relevant part: “Any State may include in a State implementation 
34 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

plan, but the Administrator may not require as a condition of 

approval of such plan under this section, any indirect source 

review program. The Administrator may approve and enforce, as 

part of an applicable implementation plan, an indirect source 

review program which the State chooses to adopt and submit as 

part of its plan.” [Emphasis added.] An ISR Fee rule would 

constitute an ISR program, and thus, EPA may not require SCAQMD 

to consider such a rule as a RACM. 

Comment 9: Earthjustice asserts that SCAQMD must evaluate the 

programs that SCAQMD is planning to use as “qualified” programs 

to fund the Rule 317 section 172(e) fee equivalency account, as 

RACMs. Earthjustice claims that, under Rule 317, “qualified” 

programs represent those that are “surplus” to the plan 

requirements to attain the 1-hour ozone standard and that reduce 

emissions from mobile sources by providing incentive funding 

that advances the state of mobile source emission reduction 

technology, improves fuel and engine infrastructure, and 

accelerates fleet turnover. The programs included in Rule 317, 

the commenter explains, include School Bus Replacement, Truck 

Retrofits, Clean Vehicle Rebate Programs, Hybrid Truck and Bus 

Voucher Incentives, Natural Gas Taxi Cabs and Shuttle Vans, a 

Lawnmower Exchange program, and others. Earthjustice asserts 

that SCAQMD must analyze all of the programs cited in Rule 317 
35 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

under the RACM analysis to determine whether the programs will 

individually or collectively advance the date of attainment to 

meet the requirements of section 172(c)(1), and that, if any of 

the programs meet the definition of RACM, the programs must be 

adopted by SCAQMD in enforceable form in the nonattainment plans 

to meet the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards in the South 

Coast. 

Response 9: SCAQMD Rule 317 (“Clean Air Act Non-attainment 

Fees”) is intended to satisfy the requirements of sections 182 

and 185 of the Act under EPA’s anti-backsliding rules governing 

the transition from the revoked 1-hour ozone standard to the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. The rule utilizes an equivalency 

approach consistent with the principles of section 172(e) of the 

Act. EPA approved Rule 317 as a revision to the California SIP 

at 77 FR 74372 (December 14, 2012). 

RACM identifies a certain level of control of existing 

emissions sources that must be adopted in legally enforceable 

form. Incentive programs by their nature are voluntary, i.e., 

not enforceable, and thus are not the types of programs that a 

State must consider in its RACM evaluation. Moreover, the types 

of sources to which the incentive programs in Rule 317 apply are 

mobile sources, and as explained in our proposed rule, 79 FR at 

29720 (May 23, 2014), we have found that CARB’s mobile source 
36 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

program continues to meet the RACM requirement for such sources. 

CARB’s mobile source program includes regulations for many types 

of existing (i.e, in-use) vehicles and equipment, including the 

types of vehicles and equipment to which the Rule 317 incentive 

programs apply. 

Comment 10: The commenter asserts that, because the South Coast 

failed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the revised 1-hour 

ozone attainment plan must include such additional measures as 

EPA may reasonably prescribe, including all measures that can be 

feasibly implemented in the area in light of technological 

achievability, costs, and any non-air quality and other air 

quality-related health and environmental impacts to comply with 

the requirements for such plans under CAA section 179(d)(2). The 

commenter states that pursuant to that provision, EPA should 

have prescribed potential feasible measures for achieving the 

standard, and suggests that the elimination of the exemption of 

methane from the definition of “volatile organic compounds” 

(VOCs) is one such potential measure that should have been 

prescribed and evaluated. 

Response 10: In December 2011, we issued a final action 

determining pursuant to CAA sections 301(a) and 181(b)(2), that 

the South Coast had failed to attain the 1-hour standard by the 

applicable attainment date. We did not base that determination 
37 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

on section 179(c), and thus the plan requirements specified in 

CAA section 179(d) do not apply. Thus, this comment is not 

timely. 

We note that EPA regulations exempt methane from the 

definition of VOC, 40 CFR 51.100(s), and the South Coast 

regulations are consistent with the EPA regulation. The EPA 

regulation exempting methane from the definition of “VOC” stems 

from the Agency’s determination that methane is an organic 

compound that has negligible photochemical reactivity and thus 

need not be controlled for the purposes of reducing ground-level 

ozone concentrations. Independent of that, however, we recognize 

methane as a potent greenhouse gas and we note that many control 

measures that reduce VOC emissions have the co-benefit of 

reducing methane. Because EPA regulations exempt methane from 

the definition of VOC for the purpose of reduce ground-level 

ozone concentrations, it would not be appropriate for the State 

to rely on methane reductions as part of its plan to attain the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Enforceable Commitments 

Comment 11: Earthjustice contends that EPA cannot approve 

California’s reliance on section 172(c)(6) enforceable 

commitments because the state’s proposed commitments are not 
38 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

enforceable and are insufficient to substitute for the credible 

emission reductions needed to demonstrate attainment. More 

specifically, Earthjustice notes that three of CARB’s existing 

commitments in the 2012 AQMP do not have schedules for 

implementation, and without such schedules for implementation, 

CARB’s measures are not “independently enforceable” under Ninth 

Circuit case law, citing El Comite Para El Bienestar de 

Earlimart v. Warmerdam, 539 F.3 1062, at 1071-1073 (9th Cir. 

2008). The three CARB measures cited by Earthjustice include 

expanding passenger vehicle retirement, promoting cleaner ship 

engines and fuel, and adopting off-road recreational vehicle 

expanded emissions standards. In addition, Earthjustice contends 

that the SCAQMD’s reservation of the right to substitute 

measures for the 15 specific measures adopted by SCAQMD to meet 

its emissions reduction commitment renders the measures 

unenforceable should the District choose to implement other, 

undisclosed measures. 

Response 11: The 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration in the 

2012 AQMP relies on existing CARB commitments approved by EPA in 

connection with the attainment demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard in the 2007 AQMP. More specifically, the 1-hour 

ozone attainment demonstration in the 2012 AQMP relies on the 

same commitments made by CARB, and approved by EPA, in 
39 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

connection with the 2007 AQMP to take certain defined measures 

to its Board for consideration and to achieve certain aggregate 

emissions reductions in certain years. In responses to comments 

in our final rule approving the commitments for the 8-hour ozone 

standard attainment demonstration, we addressed in detail the 

issue of enforceability of the commitments. See 77 FR 12674, at 

12675-12677 (March 1, 2012). In short, however, we draw a sharp 

distinction between the commitments for the 2007 AQMP and the 

aspirational goals found to be unenforceable by certain courts. 

In contrast to an unenforceable aspirational goal, we found: 

“The language in CARB’s and the District’s commitments... 

is specific; the intent of the commitments is clear; and 

the strategy of adopting measures to achieve the required 

reductions is completely within CARB’s and the District’s 

control. Furthermore...CARB and the District identify 

specific emission reductions that they will achieve, how 

they could be achieved and the time by which these 

reductions will be achieved, i.e., by the 2023 attainment 

year.” 77 FR 12674, at 12676-12677 (March 1, 2012). 

Although the excerpt from our March 2012 final rule refers to 

the commitments for the attainment year for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, CARB also made similar types of commitments for 

certain interim years, including year 2020, and a similar 
40 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

rationale applies. See 77 FR at pages 12689-12692 (March 1, 

2012). 

As to commitments related to expanding passenger vehicle 

retirement, promoting cleaner ship engines and fuel, and 

adopting off-road recreational vehicle expanded emissions 

standards, we disagree that the CARB has failed to include 

schedules for implementation and that, therefore, the 

commitments are unenforceable. We discuss the commitments 

related to these three control strategies and the current status 

of implementation in the following paragraphs. 

First, with respect to expanding passenger vehicle 

retirement, CARB’s 2007 State Strategy calls for expanding the 

existing vehicle retirement program to vehicles that are offcycle from their Smog Check inspections over an implementation 

period of 2008-2014.14 In 2007, the California enacted the 

California Alternative and Renewable Fuel, Vehicle Technology, 

Clean Air, and Carbon Reduction Act of 2007 (Assembly Bill (AB) 

118), which creates the Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP). 

The Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program (EFMP), one of the AQIP 

programs, is a voluntary vehicle retirement program that is 

funded through a $1 increase in vehicle registration fees 

 

14 See CARB’s Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan, Release Date: April 26, 2007, pages 100-101. 
41 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

(roughly $30 million annually) and that broadens eligibility 

criteria beyond vehicle failure under the Smog Check program. 

The California Legislature recently extended the program through 

2023 (AB 8). In June 2014, CARB proposed amendments to the EFMP 

that would improve the program by focusing the program on lowincome participants, expanding program flexibility to improve 

participation, and ensuring that retired vehicles are 

functional, which should improve emissions benefits from the 

program. 

Second, as to promoting cleaner ship engines and fuel, CARB 

committed to adopting regulations to require use of cleaner, 

low-sulfur fuel by ocean-going vessels (OGV) in transit within 

24 miles of the California coast with implementation expected 

from 2007-2010.15 In 2008, CARB adopted the OGV clean fuel (i.e., 

low sulfur) regulations, and later amended the regulations in 

2011. CARB’s OGV clean fuel regulation is expected to be 

supplanted in 2015 by equivalent fuel standards applicable to a 

much wider area (200 nautical miles) along the California coast 

under the 2010 amendments, adopted by the International Maritime 

Organization (IMO), to the International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) designating the 

 

15 See CARB’s Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan, Release Date: April 26, 2007, pages 107-110. 
42 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

North American Emission Control Area (ECA). MARPOL Tier III NOx

standards16 will apply within the North American ECA to marine 

diesel engines that are installed on a ship constructed on or 

after January 1, 2016. 

Third, as to adopting off-road recreational vehicle 

expanded emissions standards, CARB committed to bringing the 

emissions standards to its Board for consideration in 2013, with 

implementation schedules to be determined in the rulemaking 

process.17 In July 2013, CARB adopted regulations establishing 

more extensive evaporative emissions standards for new offhighway recreational vehicles beginning with model year 2018. 

As to the enforceability of SCAQMD’s commitments in the 

2012 AQMP, Earthjustice is correct that, in committing to 

develop, adopt, implement and submit the 15 measures listed in 

table 5 of the proposed rule, SCAQMD reserved the right to 

substitute measures where a listed measure is found to be 

infeasible and to otherwise substitute measures that can achieve 

equivalent reductions in the same adoption or implementation 

timeframes. See 2012 AQMP, pages 4-42 and 4-43. However, 

 

16 The current Tier I NOx standards range from 9.8 to 17 g/kW-h, depending on 

engine speed. The Tier II standards represent a 20 percent NOx reduction below 

Tier I, and the Tier III standards represent an 80 percent NOx reduction below 

Tier I. 

17 See CARB’s Progress Report on Implementation of PM2.5 State Implementation 

Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, Release 

Date: March 29, 2011, appendix B (“Rulemaking Calendar”). 
43 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

SCAQMD’s commitment to the 15 defined measures is supported by 

the related, but independently enforceable, commitment to 

achieve aggregate emission reductions of 6 tpd of VOC and 11 tpd 

of NOx by January 1, 2022. The aggregate emissions reduction 

commitment sufficiently ensures that the District will achieve 

the 6 tpd of VOC and 11 tpd of NOx that is relied upon by the 1-

hour ozone attainment demonstration, notwithstanding the 

potential for substitution of the individual measures by the 

SCAQMD. 

Moreover, the SCAQMD has committed to be bound by a process 

with significant safeguards to ensure the integrity of the 

regulatory commitment. For instance, as described in more detail 

on pages 4-43 and 4-44 of the 2012 AQMP, the SCAQMD has defined 

“infeasibility” for the purposes of measure substitution, set 

cost-benefit thresholds triggering refined analysis, and 

established a public review and decision process. With such 

safeguards, we expect SCAQMD to make few substitutions, leaving 

most of the individual measures fully enforceable as part of the 

SIP. 

Comment 12: Earthjustice challenges EPA’s determination that 

CARB and SCAQMD are capable of fulfilling their aggregate 

emission reduction commitments, contending that such a 

determination conflicts with EPA’s earlier finding that there 
44 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

are few opportunities to further reduce emissions and that six 

of SCAQMD’s defined measures do not have estimated emission 

reductions. Without such reduction estimates, Earthjustice 

argues, EPA has no reason to believe that California will 

satisfy its emission reductions commitments. 

Response 12: EPA’s statement as to the few opportunities to 

further reduce emissions was made by way of explanation for why 

we believe that, with respect to the 2012 AQMP 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration, circumstances warrant the 

consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the 

attainment demonstration for the South Coast. We do not find 

this statement to be in conflict with our stated belief that 

CARB and SCAQMD are capable of fulfilling their aggregate 

emissions reductions “given the State’s and SCAQMD’s efforts to 

date to reduce emissions and the proposed stationary and mobile 

source strategies found in the 2012 AQMP.” The former simply 

acknowledges the unique challenges facing the air agencies in 

the South Coast relative to other parts of the country to 

identify source categories for additional controls beyond those 

already adopted and implemented, while the latter notes the 

long-term success of the air agencies in identifying sources to 
45 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

regulate emission sources to achieve the necessary reductions 

notwithstanding the challenges.18

Earthjustice is correct that SCAQMD does not provide 

emissions reduction estimates for six of the 15 measures that 

the District has committed to develop, adopt, submit and 

implement. However, as further explained in the proposed rule, 

79 FR 29712, at 29721 (May 23, 2014), SCAQMD is relying on 

emissions reductions from the SOON program as well as the 

emissions reductions from the 15 individual measures to meet its 

aggregate emissions reduction commitment. The emissions 

reductions estimated from the SOON program plus those from the 

measures for which SCAQMD has provided emissions reduction 

estimates is equal to the aggregate commitment. See table 5 from 

the proposed rule and pages IV-B-30 through IV-B-32 from 

appendix IV-B of the 2012 AQMP. Thus, we continue to believe 

that SCAQMD is capable of fulfilling its aggregate emission 

reduction commitment to achieve necessary emissions reductions 

by January 1, 2022. 

 

18 The full statement from our May 23, 2014 proposed rule regarding the few 

opportunities to further reduce emissions is: “As a result of these State and 

District efforts, most sources in the South Coast nonattainment area are 

currently subject to stringent rules adopted and approved by EPA (or for 

which EPA has issued waivers or authorization in the case of CARB 

regulations) prior to the development of the 2012 AQMP, leaving few 

opportunities (and generally more technologically and economically 

challenging ones) to further reduce emissions.” 79 FR 29712, at 29721 (May 

23, 2014). 
46 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Comment_13: Earthjustice contends that CARB’s and SCAQMD’s 

emissions reduction commitments are not for a “reasonable and 

appropriate period of time,” because the agencies anticipate 

fulfilling their commitments by January 1, 2022 – less than a 

year before the 1-hour ozone attainment deadline of December 31, 

2022, and that EPA provides no support for the notion that the 

agencies will meet the December 31, 2022 deadline simply by 

fulfilling their commitments by January 1, 2022. To the 

contrary, Earthjustice argues, these agencies have not 

demonstrated that the emissions reduction would occur within a 

12-month time frame. In addition, Earthjustice claims that the 

agencies could not achieve three years of clean data if the 

agencies wait until January 1, 2022 to fulfill commitments. 

Response 13: First, SCAQMD and CARB have committed to achieve 

aggregate emissions reductions by January 1, 2022 and are 

already at work meeting that commitment, and thus, these 

agencies have more than seven years to fulfill the commitments 

and achieve the reductions necessary for attainment, not 12 

months as suggested by the commenter. 

Second, SCAQMD and CARB commitments to achieve emissions 

reductions by January 1, 2022 is consistent with the requirement 

to ensure that necessary emissions reductions are in place by 

the beginning of the ozone season immediately preceding the 
47 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

attainment deadline. Since the attainment deadline is December 

31, 2022, the ozone season immediately preceding that deadline 

begins on January 1, 2022 for the South Coast. 

Reductions necessary to demonstrate attainment by December 

31, 2022 need not be in place three years before the deadline. 

The three-year record of clean data applies to an attainment 

determination, not to an attainment demonstration, the latter of 

which we are approving today. The determination of attainment 

required by CAA section 181(b)(2), which is made by reviewing 

ambient air quality monitoring data after the attainment date, 

is distinctly different from the demonstration of attainment 

required by CAA section 182(c)(2), which is based on projections 

of future air quality levels and submitted before the attainment 

date. 

For the 1-hour ozone standard, an attainment determination 

is based on monitored air quality levels in the three years 

preceding the attainment date. See 57 FR 13498, at 13506 (April 

16, 1992). In contrast, an attainment demonstration is based on 

air quality modeling showing that projected emissions in the 

attainment year will be at or below the level needed to prevent 

violations of the relevant ambient air quality standard. For 

ozone, the attainment year is defined as the calendar year that 

includes the last full ozone season prior to the statutory 
48 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

attainment date. See 75 FR 10420, at 10431 (March 8, 2010) 

(Final approval of San Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration; later withdrawn at 77 FR 70376 (November 26, 

2012) on other grounds). EPA has consistently interpreted the 

Act to require that the attainment demonstration show that air 

quality levels will be at or below the level of the standard in 

the attainment year and not for each of the three ozone seasons 

prior to the attainment date. 

We believe this position is consistent with the ozone 

attainment provisions in subpart 2 of title 1, part D of the 

CAA. The program Congress crafted for ozone attainment does not 

require that all measures needed to attain the standard be 

implemented three years prior to the area’s attainment date. 

For example, moderate areas were required by section 182(b)(1) 

to provide for VOC emissions reductions of 15 percent reduction 

by November 15, 1996 which was also the attainment date for 

these areas. For areas classified serious and above, CAA section 

182(c)(2)(B) requires that ROP of 3 percent per year averaged 

over 3 years “until the attainment date” (a total of 9 percent 

reduction in emissions in the 3 years leading up to an area’s 

attainment date). EPA does not believe that Congress intended 

these mandatory reductions to be in excess of what is needed to 

attain. 
49 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

This position is also consistent with the attainment date 

extension provisions in CAA section 181(a)(5). Under this 

section, an area that does not have three years of data meeting 

the ozone standard by its attainment date, but has complied with 

all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the 

applicable implementation plan and has no more than one 

exceedance of the standard in the attainment year, may receive a 

one-year extension of its attainment date. Assuming these 

conditions are again met the following year, the area may 

receive an additional one-year extension. If the area has no 

more than one exceedance in this final extension year, then it 

will have three years of data indicating that it has attained 

the ozone standard.

EPA has consistently taken this position in guidance and in 

our approval of 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations. Our 

ozone modeling guidance, which was issued less than a year after 

the 1990 CAA Amendments were enacted, requires States to model 

the ozone season before the attainment date and not the third 

ozone season before the attainment date.19 The ozone attainment 

demonstrations that EPA has approved since the CAA Amendments of 

1990 have been based on this modeling guidance and show that 

 

19 See Chapter 6 (“Attainment Demonstrations”) of Guideline for Regulatory 

Application of the Urban Air Shed Model (July 1991, OAQPS, EPA). 
50 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

there will be no violations in the attainment year. See, for 

example, 61 FR 10921 (March 18, 1996) and 62 FR 1150 (January 8, 

1997), proposed and final approval of California’s attainment 

plans for 7 nonattainment areas; 66 FR 54143 (October 26, 2001), 

approval of Pennsylvania’s 1-hour ozone attainment plan for the 

Philadelphia area; and 67 FR 30574 (May 7, 2002), approval of 

Georgia’s 1-hour ozone attainment plan for Atlanta. 

We took the same position on attainment demonstrations for 

the 8-hour ozone standard promulgated in 1997 when we 

promulgated regulations specifying the deadline for implementing 

emissions reductions for purposes of attainment of that 

standard. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.908(d) provides: “For each 

nonattainment area, the State must provide for implementation of 

all control measures needed for attainment no later than the 

beginning of the attainment year ozone season.” “Attainment year 

ozone season” is defined as “the ozone season immediately 

preceding a nonattainment area’s attainment date.” 40 CFR 

51.900(g). 

Third, we do not find that CARB’s and SCAQMD’s commitments 

to be for a reasonable and appropriate period of time simply 

because the aggregate emissions reductions will be in place at 

the beginning of ozone season prior to the attainment date, but 

also because the agencies have committed to take certain near-
51 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

term regulatory actions in support of those emissions reductions 

commitments. More specifically, SCAQMD has committed to develop, 

adopt, and submit, and implement specific control measures as 

expeditiously as possible. SCAQMD’s commitment includes adoption 

dates for the specific measures (the latest of which calls for 

adoption in 2016) and implementation dates. Likewise, CARB has 

committed to bring certain regulatory measures to its Board for 

action on a certain schedule. 

Therefore, we continue to find the reliance of the 2012 

AQMP on these commitments to be acceptable because, among other 

reasons, we find the commitments to be for a reasonable and 

appropriate period of time. 

Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) 

Comment 14: Earthjustice claims that the emissions reductions 

from SCAG’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) have been 

included in the baseline but that such inclusion is not 

appropriate because SCAG has not provided any information that 

the claimed emissions reductions will come from enforceable 

measures nor has EPA approved the SCS as a control measure. 

Earthjustice contends that the SCS should be submitted as a 

control measure towards attainment of the 1-hour and 8-hour 

ozone standards in the South Coast. 
52 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Response 14: The SCS is a new requirement for Regional 

Transportation Plans (RTPs) in California pursuant to state law 

(Senate Bill 375). As described in the 2012 South Coast AQMP, 

the primary goal of the SCS is to provide a vision for future 

growth in Southern California that will decrease per capita 

greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks 

through integrated transportation, land use, housing and 

environmental planning. This leads to strategies that can help 

reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled over the next 25 years. 

While the SCS is intended to reduce GHG emissions, it will also 

produce reductions in ozone precursors. 

SCAG’s most recent adopted RTP, the 2012-2035 Regional 

Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), 

reflects SCS principles to achieve per capita emission reduction 

targets. Earthjustice is correct that the baseline inventory for 

the South Coast 2012 AQMP includes emissions reductions from the 

RTP/SCS to the extent that it reflects the same population, 

employment, economic activity, vehicle and transit activity 

forecasts and transportation control measures as the RTP/SCS and 

those forecasts and measures are projected to result in lower 

transportation-related emissions than would have occurred under 

the RTP baseline case. However, because SCS strategies are fully 

integrated into the RTP/SCS, separate emissions reduction 
53 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

estimates attributable to land use pattern changes cannot 

reliably be made apart from those associated with the various 

forecasts, transportation projects, and TCMs in the RTP/SCS. 

Distinguishing between emissions reductions associated with the 

types of changes in land use development patterns associated 

with SCS principles from those associated with transportation 

projects and TCMs is confounded by the fact that, as noted in 

the 2012 South Coast AQMP, the regional transportation system is 

appropriately viewed on a systems-level basis, and not by its 

components, since each of the individual transportation 

improvements and strategies affect each other and the system. 

In addition, to the extent that the RTP/SCS reflects land 

use policies, we note that we have historically allowed States 

to take into account land use policies in their baseline (as 

opposed to being specifically approved into the SIP) if those 

policies are not being relied on as part of the control 

strategy. Specifically, we state: “EPA believes that it would 

be appropriate to include a specific land use policy in the land 

use assumptions made for the initial forecast [of future 

emissions] only if: 

A. The policy meets one of the following conditions: 

· it has already been adopted by an appropriate 

jurisdiction, or 
54 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

· the policy is planned and there is an enforcing 

mechanism to ensure it will happen; and 

B. The effects of the policy haven’t already been accounted 

for in the land use assumptions – that is, you are not 

double counting.”20 

In this instance, to the extent that the RTP/SCS embodies 

certain land use policies, those policies are not being relied 

upon as part of the control strategy to demonstrate attainment 

of the 1-hour ozone standard in the South Coast by the 

applicable attainment date and are enforceable through 

mechanisms provided in SB 375, and the effects of the policies 

have not already been accounted for in the land use assumptions. 

Solar Power 

Comment 15: Noting ongoing litigation between PSPC and SCAQMD 

over the 2012 AQMP, PSPC calls for adoption by SCAQMD of rules 

to implement an Immediate Total Solar Conversion Plan, with full 

implementation by 2020, or 2023 at the latest, contending that 

that the Immediate Total Solar Conversion Plan is cost effective 

and represents reasonably available control technology (RACT), 

Best Available Control Technology (BACT), and Best Available 

 

20 EPA’s Improving Air Quality through Land Use Activities, EPA420-R-01-001, 

January 2001), page 35. This guidance document can be found at the following 

website: 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/stateresources/policy/transp/landuse/r01001.pdf
55 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT). PSPC asserts that 

California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) section 40404.5 

mandates a solar conversion plan within the South Coast.

Response 15: For ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

moderate or above, CAA section 182(b)(2) requires the 

implementation of provisions that require the implementation of 

RACT on all major stationary sources of VOC and for each VOC 

source category for which EPA has issued Control Techniques 

Guideline (CTG) documents. CAA section 182(f) requires that RACT 

under section 182(b)(2) also apply to major stationary sources 

of NOx. In extreme ozone nonattainment areas such as the South 

Coast, a major source is a stationary source that emits or has 

the potential to emit at least 10 tons of VOC or NOx per year. 

CAA sections 182(e) and (f). The current rulemaking does not 

address the RACT SIP for the South Coast, thus the issue of 

whether a particular control is required for a specific source 

or source category is not pertinent to this rulemaking. 

With respect to the requirement to ensure implementation of 

emission limits representing BACT, we note that, for federal law 

purposes, BACT determinations are made in connection with 

preconstruction review and permitting of new major sources or 

major modifications of existing major sources under the 

provisions of the CAA and EPA regulations for the Prevention of 
56 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Significant Deterioration (PSD). As such, BACT is relevant in 

the context of individual major source permit applications, but 

not in the context of EPA’s action on the regional air quality 

plan. 

Though not relevant to this rulemaking, we note that we are 

currently unaware of any sources that use solar power to control 

or limit VOC or NOx emissions. SJVUAPCD has researched solarpowered aeration for green waste composting, but recent 

discussions with SJVUAPCD staff indicated that while this work 

shows promise, it is still in the research phase. 

Lastly, our role in reviewing SIP revisions is to ensure 

that they meet the applicable requirements of federal law, not 

state law, and thus, the issue of whether state law, in this 

case, CH&SC section 40404.5, mandates a solar conversion plan 

within the South Coast and whether the 2012 AQMP complies with 

the provisions of CH&SC section 40404.5 is not relevant for the 

purposes of our review of the 2012 AQMP under CAA section 

110(k).21 Similarly, the term “Best Available Retrofit Control 

 

21 CH&SC section 40404.5 states: “The Legislature further finds and declares 

that the south coast district, in fulfilling its directive to require the use 

of best available control technology for new sources, and in consideration of 

the state policy to promote and encourage the use of solar energy systems, 

shall make reasonable efforts to incorporate solar energy technology into its 

air quality management plan in applications where it can be shown to be costeffective.” 
57 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Technology” is a term established under state law, and thus is 

also not relevant to our action on the 2012 AQMP.22

III. Final Action 

Under section 110(k) of the CAA, and for the reasons 

discussed above and in our May 23, 2014 proposal (see 79 FR 

29712), the EPA is approving certain ozone-related portions of 

the 2012 South Coast AQMP as a revision to the California SIP. 

The relevant portions of the 2012 AQMP that are being approved 

include the updated control strategy for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard and the demonstration of attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard in the South Coast by December 31, 2022. In so doing, 

we are approving the following commitments and measures upon 

which the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration relies as well 

as the State’s reliance on the approved control strategy for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard: 

· SCAQMD’s commitments to develop, adopt, submit and 

implement the measures as summarized in table 5 of the 

proposed rule, subject to findings of infeasibility and 

measure substitution, and a commitment to meet aggregate 

 

22 BARCT is defined in CH&SC section 40406: “As used in this chapter, “best 

available retrofit control technology” means an emission limitation that is 

based on the maximum degree of reduction achievable, taking into account 

environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or category of 

source.” 
58 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

emissions reductions targets of 6 tpd of VOC and 11 tpd of 

NOx by January 1, 2022; 

· The new technology provisions (summarized in table 6 of the 

proposed rule) through which the 2012 AQMP expects to 

achieve emissions reductions of 17 tpd of VOC and 150 tpd 

of NOx in the South Coast by January 1, 2022; and 

· CARB’s commitment to submit contingency measures by January 

1, 2019 as necessary to ensure that the emissions 

reductions from new technology measures are achieved. 

In approving this SIP revision, EPA finds that an 

attainment date of December 31, 2022 is appropriate in light of 

the severity of the 1-hour ozone problem in the South Coast and 

given the extent to which emissions sources in the South Coast 

have already been controlled and the difficulty of developing 

regulations and controlling additional emissions. EPA also finds 

that the South Coast 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration is 

based on reasonable estimates and forecasts of ozone precursor 

emissions and appropriate photochemical modeling techniques and 

assumptions and an acceptable control strategy. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

 Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to 

approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of 
59 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role 

is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the 

criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves a state plan as meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 

law. For that reason, this action: 

· Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review 

by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); 

· Does not impose an information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.); 

· Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

· Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4); 

· Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); 
60 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

· Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 

on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

· Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

· Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

· Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 

address disproportionate human health or environmental 

effects with practical, appropriate, and legally 

permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian 

country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
61 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, 

the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, 

which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will 

submit a report containing this action and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 

A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major 

rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial 

review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [Insert date 60 days 

after date of publication in the Federal Register]. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final 

rule does not affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within 

which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action 

may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
62 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen Oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

___________________ ___________________________ 

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, 

 EPA Region IX. 
63 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

is amended as follows: 

PART 52 -- APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

Subpart F — California 

2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(443) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(443) The following plan was submitted on February 13, 2013, by 

the Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional material. 

(A) California Air Resources Board. 

(1) Resolution 13-3, dated January 25, 2013, adopting the Final 

2012 Air Quality Management Plan (December 2012) prepared by the 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 

(2) Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, California 

Air Resources Board, dated May 2, 2014. 

(B) South Coast Air Quality Management District. 
64 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

8/13/2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

(1) Governing Board Resolution No. 12-19, dated December 7, 

2012, adopting the Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. 

(2) The following portions of the Final 2012 Air Quality 

Management Plan (December 2012): Ozone-related portions of 

chapter 4 (“Control Strategy and Implementation”); Appendix IV-A 

(“District’s Stationary Source Control Measures”); Appendix IV-B 

(“Proposed Section 182(e)(5) Implementation Measures”); Appendix 

IV-C (“Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures”); 

and Appendix VII (“1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration”). 

(3) Letter from Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env, Executive Officer, 

South Coast Air Quality Management District, May 1, 2014.