Vol. 76 Friday, 

No. 180 September 16, 2011 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Administration 

40 CFR Part 50 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin 

Valley; Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard; Proposed Rule 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
57846 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1California plans sometimes use the term 

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms 

are essentially synonymous. For simplicity, we use 

the term VOC to mean either VOC or ROG. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0589; FRL–9464–9] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; 

Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by California to 

provide for attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standards in the San Joaquin Valley 

(SJV). These SIP revisions are the 2007 

Ozone Plan (revised 2008 and 2011) and 

SJV-related portions of the 2007 State 

Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011). EPA is 

proposing to approve the emissions 

inventories, reasonably available control 

measures demonstration, provisions for 

transportation control strategies and 

measures, provisions for advanced 

technology/clean fuels for boilers, 

reasonable further progress (RFP) and 

attainment demonstrations, 

transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for all RFP milestone 

years and the attainment year, 

contingency measures for failure to 

make RFP or attain, and Clean Air Act 

section 182(e)(5) new technologies 

provisions and associated commitment 

to adopt contingency measures. EPA is 

also proposing to approve commitments 

to measures and reductions by the SJV 

Air Pollution Control District and the 

California Air Resources Board. In the 

alternative, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the SIP with respect to 

certain provisions for transportation 

control strategies and measures 

sufficient to offset any growth in 

emissions from growth in vehicle miles 

traveled or the number of vehicle trips. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0622, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions. 

• E-mail: wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office 

of Air Planning (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and 

EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comments due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web site 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105. While all documents 

in the docket are listed in the index, 

some documents may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material), and some 

may not be publicly available at either 

location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

Copies of the SIP materials are also 

available for inspection at the following 

locations: 

• California Air Resources Board, 

1001 I Street, Sacramento, California 

95812, and 

• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District, 1990 E. Gettysburg, 

Fresno, California 93726. 

The SIP materials are also 

electronically available at: http:// 

aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/index.html, 

http://www.valleyair.org/ 

Air_Quality_Plans/ 

AQ_Final_Adopted_Ozone2007.htm 

and http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/ 

sip/sip.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3957, 

wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. The 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 

San Joaquin Valley Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

A. Background on the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS 

B. The SJV 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment 

Area 

II. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Attainment SIPs 

III. California’s State Implementation Plan 

Submittals To Address Ozone 

Attainment in the San Joaquin Valley 

A. California’s SIP Submittals 

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative 

Requirements for SIP Submissions 

IV. Review of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan and 

SJV Portion of the 2007 State Strategy 

A. Emissions Inventories 

B. Reasonably Available Control Measures 

Demonstration and Control Strategy 

C. Attainment Demonstration 

D. Reasonable Further Progress 

Demonstration 

E. Transportation Control Strategies and 

Transportation Control Measures To 

Offset Emissions Increases From VMT 

Increases, To Provide for RFP and 

Attainment 

F. Contingency Measures 

G. Advanced Control Technology and 

Clean Fuels for Boilers 

H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity 

I. Other Clean Air Act Requirements 

Applicable to Extreme Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas 

V. EPA’s Proposed Actions 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. The 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard and 

the San Joaquin Valley Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

A. Background on the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS 

Ground-level ozone pollution is 

formed by the reaction of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) 1 and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the 

atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. 

These two pollutants, referred to as 

ozone precursors, are emitted by many 

types of pollution sources including onand off-road motor vehicles and 

engines, power plants and industrial 

facilities, and smaller area sources such 

as lawn and garden equipment and 

paints. 

Scientific evidence indicates that 

adverse public health effects occur 

following exposure to ozone, 

particularly in children and adults with 

lung disease. Breathing air containing 

ozone can reduce lung function and 

inflame airways, which can increase 

respiratory symptoms and aggravate 

asthma or other lung diseases. Ozone 

exposure also has been associated with 

increased susceptibility to respiratory 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57847 

2 In March 2008, EPA completed another review 

of the primary and secondary ozone standards and 

tightened them further by lowering the level for 

both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 3See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 

07–04–11a (April 30, 2007), p. 4; CARB Resolution 

No. 07–20 (June 14, 2007), p. 6; and letter, James 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne 

Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 

November 17, 2007. 

4See EPA, Air Quality System Preliminary Design 

Report dated September 18, 2011 in the docket for 

today’s proposal. A design value is an ambient 

concentration calculated using a specific 

methodology to evaluate monitored air quality data 

and is used to determine whether an area’s air 

quality meets a NAAQS. The methodology for 

calculating design values for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS is found in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I. 

5EPA has revised or proposed to revise several 

elements of the 8-hour ozone implementation rule 

since its initial promulgation in 2004. See, e.g., 74 

FR 2936 (January 16, 2009); 75 FR 51960 (August 

24, 2010); and 75 FR 80420 (December 22, 2010). 

None of these revisions affect any provision of the 

rule that is applicable to EPA’s proposed actions on 

the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP. 

6See San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVUAPCD) Governing Board 

Resolution 07–04–11a: In the Matter of Adopting 

the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District 2007 Ozone Plan, April 30, 2007; 

CARB Resolution No. 07–20, June 14, 2007; letter, 

James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to 

Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9, November 16, 2007 with enclosures; and letter, 

James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to 

Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9, February 1, 2008 with enclosures (revising the 

RFP demonstrations for the South Coast and San 

Joaquin Valley air basins). 

infections, medication use, doctor visits, 

and emergency department visits and 

hospital admissions for individuals with 

lung disease. Ozone exposure also 

increases the risk of premature death 

from heart or lung disease. Children are 

at increased risk from exposure to ozone 

because their lungs are still developing 

and they are more likely to be active 

outdoors, which increases their 

exposure. See ‘‘Fact Sheet, Proposal to 

Revise the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Ozone,’’ January 

6, 2010 and 75 FR 2938 (January 19, 

2010). 

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the 

primary and secondary national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS or 

standard) for ozone to replace the 

existing 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 

parts per million (ppm) with an 8-hour 

standard set at 0.08 ppm. 62 FR 33856.2

EPA revised the ozone standard after 

considering substantial evidence from 

numerous health studies demonstrating 

that serious health effects are associated 

with exposures to ozone concentrations 

above the levels of these revised 

standards. 

B. The SJV 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, EPA is required by 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) to 

designate areas throughout the Nation as 

attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. 

On April 15, 2004, EPA designated the 

SJV as nonattainment for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard and classified the 

area as ‘‘serious’’ under CAA section 

181(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.903(a), Table 1. 

See 69 FR 23858 at 23888–89 (April 30, 

2004) and 40 CFR 81.305. The 

designation and classification became 

effective on June 15, 2004. In 2007, 

California requested that EPA reclassify 

the SJV from ‘‘serious’’ to ‘‘extreme’’ 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard under CAA section 

181(b)(3).3 We granted California’s 

request on May 5, 2010 and reclassified 

the SJV to extreme nonattainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

effective June 4, 2010. See 75 FR 24409. 

The SJV 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area is home to almost 4 million people 

and is the Nation’s leading agricultural 

area. Stretching over 250 miles from 

north to south and averaging 80 miles 

wide, it is partially enclosed by the 

Coast Mountain range to the west, the 

Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and 

the Sierra Nevada range to the east. It 

encompasses over 23,000 square miles 

and includes all or part of eight 

counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, 

Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, 

and the valley portion of Kern. For a 

precise description of the geographic 

boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area, see 40 

CFR 81.305. The local air district which 

has primary responsibility for 

developing a plan to attain the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in this area, is the 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD 

or District). 

Ambient 8-hour ozone values in the 

SJV vary depending on the location with 

the highest values being recorded on its 

eastern edge from Fresno to south of 

Bakersfield. For the 2008–2010 period, 

the 8-hour ozone design value for the 

area is 0.104 ppm, recorded at the 

Arvin-Bear Mountain Boulevard 

monitoring site southeast of 

Bakersfield.4

II. CAA and Regulatory Requirements 

for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment 

Area SIPs 

States must implement the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard under Title 1, part 

D of the CAA, which includes section 

172, ‘‘Nonattainment plan provisions,’’ 

and subpart 2, ‘‘Additional Provisions 

for Ozone Nonattainment Areas’’ 

(sections 181–185). 

In order to assist states in developing 

effective plans to address their ozone 

nonattainment problem, EPA issued the 

8-hour ozone implementation rule. This 

rule was finalized in two phases. The 

first phase of the rule addresses 

classifications for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, applicable attainment dates 

for the various classifications, and the 

timing of emissions reductions needed 

for attainment. See 69 FR 23951 (April 

30, 2004). The second phase addresses 

SIP submittal dates and the 

requirements for reasonably available 

control technology and measures (RACT 

and RACM), reasonable further progress 

(RFP) demonstration, modeling and 

attainment demonstrations, contingency 

measures, and new source review. See 

70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). The 

rule is codified at 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart X.5 We discuss each of these 

CAA and regulatory requirements for 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment plans in 

more detail below. 

III. California’s State Implementation 

Plan Submittals To Address Ozone 

Attainment in the San Joaquin Valley 

A. California’s SIP Submittals 

Designation of an area as 

nonattainment starts the process for a 

state to develop and submit to EPA a 

SIP providing for attainment of the 

NAAQS under title 1, part D of the 

CAA. For 8-hour ozone areas designated 

as nonattainment effective June 15, 

2004, this SIP was due by June 15, 2007. 

See CAA 172(b) and 40 CFR 51.908(a) 

and 51.910. 

California has made five SIP 

submittals to address the CAA’s 

planning requirements for attaining the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard in the San 

Joaquin Valley. We refer to these 

submittals collectively as the ‘‘[SJV] 

2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP.’’ The two 

principal ones are the SJVUAPCD’s 

2007 Ozone Plan (also Plan) and the 

California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 

State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan (2007 State 

Strategy). 

1. SJV 2007 Ozone Plan 

The 2007 Ozone Plan was adopted by 

the District’s Governing Board on April 

30, 2007 and by CARB on June 14, 2007 

and submitted to EPA on November 16, 

2007.6 It includes an attainment 

demonstration, commitments by the 

SJVUAPCD to adopt control measures to 

achieve emissions reductions from 

sources under its jurisdiction (primarily 

stationary sources), and motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEB) used for 

transportation conformity purposes. The 

attainment demonstration includes air 

quality modeling, an analysis of CAA 

section 172 reasonably available control 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
57848 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

7See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 

08–12–18, December 18, 2008; and letter, James N. 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Laura 

Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9, April 24, 2009, with enclosures. 

8See CARB Resolution No. 07–28, September 27, 

2007 with attachments and letter, James N. 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne 

Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 

November 16, 2007 with enclosures. 

9The 2007 State Strategy also includes measures 

to be implemented by the California Bureau of 

Automotive Repair (Smog Check improvements) 

and the California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation (VOC reductions from pesticide use). 

See 2007 State Strategy, pp. 64–65 and CARB 

Resolution 7–28, Attachment B, p. 8. 

10See CARB Resolution No. 09–34, April 24, 

2009, with attachments and letter, James N. 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Laura 

Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9, August 12, 2009 with enclosures. Only pages 11– 

27 of the 2009 State Strategy Status Report are 

submitted as a SIP revision. The balance is for 

informational purposes only. See Attachment A to 

the CARB Resolution No. 09–34. 

11See CARB Resolution No. 11–22, July 21, 2011 

and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, 

CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9, July 29, 2011, with enclosures. 

12 In May 2011, CARB adopted other updates and 

revisions to its rulemaking schedule in the 2007 

State Strategy. See CARB, Progress Report on 

Implementation of PM2.5 State Implementation 

Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions, 

submitted on May 18, 2011 (2011 Progress Report). 

We proposed to approve those revisions on July 13, 

2011 (76 FR 41338). 

13Letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Office, 

CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, 

EPA Region 9, August 10, 2011. 

14Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9 to James 

Goldstene, CARB, August 23, 2011. 

measures (RACM), base year and 

projected year emissions inventories, 

and contingency measures. On April 24, 

2009, CARB submitted a minor 

amendment to the 2007 Ozone Plan’s 

strategy to extend the adoption date for 

Control Measure S–Gov–5 ‘‘Composting 

Green Waste.’’ 7

2. CARB 2007 State Strategy 

To demonstrate attainment, the 2007 

Ozone Plan relies to a large extent on 

measures and commitments in CARB’s 

2007 State Strategy. The 2007 State 

Strategy was adopted by CARB on 

September 27, 2007 and submitted to 

EPA on November 16, 2007.8 It 

describes CARB’s overall approach to 

addressing, in conjunction with local 

plans, attainment of both the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

all nonattainment areas in the State, 

including the San Joaquin Valley. It also 

includes CARB’s commitments to 

propose 15 defined State measures 9 and 

to obtain specific amounts of aggregate 

reductions of VOC and NOX emissions 

in the SJV from sources under the 

State’s jurisdiction, which are primarily 

on- and off-road motor vehicles and 

engines, consumer products, and fuels. 

On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted 

the ‘‘Status Report on the State Strategy 

for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and 

Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting 

Implementation of the 2007 State 

Strategy,’’ dated March 24, 2009 and 

adopted April 24, 2009 (2009 State 

Strategy Status Report).10 This submittal 

updated the 2007 State Strategy to 

reflect its implementation during 2007 

and 2008. 

In today’s proposal, we are evaluating 

only those portions of the 2007 State 

Strategy and its revisions that are 

relevant for attainment of the 8-hour 

standard in the San Joaquin Valley. 

3. CARB 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions 

On July 29, 2011, CARB submitted the 

‘‘8-Hour Ozone State Implementation 

Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions 

to the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan 

Transportation Conformity Budgets for 

the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley 

Air Basins,’’ dated June 20, 2011 and 

adopted July 21, 2011 (2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions).11 This submittal updates 

both the 2007 State Strategy and the SJV 

2007 Ozone Plan. Specifically, it 

amends CARB’s rulemaking schedule 

for the Agricultural Engines measure.12

It also updates the emissions 

inventories, RFP demonstration, 

contingency measures, and 

transportation conformity MVEB for the 

SJV to reflect rule adoptions and 

improvements to emissions inventories. 

CARB provided supplemental 

documentation for the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions on August 10, 2011 (2011 

Ozone SIP Revision Supplement).13

Future references in this proposal to 

the 2007 State Strategy and to the SJV 

2007 Ozone Plan will be to the Strategy 

as revised in 2009 and 2011 and the 

Plan as revised in 2009 and 2011, 

respectively, unless otherwise noted. 

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative 

Requirements for SIP Submittals 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 

110(l) require a state to provide 

reasonable public notice and 

opportunity for public hearing prior to 

the adoption and submittal of a SIP or 

SIP revision. To meet this requirement, 

every SIP submittal should include 

evidence that adequate public notice 

was given and an opportunity for a 

public hearing was provided consistent 

with EPA’s implementing regulations in 

40 CFR 51.102. 

Both the District and CARB have 

satisfied applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements for reasonable 

public notice and hearing prior to 

adoption and submittal of the 2007 

Ozone Plan. The District conducted 

public workshops, provided public 

comment periods, and held a public 

hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan 

on April 30, 2007. See 2007 Ozone Plan, 

p. ES–1 and SJVUAPCD Governing 

Board Resolution, p. 3. CARB provided 

the required public notice and 

opportunity for public comment prior to 

its June 14, 2007 public hearing on the 

Plan. See CARB Resolution No. 07–20. 

The District also provided the required 

public notice and hearing on the 2009 

revision to the Plan. See SJVUAPCD 

Governing Board Resolution No. 08–12– 

18, December 18, 2008, p. 2. 

CARB conducted public workshops, 

provided public comment periods, and 

held a public hearing prior to the 

adoption of the 2007 State Strategy on 

September 27, 2007. See CARB 

Resolution No. 07–28. CARB also 

provided the required public notice, 

opportunity for public comment, and a 

public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009 

adoption of the 2009 State Strategy 

Status Report and its July 21, 2011 

adoption of the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions. See CARB Resolution No. 

09–34 and CARB Resolution No. 11–22. 

The SIP submittals include proof of 

publication for notices of District and 

CARB public hearings, as evidence that 

all hearings were properly noticed. We 

find, therefore, that each of the five 

submittals that comprise the SJV 2007 8- 

Hour Ozone SIP meets the procedural 

requirements for public notice and 

hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 

110(l). 

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires 

EPA to determine whether a SIP 

submittal is complete within 60 days of 

receipt. This section also provides that 

any plan submittal that EPA has not 

affirmatively determined to be complete 

or incomplete will be deemed complete 

by operation of law six months after the 

date of submittal. EPA’s SIP 

completeness criteria are found in 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix V. 

The November 16, 2007 submittal of 

the 2007 Ozone Plan and the April 24, 

2009 submittal revising the Plan became 

complete by operation of law on May 

15, 2008 and October 24, 2009, 

respectively. The November 16, 2007 

submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and 

the August 12, 2009 submittal of the 

2009 revisions to the Strategy became 

complete by operation of law on May 

16, 2008 and February 12, 2010, 

respectively. We found the submittal of 

the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions complete 

on August 23, 2011.14


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57849 

15By ‘‘future year baseline inventories’’ or 

‘‘projected baseline inventories,’’ we mean 

projected emissions inventories for future years that 

account for, among other things, the ongoing effects 

of economic growth and adopted emissions control 

requirements. 16 Inventories for CO and non-anthropogenic 

sources (that is, biogenic or natural sources) were 

developed for the air quality modeling and can be 

found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/eos/SIP_Modeling/. 

IV. Review of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan 

and the SJV Portion of the 2007 State 

Strategy 

We summarize our evaluation of the 

SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP’s 

compliance with applicable CAA and 

EPA regulatory requirements below. Our 

detailed evaluation can be found in the 

TSD for this proposal which is available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov in 

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2010– 

0589 or from the EPA contact listed at 

the beginning of this notice. 

A. Emissions Inventories 

1. Requirements for Emissions 

Inventories 

CAA section 182(a)(1) requires each 

state with an ozone nonattainment area 

classified under subpart 2 to submit, 

within two years of the area’s 

designation as nonattainment, a 

‘‘comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources’’ of the relevant pollutant or 

pollutants in accordance with guidance 

provided by EPA. CAA 182(a)(1), 40 

CFR 51.915. EPA has issued the 

‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

Regional Haze Regulations,’’ EPA–454/ 

R–05–001, November 2005 (‘‘EI 

Guidance’’) which provides guidance on 

how to develop base year and future 

year baseline emissions inventories for 

8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze 

SIPs. For areas that were initially 

designated nonattainment for the 8-hour 

ozone standard in 2004, EPA 

recommends using calendar year 2002 

as the base year for the inventory 

required by CAA section 182(a)(1). EI 

Guidance, p. 8. 

Emissions inventories for ozone 

should include emissions of VOC, NOX, 

and carbon monoxide (CO) and 

represent an average summer week day 

during the ozone season. EI Guidance, 

pp. 14 and 17. States should include 

documentation in their submittals 

explaining how the emissions data were 

calculated. 70 FR at 71664 and EI 

Guidance, p. 40. In estimating mobile 

source emissions, states should use the 

latest emissions models and planning 

assumptions available at the time the 

SIP is developed. 68 FR at 32854 and 70 

FR 71666. 

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV 2007 

8-Hour Ozone SIP 

The base year and future year baseline 

inventories for NOX and VOC for the 

SJV ozone nonattainment area together 

with additional documentation for the 

inventories are found in Appendix B of 

the 2007 Ozone Plan and Appendices A 

and F of the 2007 State Strategy.15, 16

These inventories represent average 

summer day (ozone season) emissions. 

An inventory is provided for the base 

year of 2002 and projected baseline 

inventories are provided for the RFP 

milestone years of 2008, 2011, 2014, 

2017, and 2020; and the attainment year 

of 2023. The baseline inventories 

include reductions from federal, State, 

and District measures adopted prior to 

2007. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix 

A, p. 1. All inventories include 

emissions from point, area, on-road, and 

non-road sources. The 2002 inventory 

was projected to 2005 and future years 

using CARB’s California Emissions 

Forecasting System (CEFSv 1.06). Both 

base year and projected baseline 

inventories use the most current version 

of California’s mobile source emissions 

model, EMFAC2007, for estimating onroad motor vehicle emissions. EPA has 

approved this model for use in SIPs and 

transportation conformity analyses. 73 

FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). See 2007 

Ozone Plan, p. B–1. 

As part of its 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, CARB submitted revised base 

year and future year baseline 

inventories for the SJV. See Table 1 

below. These revised inventories 

incorporate improved activity data and/ 

or emissions factors for diesel trucks 

and buses and off-road equipment that 

were developed as part of CARB’s 

December 2010 rulemakings amending 

its In-Use On-Road Truck and Bus Rule 

and In-Use Off-Road Equipment Rule. 

They also reflect revisions to the 

methodology for estimating NOX

emissions from natural-gas fueled 

industrial equipment as well as other 

improvements to the stationary source 

inventories made by the District in the 

period between adoption of the 2007 

Ozone Plan and the initial draft of the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan. See Draft 2008 PM2.5

Plan, Appendix B, December 2007. 

Collectively, these revisions reduce the 

total estimated 2002 base year NOX and 

VOC inventories by approximately 12 

percent and 2.3 percent, respectively. 

2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B–9. For 

a more detailed discussion of these 

inventory changes, see TSD, section 

II.A. 

The future year baseline inventories 

were also revised to reflect the effects of 

the 2007–2009 economic recession, 

which has significantly reduced activity 

levels in and associated emissions from 

the State’s construction and goods 

movement sectors. CARB estimates 

economic growth rates will return to 

normal levels by the 2017–2018 time 

period. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, 

Appendix B. As a result, projected 

emission levels from these categories in 

the years up to 2017–2018 are now 

lower than were originally projected in 

the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2007 State 

Strategy as submitted in November 

2007. These recession-related decreases 

in emissions do not in themselves affect 

the Plan’s emissions inventories for the 

modeling validation years (1999/2000), 

the base year (2002), or future years 

(2020 and 2023) and thus do not change 

the carrying capacity estimates in the 

Plan (i.e., they do not in themselves 

affect the target level of overall 

emissions reductions needed to 

demonstrate attainment), nor do they 

alter the 2002 base year inventory which 

provides the starting point for the RFP 

demonstration. The principal effect of 

the recession-related decreases in 

projected emissions estimates is to 

reduce the amount of reductions needed 

from the SIP’s control strategy to 

demonstrate RFP in the years prior to 

2018. 

TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REVISED BASE YEAR AND ATTAINMENT YEAR BASELINE EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY

[tons per summer day] 

Emissions inventory category 

NOX VOC 

2002 2023 2002 2023 

Stationary and Area Sources .......................................................................... 101 53 276 244 

On-road Mobile Sources .................................................................................. 312 69 110 37 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
57850 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

17The ‘‘General Preamble for the Implementation 

of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990,’’ published at 57 FR 13498 on April 16, 1992, 

describes EPA’s preliminary view on how we 

would interpret various SIP planning provisions in 

title I of the CAA as amended in 1990, including 

those planning provisions applicable to the 1-hour 

ozone standard. EPA continues to rely on certain 

guidance in the General Preamble to implement the 

8-hour ozone standard under title I. 

18See also ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of 

Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas,’’ 44 FR 

20372 (April 4, 1979) and Memorandum dated 

December 14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, Director, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

‘‘Additional Submission on RACM From States 

With Severe One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

SIPs.’’ 

19For ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

moderate or above, CAA section 182(b)(2) also 

requires implementation of RACT for all major 

sources of VOC and for each VOC source category 

for which EPA has issued a Control Techniques 

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

RACT under section 182(b)(2) also apply to major 

stationary sources of NOX. In extreme areas, 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). Under the 8- 

hour ozone implementation rule, states were 

required to submit SIP revisions meeting the RACT 

requirements of CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) 

no later than 27 months after designation for the 8- 

hour ozone standard (September 15, 2006 for areas 

designated in April 2004) and to implement the 

required RACT measures no later than 30 months 

after that submittal deadline. See 40 CFR 51.912(a). 

California submitted the CAA section 182 RACT 

SIP for SJV in January 2007 and a revised RACT SIP 

in June 2009. EPA proposed to partially approve 

and partially disapprove that 2009 SJV RACT SIP 

on August 31, 2011. See Partial Approval and 

Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; Reasonably 

Available Control Technology for Ozone; Proposed 

rule, signed August 31, 2011. 

TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REVISED BASE YEAR AND ATTAINMENT YEAR BASELINE EMISSIONS INVENTORY

SUMMARY—Continued 

[tons per summer day] 

Emissions inventory category 

NOX VOC 

2002 2023 2002 2023 

Off-road Mobile Sources .................................................................................. 152 73 71 57 

Total .......................................................................................................... 565 195 457 339 

Source: 2011 8-Hour Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix B, p. B–3. 

Note: 2023 emissions levels reflect 

control adopted through 2011. 

3. Proposed Action on the Emissions 

Inventories 

We have reviewed the 2002 base year 

emissions inventory in the SJV 2007 8- 

Hour Ozone SIP and the inventory 

methodologies used by the District and 

CARB and have determined that the 

inventory was developed consistent 

with CAA requirements as reflected in 

the 8-hour ozone implementation rule 

and EPA’s guidance. The revised 2002 

base year inventory is comprehensive, 

accurate, and current inventory of actual 

emissions of 8-hour ozone precursors in 

the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment 

area. We therefore propose to approve 

the base year inventory as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1) 

and EPA’s 8-hour ozone implementation 

rule. We provide more detail on our 

review of the inventories in section II.A. 

of the TSD for this proposal. 

B. Reasonably Available Control 

Measures Demonstration and Control 

Strategy 

1. Requirements for RACM and Control 

Strategies 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that 

each attainment plan ‘‘provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology), and shall provide 

for attainment of the national primary 

ambient air quality standards.’’ The 8- 

hour ozone implementation rule 

requires that for each nonattainment 

area that is required to submit an 

attainment demonstration, the state 

must also submit concurrently a SIP 

revision demonstrating that it has 

adopted all RACM necessary to 

demonstrate attainment as expeditiously 

as practicable and to meet any RFP 

requirements. 40 CFR 51.912(d). 

EPA has previously provided 

guidance interpreting the RACM 

requirement in the General Preamble at 

13560 17 and in a memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on the Reasonably Available 

Control Measure Requirement and 

Attainment Demonstration Submissions 

for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,’’ John 

Seitz, Director, OAQPS to Regional Air 

Directors, November 30, 1999 (Seitz 

memo). In summary, EPA guidance 

provides that, to address the 

requirement to adopt all RACM, states 

should consider all potentially 

reasonable control measures for source 

categories 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 the area’s 

attainment date by one year or more. 

See Seitz memo and General Preamble 

at 13560.18 Any measures that are 

necessary to meet these requirements 

that are not already either federally 

promulgated, part of the state’s SIP, or 

otherwise creditable in SIPs must be 

submitted in enforceable form as part of 

a state’s attainment plan for the area.19

CAA section 172(c)(6) requires 

nonattainment plans to ‘‘include 

enforceable emission limitations, and 

such other control measures, means or 

techniques (including economic 

incentives such as fees, marketable 

permits, and auctions of emission 

rights), as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be 

necessary or appropriate to provide for 

attainment of such standard in such area 

by the applicable attainment date * * * 

.’’ See also CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). 

The ozone implementation rule requires 

that all control measures needed for 

attainment be implemented no later 

than the beginning of the attainment 

year ozone season. 40 CFR 51.908(d). 

The attainment year ozone season is 

defined as the ozone season 

immediately preceding a nonattainment 

area’s attainment date. 40 CFR 

51.900(g). 

2. RACM Demonstration and the Control 

Strategy in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone 

SIP 

For the 2007 Ozone Plan and the 2007 

State Strategy, the District, CARB, and 

the local agencies (through the SJV’s 

eight metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPO)) each undertook a 

process to identify and evaluate 

potential reasonably available control 

measures that could contribute to 

expeditious attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone standards in the SJV. We describe 

each agency’s efforts below. We also 

discuss CARB’s and the District’s 

adopted control strategies including the 

provisions for the development of new 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57851 

20SJVAPCD, 2010 Ozone Mid-Course Review, 

May 2011. 

and improved technologies under CAA 

section 182(e)(5). 

a. SJVUAPCD’s RACM Analysis and 

Adopted Control Strategy 

The District’s RACM analysis, which 

focuses on stationary and area source 

controls, is described in Chapter 6 and 

Appendix I of the 2007 Ozone Plan. To 

identify potential RACM, the District 

reviewed measures from a number of 

sources including measures in other 

nonattainment areas’ plans and 

measures suggested by the public during 

development of the Plan. 2007 Ozone 

Plan, pp. 6–2 to 6–3. The identified 

potential measures, as well as existing 

District measures, are described by 

emissions inventory category in 

Appendix I of the Plan. From the set of 

identified potential controls, the District 

selected measures for adoption and 

implementation based on the 

technological and economic feasibility 

of emissions controls, the potential 

magnitude and timing of emissions 

reductions, cost effectiveness, and other 

acceptable criteria for determining 

RACM. 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 6–3. 

After completing its RACM analysis 

for stationary and area sources under its 

jurisdiction, the District developed its 

‘‘Stationary Source Regulatory 

Implementation Schedule’’ (2007 Ozone 

Plan, Table 6–1), which gives the 

schedule for regulatory adoption and 

implementation of the measures 

determined to be feasible. The District 

also identified a number of source 

categories for which feasibility studies 

would be undertaken to refine the 

inventory and evaluate potential 

controls. These categories and the 

schedule for studying them are listed in 

Table 6–2 of the 2007 Ozone Plan. 

In the five years prior to the adoption 

of the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District 

developed and implemented 

comprehensive plans to address 

attainment of the PM10 standards (2003 

PM10 Plan, approved 69 FR 30005 (May 

26, 2004)) and the 1-hour ozone 

standards (2004 Extreme Ozone 

Attainment Plan, approved 75 FR 10420 

(March 8, 2010)). These plans have 

resulted in the adoption by the District 

of many new rules and revisions to 

existing rules for stationary and area 

sources. For the most part, the District’s 

current rules are equivalent to or more 

stringent than those developed by other 

air districts. In addition to these 

stationary and area source measures, the 

District has also adopted an indirect 

source review rule, Rule 9510, to 

address increased indirect emissions 

from new industrial, commercial and 

residential developments. See 

SJVUAPCD Rule 9510 ‘‘Indirect Source 

Review,’’ adopted December 15, 2005, 

approved 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011). 

The District also operates incentive 

grant programs to accelerate turnover of 

existing stationary and mobile engines 

to cleaner units. See 2007 Ozone Plan, 

chapters 7 and 8 and SJV Ozone MidCourse Review, Section 5 and 6.20

For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District 

identified and committed to adopt and 

implement 19 new control measures for 

NOX and VOC and to achieve certain 

aggregate emissions reductions of NOX

and VOC. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 

6–1 (revised December 18, 2008). In 

Table 2 below, we list these measures, 

which mostly involve strengthening 

existing District rules, their adoption 

dates and current SIP approval status. 

As can be seen from Table 2, the District 

has completed action on all of its rule 

adoption commitments. Table 6–1 in the 

Plan shows estimated emissions 

reductions from each rule for milestone 

years from 2008 to 2020, 2012, and the 

attainment year of 2023. The District’s 

commitment, however, is only to the 

aggregate emissions reductions of NOX

and VOC in each year. 2007 Ozone Plan, 

p. 6–5 and SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

Resolution 07–04–11a, p. 6. We show 

these commitments in Table 3 below. 

Table 4 gives the total estimate of SIPcreditable reductions achieved by the 

District to date. 

TABLE 2—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2007 OZONE PLAN SPECIFIC RULE COMMITMENTS

Measure No. & description District rule 

No. 

Adoption date 

SIP status 

Anticipated Actual 

S–GOV–1 Composting Biosolids ......... 4565 1st Q—2007 ............ March 2007 ............. Proposed: August 31, 2011 (signature 

date). 

S–AGR–1 Open Burning (Phase IV) .... 4103 2nd Q—2010 ........... April 2010 ................ Proposed:76 FR 40660 (July 11, 

2011). 

S–SOL–11 Solvents: 

Organic Solvents ........................... 4661 3rd Q—2007 ............ September 2007 ...... 75 FR 24406 (May 5, 2010). 

Organic Solvent Degreasing ......... 4662 September 2007 ...... 74 FR 37948 (July 30, 2009). 

Organic Solvent Cleaning ............. 4663 September 2007 ...... 74 FR 37948 (July 30, 2009). 

S–COM–5 Stationary Gas Turbines ..... 4703 3rd Q—2007 ............ September 2007 ...... 74 FR 53888 (October 21, 2009). 

S–IND–24 Soil Decontamination .......... 4651 3rd Q—2007 ............ September 2007 ...... 74 FR 52894 (October 15, 2009). 

S–IND–6 Polystyrene Foam ................. 4682 3rd Q—2007 ............ September 2007 ...... 76 FR 41745 (July 15, 2011). 

S–PET–1&2 Gasoline Storage & 

Transfer.

4623 

4624 

4th Q—2007 ............ December 2007 ....... 74 FR 56120 (October 30, 2009). 

S–PET–3 Aviation Fuel Storage .......... ........................ 3rd Q—2007 ............ Found not feasible ... Found infeasible. 

S–COM–1 Large Boilers ...................... 4306 

4320 

3rd Q—2008 ............ October 2008 ........... 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010) 

76 FR 16696 (March 25, 2011). 

S–COM–2 Boilers, Steam Generators 

and Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/ 

hr).

4307 3rd Q—2008 ............ October 2008 ........... 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010). 

S–COM–7 Glass Melting Furnaces1 .... 4354 3rd Q—2008 ............ October 2008 ........... 76 FR 53640 (August 29, 2011). 

S–SOL–20 Graphic Arts ....................... 4607 4th Q—2008 ............ December 2008 ....... 74 FR 52894 (October 15, 2009). 

S–COM–9 Residential Water Heaters 4902 1st Q—2009 ............ March 2009 ............. 75 FR 24408 (May 5, 2010). 

S–GOV–5 Composting Green Waste .. 4566 4th Q 0 2010 ........... August 2011 ............ Rule adopted. 

S–IND–21 Flares .................................. 4311 2nd Q—2009 ........... June 2009 ................ Proposed: 76 FR 52623 (August 8, 

2011). 

S–IND–14 Brandy and Wine Aging ...... 4695 3rd Q—2009 ............ September 2009 ...... 76 FR 47076 (August 4, 2011). 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
57852 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

21These eight MPOs represent the eight counties 

in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area: The 

San Joaquin Council of Governments, the Stanislaus 

Council of Governments, the Merced County 

Association of Governments, the Madera County 

Transportation Commission, the Council of Fresno 

County Governments, Kings County Association of 

Governments, the Tulare County Association of 

Governments and the Kern Council of 

Governments. 

TABLE 2—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2007 OZONE PLAN SPECIFIC RULE COMMITMENTS— 

Continued 

Measure No. & description District rule 

No. 

Adoption date 

SIP status 

Anticipated Actual 

S–SOL–1 Architectural Coatings .......... 4601 4th Q—2009 ............ December 2009 ....... Proposed: 76 FR 35167 (June 16, 

2011). 

S–AGR–2 Confined Animal Facilities ... 4570 2nd Q—2010 ........... October 2010 ........... Proposed: August 31, 2011 (signature 

date). 

S–SOL–6 Adhesives ............................ 4653 3rd Q—2010 ............ September 2010 ...... Rule submitted. 

Source: List of measures and anticipated adoption dates: 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6–1, revised December 18, 2009. 

TABLE 3—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2007 OZONE PLAN AGGREGATE EMISSIONS

REDUCTIONS COMMITMENTS

[Tons per summer day] 

2011 2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 

NOX .......................................................... 4.4 6.0 6.3 7.8 8.0 8.2 

VOC ......................................................... 15.3 26.5 40.5 42.2 44.5 46.3 

Source: 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6–1, revised December 18, 2008. 

TABLE 4—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2007 OZONE PLAN AGGREGATE CREDITABLE

EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM ADOPTED RULES

(Tons per summer day) 

2011 2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 

NOX .......................................................... 3.6 6.2 10.3 11.1 12.0 12.6 

VOC ......................................................... 34.3 37.7 39.8 41.3 43.1 44.5 

Source: TSD, Table D–5. 

The District also included in its Plan 

programs for incentive grants and to 

develop innovative strategies such as 

green contracting and energy 

conservation. These are discussed below 

in section II.B.2.d. 

b. The Local Jurisdictions’ RACM 

Analysis 

The local jurisdictions’ RACM 

analysis was conducted by the SJV’s 

eight MPOs.21 This analysis focused on 

potential NOX emissions reductions 

from transportation control measures 

(TCM). TCMs are, in general, measures 

designed to reduce emissions from onroad motor vehicles through reductions 

in vehicle miles traveled or traffic 

congestion. The analysis is summarized 

in Chapter 9 of the 2007 Ozone Plan and 

described in detail in Appendix C. 

For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the SJV 

MPOs evaluated RACM using a threestep process of developing a list of 

potential reasonably available local 

controls, estimating the maximum 

potential emissions reductions from the 

identified measures, and then 

comparing these reductions against the 

level of reductions needed to advance 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard 

in the SJV. Through this process, the 

MPOs determined that there were no 

additional local RACM for NOX, beyond 

those measures already adopted, that 

could advance attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone standard in the SJV. 2007 Ozone 

Plan, p. 9–7. 

c. CARB’s RACM Analysis and Adopted 

Control Strategy 

Source categories for which CARB has 

primary responsibility for reducing 

emissions in California include most 

new and existing on- and off-road 

engines and vehicles, motor vehicle 

fuels, and consumer products. 

Given the need for significant 

emissions reductions from mobile and 

area sources to meet the NAAQS in 

California nonattainment areas, the 

State of California has been a leader in 

the development of stringent control 

measures for on-road and off-road 

mobile sources and the fuels that power 

them. California has unique authority 

under CAA section 209 (subject to a 

waiver by EPA) to adopt and implement 

new emission standards for many 

categories of on-road vehicles and 

engines and new and in-use off-road 

vehicles and engines. 

According to the 2007 State Strategy, 

California’s new vehicle emissions 

standards have reduced new car 

emissions by 99 percent and new truck 

emissions by 90 percent from 

uncontrolled levels, and new lawn and 

garden equipment, recreational vehicles 

and boats, and other off-road sources are 

80–98 percent cleaner than their 

uncontrolled counterparts. 2007 State 

Strategy, p. 37. In addition to its new 

vehicle and engine standards, the State 

has adopted many measures that focus 

on achieving reductions from in-use 

mobile sources that include more 

stringent inspection and maintenance 

requirements in California’s Smog 

Check program, truck and bus idling 

restrictions, and various incentive 

programs. Appendix A of the TSD 

includes a list of all measures adopted 

by CARB between 1990 and the 

beginning of 2007. These measures, 

reductions from which are reflected in 

the Plan’s baseline inventories, fall into 

two categories: Measures that are subject 

to a waiver of Federal pre-emption 

under CAA section 209 (section 209 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57853 

22This process is described in the 2007 Ozone 

Plan at p. 9–10. More information on this public 

process including presentations from the 

workshops and symposium that proceeded 

adoption of the 2007 State Strategy can be found at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/ 

2007sip.htm. 23California Assembly Bill 2289, passed in 2010, 

requires the Bureau of Automotive Repair to direct 

older vehicles to high performing auto technicians 

and test stations for inspection and certification 

effective 2013. Reductions shown for the 

SmogCheck program in the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions do not include reductions from AB 2289 

improvements. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, 

Appendix C. 

waiver measures or waiver measures) 

and those for which the State is not 

required to obtain a waiver (non-waiver 

measures). Emissions reductions from 

waiver measures are fully creditable in 

attainment and RFP demonstrations and 

may be used to meet other CAA 

requirements, such as contingency 

measures. See TSD, section II.D.3.a.i. 

and EPA’s proposed and final approval 

of the SJV 1–Hour Ozone Plan at 74 FR 

33933, 33938 (July 14, 2009) and 75 FR 

10420 (March 8, 2010). Generally, the 

State’s baseline non-waiver measures 

have been approved by EPA into the SIP 

and are fully creditable for meeting CAA 

requirements. See TSD, Appendix A. 

CARB developed its proposed 2007 

State Strategy after an extensive public 

consultation process to identify 

potential measures.22 Through this 

process, CARB identified and has 

committed to develop 15 new defined 

measures. These measures focus on 

cleaning up the in-use fleet as well as 

increasing the stringency of emissions 

standards for a number of engine 

categories, fuels, and consumer 

products. They build on CARB’s already 

extensive existing program described 

above, which addresses emissions from 

all types of mobile sources through both 

regulations and incentive programs. See 

TSD, Appendix A. Table 5 below lists 

the defined measures in the 2007 State 

Strategy that are applicable to the SJV 

and their current adoption and approval 

status. Table 6 provides the CARB’s 

current estimates of the emissions 

reductions in the SJV from these 

measures, which are part of the State’s 

commitment to achieve the tonnage of 

reductions needed for attainment. Table 

7 provides the estimates of the 

emissions reductions that are currently 

SIP creditable. 

TABLE 5—2007 STATE STRATEGY DEFINED MEASURES APPLICABLE TO THE SJV, SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERATION AND

CURRENT STATUS

State measures Expected action 

year Current status 

Smog Check Improvements .................... 2007–2009 Elements approved 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010).23

Expanded Vehicle Retirement (AB 118) 2007 Adopted by CARB, June 2009; by BAR, September 2010. 

Modification to Reformulated Gasoline 

Program.

2007 Approved, 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010). 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks ........ 2007, 2008, 2010 Proposed for approval: 76 FR 40652 (July 11, 2011). 

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Locomotives.2008 Prop 1B bond funds awarded to upgrade line-haul locomotive engines not already accounted for by enforceable agreements with the railroads. Those 

cleaner line-hauls will begin operation by 2012. 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Engines .......... 2007, 2010 Waiver decision pending. 

Cleaner In-Use Agricultural Equipment ... 2013 Incentive program in progress. Additional action expected 2013. 

New Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats.2013 Action expected 2013. 

Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions Standards.2013 Action expected 2013. 

Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above 

Ground Storage Tanks.

2008 Adopted June 2007. Requirements implemented through District Rule 4621. 

Additional Evaporative Emissions Standards.2013 Action expected 2013. 

Consumer Products Program (I & II) ...... 2008, 2009, 2011 Approved, 74 FR 57074 (November 4, 2009) and 76 FR 27613 (May 12, 2011). 

Pesticide Regulation (DPR) .................... 2008, 2009 Submitted October 2009, revisions submitted August 2011. 

Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p.4, 2011 Progress Report, Table 1, and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A–3. Additional information from http://www.ca.arb.gov. 

TABLE 6—EXPECTED EMISSIONS RE

DUCTIONS FROM DEFINED MEASURES IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

[Tons per summer day 2023] 

State measure NOX VOC 

Smog Check Improvements 

(BAR) .................................... 1.0 3.0 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty 

Trucks ................................... 16.9 0.9 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road 

Equipment ............................. 1.9 0.2 

Consumer Products Program ... — 5.0 

Pesticides: DPR Regulation ..... — 1.2 

TABLE 6—EXPECTED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM DEFINED MEASURES IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY—Continued 

[Tons per summer day 2023] 

State measure NOX VOC 

Totals .................................... 19.8 10.3 

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, Attachment 1. 

TABLE 7—CURRENTLY CREDITABLE

EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM DEFINED MEASURES IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

[Tons per summer day 2023] 

State measure NOX VOC 

Smog Check Improvements 

(BAR) .................................... 1.0 3.0 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty 

Trucks ................................... 16.9 0.9 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road 

Equipment ............................. 1.9 0.2 

Consumer Products Program ... — 5.0 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
57854 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

24Consistent with provisions in the 8-hour ozone 

implementation rule at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X, 

we interpret this 10-year timeframe to run from the 

effective date of designation for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, that is, June 15, 2004. 

TABLE 7—CURRENTLY CREDITABLE

EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM DEFINED MEASURES IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY—Continued 

[Tons per summer day 2023] 

State measure NOX VOC 

Totals .................................... 19.8 9.1 

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, p. attachment 1. 

The 2007 State Strategy also includes 

an enforceable commitment to achieve 

aggregate emissions reductions of 46 tpd 

NOX and 25 tpd VOC in the SJV by the 

attainment year of 2023 that are 

sufficient, in combination with existing 

SIP-creditable measures, the District’s 

commitments, and commitments for 

reductions under the CAA section 

182(e)(5) new technologies provision, to 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in 

the San Joaquin Valley by the applicable 

attainment date of June 15, 2024. CARB 

also made enforceable commitments to 

achieve aggregate emissions reductions 

in the SJV in the RFP milestone years of 

2014, 2017, and 2020. See 2007 State 

Strategy, p. 63; CARB Resolution 07–28, 

Attachment B, p. 6; and 2009 State 

Strategy Status Report, p. 21. See Table 

8 below. The nature of these 

commitments is described in the State 

Strategy as follows: 

The total emission reductions from the 

new measures necessary to attain the federal 

standards are an enforceable State 

commitment in the SIP. While the proposed 

State Strategy includes estimates of the 

emission reductions from each of the 

individual new measures, it is important to 

note that the commitment of the State 

Strategy is to achieve the total emission 

reductions necessary to attain the federal 

standards, which would be the aggregate of 

all existing and proposed new measures 

combined. Therefore, if a particular measure 

does not get its expected emission 

reductions, the State still commits to 

achieving the total aggregate emission 

reductions, whether this is realized through 

additional reductions from the new measures 

or from alternative control measures or 

incentive programs. If actual emission 

decreases occur in any air basin for which 

emission reduction commitments have been 

made that are greater than the projected 

emissions reductions from the adopted 

measures in the State Strategy, the actual 

emission decreases may be counted toward 

meeting ARB’s total emission reduction 

commitments. 

CARB Resolution 07–28 (September 27, 

2007), Appendix B, p. 3. 

TABLE 8—CARB COMMITMENTS TO SPECIFIC AGGREGATE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

[Tons per summer day] 

2014 2017 2020 2023 2023 

CAA 182(e)(5) 

VOC ................................................................. 23 ¥1 24 25 ¥1

NOX .................................................................. 76 88–93 56 46 81 

Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 23. 

1 No commitment to VOC reductions in 2017 or to VOC reductions pursuant to CAA 182(e)(5) advanced technologies provision. 

d. Section 182(e)(5) New or Improved 

Technologies Provisions 

For ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as extreme, the CAA 

recognizes that an attainment 

demonstration may need to rely to a 

certain extent on new or evolving 

technologies, given the relatively long 

time between developing the initial plan 

and attaining the standard and the 

degree of emissions reductions needed 

to attain. To address these needs, CAA 

section 182(e)(5) authorizes EPA to 

approve provisions in an extreme area 

plan which ‘‘anticipate development of 

new control techniques or improvement 

of existing control technologies,’’ and to 

approve an attainment demonstration 

based on such provisions, if the State 

demonstrates that: (1) Such provisions 

are not necessary to achieve the 

incremental emission reductions 

required during the first 10 years after 

November 15, 1990; 24 and (2) the State 

has submitted enforceable commitments 

to develop and adopt contingency 

measures to be implemented if the 

anticipated technologies do not achieve 

the planned reductions. CAA 182(e)(5). 

The State must submit these 

contingency measures to EPA no later 

than 3 years before proposed 

implementation of these long-term 

measures, and the contingency 

measures must be ‘‘adequate to produce 

emissions reductions sufficient, in 

conjunction with other approved plan 

provisions, to achieve the periodic 

emissions reductions required by [CAA 

sections 182(b)(1) or (c)(2)] and 

attainment by the applicable dates.’’ Id. 

The General Preamble further 

provides that the new technology 

measures contemplated by section 

182(e)(5) may include those that 

anticipate future technological 

developments as well as those that 

require complex analyses, decision 

making and coordination among a 

number of government agencies. See 

General Preamble at 13524. An 

attainment demonstration that relies on 

long-term new technology measures 

under section 182(e)(5) must identify 

any such measures and contain a 

schedule outlining the steps leading to 

final development and adoption of the 

measures. Id. The General Preamble also 

provides that EPA will set a schedule 

for implementing contingency measures 

upon making a finding of failure to meet 

a milestone, i.e., to achieve the periodic 

emissions reductions required by CAA 

sections 182(b)(1) or (c)(2) or to attain by 

the applicable dates. Id. 

CARB and the District have 

demonstrated a clear need for emissions 

reduction from new control 

technologies or improvement of existing 

technologies to reduce air pollution in 

the SJV. Adopted control measures and 

enforceable commitments discussed 

above provide the majority, but not all, 

of the emissions reductions needed to 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standards 

in the SJV. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 

54. For the balance of the reductions 

needed to attain by June 15, 2024, the 

2007 State Strategy and 2007 Ozone 

Plan rely on CARB’s commitments to 

achieve additional reductions of 81 tpd 

NOX by 2023 from new and improved 

technologies. See 2009 State Strategy 

Status Report, p. 20. The new 

technology provisions (also called 

‘‘long-term measures’’) described in the 

2007 State Strategy and 2007 Ozone 

Plan are not relied on to demonstrate 

RFP in any year and are accompanied 

by an enforceable commitment by the 

State to adopt and submit contingency 

measures no later than 3 years before 

implementation, as required by CAA 

section 182(e)(5). 

CARB and the California districts 

have a longstanding history of 

successfully adopting and implementing 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57855 

technology-advancing regulations and 

innovative control measures. They have 

worked closely with research scientists 

and the regulated industry to develop 

regulations that are stringent enough to 

compel technology development yet 

flexible enough to encourage industry 

innovations. CARB has provided a list 

of potential long-term control measures 

which include reduced deterioration of 

emission control equipment in 

passenger vehicles, tighter engine 

emission standards, cleaner ground 

support equipment at airports, and 

prioritizing federal transportation 

funding to support air quality goals. See 

pp. 56–57 of the 2007 State Strategy. 

The District has also provided a list of 

potential advanced control technologies 

and innovative approaches that could 

achieve the long-term reductions. See 

2007 Ozone Plan, pp. 11–5 to 11–10, 

and Chapters 7 and 8. CARB updated its 

list of potential long-term measures in 

both the 2009 State Strategy Status 

Report and the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions. See 2009 State Strategy 

Status Report, pp. 25–27 and 2011 

Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A, pp. 

A–8 to A–12. 

To implement the long-term strategy, 

CARB has committed to a process that 

will ensure that the long-term measures 

and reductions are achieved by the 

attainment year. CARB is coordinating a 

government, private and public effort to 

establish emissions reductions goals for 

critical mobile and stationary source 

categories. The effort includes periodic 

assessment of technology advancement 

opportunities and updates to the Board 

and the public regarding new emission 

control opportunities and progress in 

achieving the long-term measure 

reductions. CARB’s commitment for 

implementing the long-term strategy 

also includes (a) Sharing results through 

periodic briefings to the Board, 

workshops, conferences, symposia, Web 

site postings and other means, (b) 

working to secure resources for 

continuing research and development of 

new technologies, and (c) developing 

schedules for moving from research to 

implementation. Id. 

An initial step in the long-term 

strategy was the signing of a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

between the U.S. EPA, CARB and the 

South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air 

Districts to commit to developing and 

testing new sustainable technologies to 

accelerate progress in meeting air 

quality goals. The goal of the MOA is to 

help align agency research resources to 

evaluate innovative technologies and 

assess new monitoring equipment to 

better measure mobile and stationary 

source emissions. The MOA agencies 

have also established a Clean Air 

Technology Initiative to help bring 

together the necessary participants (e.g., 

scientists, engineers, analysts and 

agency specialists) to achieve the goals 

of the MOA. 2009 State Strategy Status 

Report, pp. 25–27. For the SJV, the focus 

is on the area that straddles Kern and 

Tulare counties. This area, which 

frequently exceeds health-based air 

standards, has high levels of mobile 

source emissions from the goods 

movement corridors of Highway 99 and 

Interstate 5 as well as stationary source 

emissions from a variety of energy 

production facilities, farms, and 

agricultural processing operations. See 

2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. A–9. For 

a summary of San Joaquin Valley 

funded projects, see http://epa.gov/

region9/cleantech/projects.html. 

Other State programs that may 

achieve emissions reductions to help 

meet CARB’s 182(e)(5) commitment 

include: potential co-benefits from 

California’s climate change programs 

where State legislation (Assembly Bill 

32—Global Warming Solutions Act of 

2006 (AB 32)) aims to reduce 

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) in 2020 to 1990 

levels or by about 30 percent; 

California’s Air Quality Improvement 

Program (AQIP), an incentive program 

that supports the deployment of hybrid 

and zero-emission vehicles and other 

advanced technologies; and California’s 

annual research program, which 

identifies projects and provides funding 

to help provide timely scientific and 

technical information needed for air 

quality control programs. 

In addition, the District is pursuing 

innovative strategies. Its ‘‘Fast Track’’ 

strategy includes opportunities to 

reduce emissions from heavy-duty 

trucks by shifting goods movement to 

lower-emission alternatives, such as 

short-sea shipping. In 2010, the U.S. 

Department of Transportation awarded 

the Ports of Stockton, West Sacramento, 

and Oakland with a $30 million grant to 

move goods between Oakland and the 

two inland ports over the San JoaquinSacramento Delta. The District has also 

adopted a Technology Advancement 

Program (TAP) which is its strategic 

approach to encouraging innovation and 

development of new emission reduction 

technologies. The TAP will consist of an 

ongoing review of new technology 

concepts, interagency partnerships, 

funding for technology advancement 

programs, and collaborations to build 

and expand local capacity for research 

and development in the SJV. For more 

information about the SJV TAP, see 

http://www.valleyair.org/Grant_

Programs/TAP/tap_idx.htm. In addition 

to the TAP, The District has established 

a Regional Energy Efficiency Strategy to 

support technology development and 

deployment in the Valley. The Regional 

Energy Efficiency Program lays out goals 

and measures that will guide the 

District’s actions to reduce emissions 

caused by electricity and natural gas 

consumption in residential, industrial, 

and institutional settings. See 2011 

Ozone SIP Revisions, pp. A–11 to A–12. 

Along with its commitment to the 

process discussed above, CARB has 

committed to submit an 8-hour ozone 

SIP revision by 2020 that will: (1) 

Reflect modifications to the 2023 

emission reduction target based on 

updated science and (2) identify 

additional strategies and implementing 

agencies needed to achieve the needed 

reductions by 2023. See 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, p. A–8. The District has also 

committed to submit by late 2019 SIP 

revisions containing the control 

measures that are necessary to achieve 

the long-term measure reductions by the 

attainment year and to make any other 

needed revisions to the SIP. See 

SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 

No. 07–04–11a p. 6. 

CARB’s 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions 

update and reaffirm both the ‘‘long-term 

strategy commitment to identify and 

implement advanced technologies to 

reduce ozone-forming emissions in the 

State Strategy’’ and the State’s 

enforceable commitment ‘‘to develop, 

adopt, and submit contingency 

measures by 2020 if advanced 

technology measures do not achieve 

planned reductions.’’ See CARB 

Resolution 11–22, July 21, 2011. Finally, 

CARB has committed to meet annually 

with EPA to discuss strategies to 

maximize the clean air benefits of 

emerging advanced technologies and to 

provide annual summaries of strategies 

and activities. See letter, James 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to 

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 

29, 2011. 

3. Proposed Actions on the RACM 

Demonstration and Control Strategy 

As described above, the District 

evaluated a range of potentially 

available measures for inclusion in its 

2007 Ozone Plan and committed to 

adopt those it found to be reasonably 

available for implementation in the SJV. 

The process and the criteria the District 

used to select certain measures and 

reject others are consistent with EPA’s 

RACM guidance. We also describe 

above the measure evaluation processes 

undertaken by the SJV MPOs and the 

State. Their processes are also 

consistent with EPA’s RACM guidance. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
57856 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

25EPA’s regulation at 40 CFR 51.903(a) translates 

the maximum attainment periods in Table 1 of 

section 181, which are specifically linked to 

enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, for 

purposes of attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

See, e.g., General Preamble at 13560 and 

Seitz memo. 

Based on our review of these RACM 

analyses and the District’s and 

California’s adopted rules, as well as 

their commitments to adopt and 

implement additional controls, we 

propose to find that there are, at this 

time, no additional reasonably available 

control measures that would advance 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard in the SJV. Therefore, we 

propose to find that the SJV 2007 Ozone 

Plan, together with the 2007 State 

Strategy, provides for the 

implementation of all RACM as required 

by CAA section 172(c)(1). 

Because the SJV is designated and 

classified as extreme nonattainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, CAA 

sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) require the 

implementation of RACT for all major 

sources of VOC or NOX and all VOC 

sources covered by an EPA-issued CTG 

in this area. California submitted the 

District’s revised 8-hour ozone RACT 

SIP (adopted April 16, 2009) on June 18, 

2009. We have recently proposed to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove this RACT SIP, based on our 

proposal to determine that the RACT 

SIP does not adequately demonstrate 

compliance with section 182 RACT 

requirements for ten source categories. 

See Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; California; San 

Joaquin Valley; Reasonably Available 

Control Technology for Ozone; 

Proposed rule, signed August 31, 2011. 

Under EPA’s longstanding policy, a 

SIP meets the RACM requirement in 

CAA section 172(c)(1) if it includes all 

reasonably available measures that 

individually or in combination with 

other such reasonably available 

measures can advance attainment of the 

relevant standard by one year or more. 

Based on our evaluation of the potential 

emission reductions from the missing 

section 182 RACT controls, we propose 

to determine that the additional 

reductions from these rules in 

combination with other potential RACM 

would not result in earlier attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the 

SJV. See TSD, section II.C.3. 

We propose to approve the 

SJVUAPCD’s commitments to achieve 

specific aggregate emissions reductions 

of NOX and VOC by specific years as 

given in Table 6–2 of the 2007 Ozone 

Plan and shown in Table 3 above. We 

are not proposing to act on SJVAPCD’s 

commitments to adopt and implement 

specific control measures on the 

schedule identified in Table 6–1 (as 

amended December 18, 2008) in the 

2007 Ozone Plan because, as of August 

18, 2011 with the adoption of the Rule 

4655, these commitments have all been 

fulfilled. 

We are proposing to approve CARB’s 

commitments to propose certain defined 

measures, as given in Table B–1 in 2011 

Progress Report, Appendix B and 

Appendix A–7 of the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions. We are also proposing to 

approve CARB’s commitment to achieve 

the total aggregate emissions reductions 

necessary to demonstrate RFP and to 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in 

the SJV as given in the 2009 State 

Strategy Status Report, p. 20 and shown 

in Table 8 above. See CARB Resolution 

07–28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix 

B, p. 3. 

Finally, we are proposing to approve 

the CARB’s and District’s long-term 

strategy provisions and related 

commitments in the SJV 2007 8-Hour 

Ozone SIP under the new technology 

provisions of CAA section 182(e)(5). 

This proposal is based on our proposed 

findings that they satisfy the two criteria 

in CAA section 182(e)(5)(A) and (B). 

First, the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP 

does not rely on any of the new 

technology reductions to demonstrate 

RFP in any milestone year between 2008 

and 2020. CARB has committed to 

achieve 81 tpd of NOX reductions 

through new technology measures 

approved under section 182(e)(5) only 

in the attainment year (2023). We note 

that the amount and relative proportion 

of reductions from measures scheduled 

for long-term adoption under section 

182(e)(5), as compared to measures 

already adopted in regulatory form or 

scheduled for near-term adoption, 

should clearly decrease in any future 

SIP update, and that EPA will not 

approve a SIP revision that contains an 

increase in the amount or relative 

proportion of section 182(e)(5) new 

technology measures without a 

convincing showing in a SIP revision 

that the technologies relied upon in the 

near-term rules have been found to be 

technologically infeasible or ineffective 

in achieving the expected emissions 

reductions. 

Second, CARB has submitted an 

enforceable commitment to submit 

adopted contingency measures to EPA 

by 2020 as required by CAA section 

182(e)(5). See CARB Resolution 11–22, 

July 21, 2011. These contingency 

measures must be adequate to produce 

emissions reductions sufficient, in 

conjunction with other approved plan 

provisions, to achieve the periodic 

emissions reductions required by CAA 

sections 182(b)(1) or (c)(2) and to attain 

by the applicable dates. See CAA 

182(e)(5). Following the State’s 

submittal of these contingency 

measures, EPA will approve or 

disapprove the provisions in accordance 

with CAA section 110. 

C. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Requirements for Attainment 

Demonstrations 

CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires 

states with ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as serious or above to submit 

plans that demonstrate attainment of the 

applicable standard as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than the outside 

date established in the CAA.25 The 

attainment demonstration is due within 

three years of the area’s designation as 

nonattainment (40 CFR 51.908) and 

should include: 

(1) Technical analyses to locate and 

identify sources of emissions that are 

causing violations of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS within the nonattainment area; 

(2) Adopted measures with schedules 

for implementation and other means 

and techniques necessary and 

appropriate for attainment; and 

(3) Contingency measures required 

under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. 

See 70 FR 71612 at 71615. 

The requirements for the first two 

items are described in the sections on 

emissions inventories and RACM/RACT 

above (sections IV.A. and IV.C.) and in 

the sections on the air quality modeling 

and attainment demonstration that 

follow immediately below. 

Requirements for the third item are 

described in the section on contingency 

measures (IV.F.). 

2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2007 

Ozone Plan 

CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires 

SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas to 

include a ‘‘demonstration that the plan, 

as revised, will provide for attainment 

of the ozone [NAAQS] by the applicable 

attainment date. This attainment 

demonstration must be based on 

photochemical grid modeling or any 

other analytical method determined by 

the Administrator, in the 

Administrator’s discretion, to be at least 

as effective.’’ Air quality modeling is 

used to establish emissions attainment 

targets, that is, the combination of 

emissions of ozone precursors that the 

area can accommodate without 

exceeding the relevant standard, and to 

assess whether the proposed control 

strategy will result in attainment of that 

standard. Air quality modeling is 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57857 

26 ‘‘Guidance on the Use of Models and Other 

Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS and Regional Haze’’, EPA–454/B–07–002, 

April 2007. Additional EPA modeling guidance can 

be found in ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models’’ in 

40 CFR part 51, Appendix W. 

27 ‘‘Photochemical Modeling Protocol for 

Developing Strategies to Attain the Federal 8-hour 

Ozone Air Quality Standard in Central California’’, 

California Air Resources Board, 5/22/2007, 

included as Appendix C to the ‘‘Final Draft, Staff 

Report: Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 

Ozone Plan’’, State of California Air Resources 

Board, 5/30/2007. (‘‘Staff Report’’ at http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/sjv8hr/ 

sjvozone.htm). 

28 ‘‘Unmonitored Area Analysis for Ozone in the 

San Joaquin Valley’’, California Air Resources 

Board, August 12, 2011. 

SJV_unmonitored_ozone.pdf. 

performed for a base year and compared 

to air quality monitoring data from that 

year in order to evaluate model 

performance. Once the performance is 

determined to be acceptable, future year 

changes to the emissions inventory are 

simulated to determine the relationship 

between emissions reductions and 

changes in ambient air quality 

throughout the air basin. The 

procedures for modeling ozone as part 

of an attainment demonstration are 

contained in EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on the 

Use of Models and Other Analyses for 

Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze’’ 26

(Guidance). 

The air quality modeling that 

underpins the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan is 

described in Chapter 3 and documented 

in Appendix F. We provide a brief 

description of the modeling and a 

summary of our evaluation of it below. 

More detailed information about the 

modeling and our evaluation are 

available in section II.B. of the TSD. 

CARB performed the air quality 

modeling for the 2007 Ozone Plan. 

Significant time, money, and effort by 

CARB, the District, and many others 

have gone into preparing the air quality 

modeling to support the attainment 

demonstration in the 2007 Ozone Plan 

for the San Joaquin Valley, including 

support for the multi-million dollar 

Central California Ozone Study (CCOS). 

CCOS is a cooperative effort involving 

California cities, State and local and air 

pollution control agencies, federal 

agencies, industry groups, academics, 

and contractors. Field data for CCOS 

were collected during the 4 months 

from June through October 2000 and 

included five several-day intensive 

monitoring periods. Data and modeling 

results based on the CCOS study 

provided a solid foundation for the 2007 

Ozone Plan. 

The Plan includes an attainment 

demonstration using photochemical 

modeling with the Comprehensive Air 

Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) 

model, incorporating the [California] 

Statewide Air Pollution Research Center 

(SAPRC) chemical mechanism, and 

meteorological fields from the 

Mesoscale Model version 5 (MM5). In 

addition to the July 29–August 2, 2000 

episode using CCOS data, CARB 

modeled ambient ozone levels during 

July 9–13, 1999 using routinely 

available meteorological and air quality 

data. 

EPA recommends that States prepare 

modeling protocols as part of their 

modeled attainment demonstrations. 

Guidance, p. 133. The Guidance at pp. 

133–134 describes the topics to be 

addressed in this modeling protocol. A 

modeling protocol should detail and 

formalize the procedures for conducting 

all phases of the modeling analysis, 

such as describing the background and 

objectives, creating a schedule and 

organizational structure, developing the 

input data, conducting model 

performance evaluations, interpreting 

modeling results, describing procedures 

for using the model to demonstrate 

whether proposed strategies are 

sufficient to attain the NAAQS, and 

producing documentation to be 

submitted for EPA Regional Office 

review and approval prior to actual 

modeling. 

The 2007 Ozone Plan’s modeling 

protocol is contained in Appendix C of 

the CARB Staff Report 27 in the Plan. 

The protocol covers all of the topics 

recommended in the Guidance, 

including model and episode selection, 

meteorological and emission data 

preparation, and performance testing. 

The 2007 Ozone Plan’s air quality 

model performance is discussed in 

Appendix F, including extensive 

statistical and graphical analysis 

demonstrating adequate overall model 

performance. The attainment 

demonstration for a given monitoring 

location used only those days that 

satisfied a number of performance 

criteria. The sensitivity testing 

described by CARB provides assurance 

that the model is adequately simulating 

the physical and chemical processes 

leading to ozone in the atmosphere and 

that the model responds in a 

scientifically reasonable way to 

emissions changes. 

The Plan’s Appendix F also provides 

extensive documentation on the 

Relative Reduction Factors, which are 

the key results from the model for use 

in the attainment test, and the details of 

their calculation. The documentation 

also includes the results of modeling 

runs with various combinations of VOC 

and NOX reductions, to illustrate 

alternative control strategies and 

establish a ‘‘carrying capacity’’, a 

combination of VOC and NOX emissions 

consistent with attainment of the ozone 

standard. EPA proposes to conclude that 

the attainment tests are adequate and 

consistent with EPA guidance. 

In addition to a modeled attainment 

demonstration, which focuses on 

locations with an air quality monitor, 

EPA generally requires an unmonitored 

area analysis. The unmonitored area 

analysis uses a combination of model 

output and ambient data to identify 

areas that might exceed the NAAQS if 

monitors were located there. It ensures 

that a control strategy leads to 

reductions in ozone in unmonitored 

locations that might have baseline (and 

future) ambient ozone levels exceeding 

the NAAQS. In order to examine 

unmonitored areas in all portions of the 

modeling domain, EPA recommends use 

of interpolated spatial fields of ambient 

data combined with gridded modeled 

outputs. Guidance, p. 29. CARB’s 

unmonitored area analysis 28 uses EPA’s 

MATS software. Based on this analysis 

CARB concluded that there are no 

unmonitored ozone peaks in the 

modeling domain that would violate the 

1997 8-hour ozone standards. 

Finally, the Plan’s Appendix F 

concludes with ‘‘Corroborative 

Analyses/Weight Of Evidence 

Elements’’, containing a supplemental 

analyses in support of the attainment 

demonstration. These analyses include 

ozone air quality trends, 

meteorologically adjusted ozone trends, 

and precursor emission trends, all of 

which show continued progress and 

support the conclusion that the 

attainment demonstration is sound. 

Base on our review, EPA proposes to 

find that the air quality modeling 

provides an adequate basis for the 

RACM/RACT, RFP, and attainment 

demonstrations in the SJV 2007 8-Hour 

Ozone SIP. 

3. Enforceable Commitments in the 

Attainment Demonstration 

Section 11.2 of the 2007 Ozone Plan 

includes the initial attainment 

demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standards in the SJV. The 2011 

Ozone SIP Revisions update this 

demonstration to reflect changes to 

future year inventories and adopted 

controls. 

The air quality modeling described 

above demonstrates that a 75 percent 

reduction in NOX emissions from the 

2002 base year level is necessary to 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
57858 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

29Letter, Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, 

EPA Region 9, to James Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB, July 20, 2011. 

A 75 percent reduction from the 2002 

base year level equates to an attainment 

target level of 160 tpd NOX. See 2007 

State Strategy, p. 70. In the 2011 Ozone 

SIP Revisions, CARB revised the 2002 

base year NOX emissions downward by 

12 percent based on improved inventory 

methodologies and data. See Section 

IV.A. above. 

Both CARB and EPA recognize that 

the ideal approach for evaluating the 

impact of the base year inventory 

changes on the attainment target would 

be to perform new air quality modeling. 

Both Agencies also recognize the time 

and effort involved in such modeling for 

an area that is as large and diverse as the 

San Joaquin Valley. To address the need 

for remodeling, CARB has committed to 

update the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan 

modeling to reflect the emissions 

inventory improvements and any other 

new information by December 31, 2014 

or by the date the SIPs are due for the 

revised 8-hour ozone standard 

whichever comes first. See CARB 

Resolution 11–22, p. 3 and 2011 Ozone 

SIP Revisions, p. B–8. 

As part of the technical support for 

the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, CARB 

qualitatively evaluated the impact on 

the attainment target of the revision to 

this base year inventory and concluded 

that the 160 tpd target remains viable. 

See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B–9. 

The 160 tpd target represents a 72 

percent reduction from the revised 2002 

base year level. CARB also recognized, 

however, that a reduction of up to 75 

percent from the revised baseline (an 

attainment target level of 141 tpd) may 

be necessary to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard in the SJV and 

reaffirmed its 2007 State Strategy 

commitment to achieve all emissions 

reductions that are necessary to provide 

for attainment. See CARB Resolution 

11–22, p. 3. 

As EPA stated in its comment letter 

on the proposed 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions,29 we believe that a 75 percent 

reduction from the base year NOX

emissions level, based on the modeling 

provided in the Plan as submitted in 

2007, provides the best available 

estimate of the NOX reductions needed 

to reach attainment. The predicted 

ozone concentrations from the existing 

modeling matched the monitored ozone 

concentration from the summer 2000 

episode fairly well, despite having what 

we now know to be overly high 

emissions inputs. The model, therefore, 

may be underpredicting ozone 

concentrations and the original 160 tpd 

NOX target may result in higher ozone 

levels than the existing modeling 

predicted. Applying the 75 percent 

reduction from the existing modeling 

against the revised base year inventory 

compensates for this underprediction. 

This equates to a target level of 141 tpd 

compared to the original target level of 

160 tpd. 

In our comment letter, we 

recommended that CARB commit to 

revising the modeling by a specific date 

and to commit, in the interim, to 

achieving a 75 percent reduction in NOX

from the revised 2002 base year levels 

by 2023. We noted that these 

recommendations are consistent with 

CARB’s continuing strong commitment 

and efforts to achieve the emission 

reductions needed for attainment of the 

air quality standards in the San Joaquin 

Valley and the rest of California. 

In response, CARB included a 

commitment to update the 2007 SIP 

modeling for the SJV to reflect 

emissions inventory improvements and 

reaffirmed its commitment to achieve 

the emissions reduction necessary to 

provide for attainment. CARB has stated 

that these commitments are sufficient to 

address the concerns we raised in our 

comment letter. See 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions Supplement, p. 1. 

EPA notes that NOX reductions 

needed to reach a target level of 141 tpd 

relative to the reductions needed to 

meet a target level of 160 tpd are part 

of CARB’s long-term commitment 

discussed above in section IV.B.2.d. The 

current estimate of the NOX reductions 

needed from new technologies, based on 

adopted measures and CARB’s 

remaining commitments for reductions 

from defined measures, is 

approximately 50 tpd. See Table 10 

below. This level of reductions is well 

within CARB’s existing commitment to 

achieve 81 tpd of NOX emissions 

reductions from new or improved 

technologies. See 2009 State Strategy 

Status Report, p. 21. 

Table 9 below summarizes our 

evaluation of the attainment 

demonstration taking into account 

emission reductions achieved to date 

and other updates. 

TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF REDUCTIONS NEEDED FOR SJV’S 8-HOUR OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

[Tons per summer day, 2023] 

NOX VOC 

A Revised 2002 baseline emissions level ........................................................................................................ 565 .2 457 .5 

B Attainment target level ................................................................................................................................... 141 342 

C Total reductions needed from 2002 baseline levels to demonstrate attainment (A–B) ............................... 424 .2 115 .5 

D Attainment year baseline emissions level ..................................................................................................... 226 .6 403 .3 

E Reductions from baseline measures and improvements to the emissions inventories (A–D) ..................... 338 .6 54 .2 

F Reductions needed from control strategy measures including, for NOX, reductions from new technologies (B–D) ................................................................................................................................................. 85 .6 61 .3 

Source: TSD, Table D–11. 

As shown in this table, the majority 

of the emissions reductions that the 

State projects are needed for attaining 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the 

SJV by 2024 come from baseline 

reductions. These baseline reductions 

are from existing control measures 

including numerous adopted District 

and State measures, which generally 

have been approved by EPA either 

through the SIP process or the CAA 

section 209 waiver process. See 

Appendices A and B of the TSD. Also 

included in the baseline are 

improvements to the emissions 

inventories, discussed above in section 

IV.A. The remaining reductions needed 

for attainment are to be achieved 

through the District’s and CARB’s 

enforceable commitments to reduce 

emissions in the SJV or through their 

commitments to develop and deploy 

new technologies pursuant to CAA 

section 182(e)(5). Since the submittal of 

the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2007 State 

Strategy, the District and CARB have 

adopted measures that have 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57859 

30Based on SIP-creditable measures adopted to 

date, the SJV 2007 8-hour ozone SIP does not rely 

on enforceable commitments to aggregate emissions 

reductions to demonstrate RFP or to meet any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. Therefore, we 

discuss here only those enforceable commitments 

relied on to demonstrate attainment. 

31CAA section 182(e)(5) specifically allows EPA 

to approve an attainment demonstration that relies 

on reductions from new technologies. This 

provision is separate from the requirement in CAA 

section 172(c)(6) for enforceable emissions 

limitations under which enforceable commitments 

are considered. As a result, reductions attributed in 

the attainment demonstration to new technologies 

are not considered part of the State’s enforceable 

commitments for the purposes of determining the 

percent of the reductions needed for attainment that 

remain as commitments. 

significantly reduced the amount of 

emission reductions needed for 

attainment that remain as commitments. 

See Table 10. 

TABLE 10—REDUCTIONS NEEDED FOR ATTAINMENT REMAINING AS COMMITMENTS BASED ON SIP–CREDITABLE

MEASURES

[Tons per summer day in 2023] 

NOX VOC 

A Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy measures to attain (A–B) ........................ 423 .9 115.5 

B Reductions from baseline measures and adjustments due to emissions inventory improvements ....... 338 .6 54.2 

C Total reductions from approved measures (Tables 4 and 7) ................................................................. 32 .4 53.6 

D Total reductions remaining as commitments and, for NOX, reductions from new technologies (A–B– 

C) ................................................................................................................................................................ 53 .2 7.7 

E Reductions remaining as CARB enforceable commitments1 .................................................................. 4 .7 5.9 

F Reductions remaining as SJVAPCD enforceable commitments ............................................................. 0 1.8 

G Total reductions remaining as reductions from new technologies (CAA section 182(e)(5)) .................. 48 .6 

H Percent of total reductions needed remaining as commitments not including NOX reductions from 

new technologies ....................................................................................................................................... 1 .1% 6.7% 

1 Calculated by subtracting from CARB’s 2023 46 tpd NOX commitments (Table 8) the adjustment to baseline from State and federal sources 

from 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, Attachment 1 (21.5 tpd) and emissions reductions from currently SIP-creditable State measures on 

Table 7 (19.8 tpd). 

As shown in Table 9, reductions in 

the projected baseline inventory from 

measures already adopted by the 

District and State (both prior to and as 

part of the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2007 

State Strategy) that EPA has approved or 

proposed for approval provide the great 

majority of the emissions reductions 

needed to demonstrate attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV. 

The balance is in the form of either 

enforceable commitments to specific 

aggregate emissions reductions by the 

District and CARB (lines E and F in 

Table 10 above) or reductions from new 

or improved technologies under CAA 

section 182(e)(5) (line G in Table 10). In 

this section we discuss the enforceable 

commitments that are part of the 

attainment demonstration in the SJV 

2007 8-hour ozone SIP. 

We believe that, with respect to the 

2007 SJV 8-hour Ozone SIP, 

circumstances warrant the consideration 

of enforceable commitments as part of 

the attainment demonstration.30 As 

shown in Table 9 above, the majority of 

NOX emissions reductions and a 

substantial fraction of the VOC 

reductions needed to demonstrate RFP 

and attainment in the SJV come from 

rules and regulations that were adopted 

prior to 2007, i.e., from the baseline 

measures. As a result of these State and 

District efforts, most sources in the San 

Joaquin Valley nonattainment area are 

currently subject to stringent rules 

adopted prior to the State Strategy’s and 

the Plan’s development, leaving few 

opportunities (and generally more 

technologically and economically 

challenging ones) to further reduce 

emissions. In the 2007 Ozone Plan and 

the 2007 State Strategy, the District and 

CARB identified potential control 

measures that could contribute many of 

the additional emissions reductions 

needed for attainment. See 2007 Ozone 

Plan, Appendix I and 2007 State 

Strategy, Chapter 5. However, the 

timeline needed to develop, adopt, and 

implement these measures went beyond 

the November 2007 submittal date of the 

SJV 8-hour Ozone SIP. These 

circumstances warrant the District’s and 

CARB’s reliance on enforceable 

commitments as part of the attainment 

demonstration in the 2007 Ozone Plan 

and 2007 State. 

Given the State’s demonstrated need 

for reliance on enforceable 

commitments, we now consider the 

three factors EPA uses to determine 

whether the use of enforceable 

commitments in lieu of adopted 

measures to meet a CAA planning 

requirements is approvable: (a) Do the 

commitments address a limited portion 

of the statutorily-required program; (b) 

is the state capable of fulfilling its 

commitments; and (c) are the 

commitments for a reasonable and 

appropriate period of time. 

a. The Commitments Are a Limited 

Portion of Required Reductions 

For the first factor, we look to see if 

the commitment addresses a limited 

portion of a statutory requirement, such 

as the amount of emissions reductions 

needed to demonstrate RFP and 

attainment in a nonattainment area. For 

this calculation, reductions assigned to 

the new technologies provision (CAA 

section 182(e)(5)) are not counted as 

commitments.31

As shown Table 9, the remaining 

portion of the enforceable commitments, 

after accounting for approved measures 

and advanced technology measures, 

needed to demonstrate attainment of the 

8-hour ozone standard in the San 

Joaquin Valley are 7.7 tpd of VOC and, 

approximately 4.6 tpd of NOX. When 

compared to the total reductions needed 

to demonstrate attainment (not 

including the CAA section 182(e)(5) 

reductions in the attainment 

demonstration), the remaining portion 

of the enforceable commitments 

represents at most 6.7 percent of the 

needed VOC and 1.1 percent of the 

needed NOX. Historically, EPA has 

approved SIPs with enforceable 

commitments in the range of 10 percent 

or less. See our approval of the SJV 

PM10 Plan at 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 

2004), the SJV 1-hour ozone plan at 75 

FR 10420 (March 8, 2010), the HoustonGalveston 1-hour ozone plan at 66 FR 

57160 (November 14, 2001), proposed 

approval of the SJV 2007 PM2.5 SIP at 76 

FR 41338 (July 13, 2011), and proposed 

approval of the South Coast PM2.5 SIP at 

76 FR 41562 (July 14, 2011). Thus, the 

State’s commitment addresses a limited 

proportion of the required emissions 

reductions. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
57860 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

b. The State Is Capable of Fulfilling Its 

Commitments 

For the second factor, we consider 

whether the State and District are 

capable of fulfilling their commitments. 

As discussed above, CARB has 

adopted and submitted the 2009 State 

Strategy Status Report and the 2011 

Ozone SIP Revisions, which update and 

revise the 2007 State Strategy. These 

submittals show that CARB has made 

significant progress in meeting its 

enforceable commitments for the San 

Joaquin Valley. The District has already 

exceeded its commitments for reducing 

NOX emissions for the attainment year 

of 2023. See Tables 3 and 4 above and 

Table D–4 in the TSD. It also has 

adopted additional rules (Rules 9510 

and 4320) that are projected to achieve 

NOX reductions in the attainment year. 

These reductions, however, are not 

currently creditable to the attainment 

and RFP demonstrations. In addition, 

the District has adopted revisions to 

District Rule 4702 (Reciprocating 

Internal Combustion Engines) that are 

likely to achieve substantial NOX

reductions. See SJVAPCD, Final Draft 

Staff Report Proposed Amendments To 

Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion 

Engines), August 18, 2011. It has also 

adopted Rule 4566 (Organic Materials 

Composting Operations) that will 

achieve an estimated 19 tpd reductions 

in VOC (in SIP currency) by 2017. 

Finally, the District is continuing to 

work to identify and adopt additional 

measures to reduce emissions. Beyond 

the rules discussed above, both CARB 

and the District have well-funded 

incentive grant programs to reduce 

emissions from the on- and off-road 

engine fleets. Reductions from several of 

these programs have yet to be quantified 

and/or credited in the attainment 

demonstration. See, for example, 

SJVAPCD, 2008 PM2.5 Progress Report 

(May 2011), section 2.3. 

Given the State’s and District’s efforts 

to date to reduce emissions, we believe 

that the State and District are capable of 

meeting their enforceable commitments 

to adopt measures to reduce emissions 

of NOX and VOC to the levels needed 

in combination with reductions from 

the new technologies provision to attain 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the 

San Joaquin Valley by CAA deadline of 

June 15, 2024. 

c. The Commitments Are for a 

Reasonable and Appropriate Timeframe 

For the third and last factor, we 

consider whether the commitment is for 

a reasonable and appropriate period of 

time. 

In order to meet the commitments to 

reduce emissions to the levels needed to 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in 

the San Joaquin Valley, the 2007 Ozone 

Plan and 2007 State Strategy included 

ambitious rule development, adoption, 

and implementation schedules, which 

both the District and CARB have 

substantially met. Given that almost all 

the emissions reductions committed to 

by District and CARB have already been 

achieved and the rules that are likely to 

achieve the few remaining ones are 

scheduled for adoption by 2013, these 

schedules provide sufficient time to 

achieve the few remaining reductions 

needed to attain (when considered with 

the emissions reductions provided by 

the advanced technology provision) by 

the applicable attainment date of June 

15, 2024. See Tables 2 and 5 above. 

Thus, we find that the commitments are 

for a reasonable and appropriate 

timeframe. 

4. Proposed Action on the Attainment 

Demonstration 

In order to approve a SIP’s attainment 

demonstration, EPA must make several 

findings: 

First, we must find that the 

demonstration’s technical bases— 

emissions inventories and air quality 

modeling—are adequate. As discussed 

above in sections IV.A. and IV.C.2., we 

are proposing to approve the revised 

base year emissions inventory and to 

find the air quality modeling adequate 

to support the attainment 

demonstration. 

Second, we must find that the SIP 

provides for expeditious attainment 

through the implementation of all 

RACM. As discussed above in section 

II.C., we are proposing to approve the 

RACM demonstration in the SJV 2007 8- 

hour Ozone SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1). 

Third, we must find that the 

emissions reductions that are relied on 

for attainment are creditable and are 

sufficient to provide for attainment. As 

shown on Table 9, the 2007 8-hour 

Ozone SIP relies primarily on adopted 

and approved/waived rules to achieve 

the emissions reductions needed to 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standards 

in the SJV by June 15, 2024. The balance 

of the reductions projected to be needed 

for attainment is currently in the form 

of enforceable commitments to adopt 

measures to achieve aggregate tonnage 

reductions of VOC or NOX in the near 

term from available technologies and an 

enforceable commitment to adopt and 

submit in the longer term measures 

relying on the development and 

deployment of new technologies that 

will achieve specific aggregate tonnage 

reductions of NOX. 

EPA has previously accepted 

enforceable commitments in lieu of 

adopted control measures in attainment 

demonstrations when circumstances 

warrant them and the commitments 

meet three criteria. As discussed above 

in section IV.C.3., we propose to find 

that circumstances here warrant the 

consideration of enforceable 

commitments and that the three criteria 

are met: (1) The commitments constitute 

a limited portion of the required 

emissions reductions, (2) both the State 

and the District have demonstrated their 

capability to meet their commitments, 

and (3) the commitments are for an 

appropriate timeframe. Based on these 

evaluations, we are proposing to 

approve the enforceable commitments 

as part of the attainment demonstration 

in the 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP. 

CAA section 182(e)(5) allows extreme 

ozone nonattainment area plans under 

certain conditions to include provisions 

for the development of new 

technologies and allows EPA to approve 

attainment demonstrations based, in 

part, on those provisions. For the 

reasons discussed above in section 

IV.B., we propose to find that California 

has met the conditions for relying on the 

CAA’s new technologies provisions in 

its attainment demonstration for the 

SJV. 

As discussed above in section IV.C.2. 

above, the SJV Ozone Plan and State 

Strategy, as adopted in 2007, 

demonstrates that a 75 percent 

reduction in NOX emissions from the 

2002 base year level is necessary to 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

Since the adoption of the SJV ozone SIP 

in 2007, the base year NOX emissions 

level has to be revised downward by 12 

percent due to new inventory 

methodologies and data. Both CARB 

and EPA recognize that the ideal 

approach for evaluating the impact of 

these base year inventory changes on 

the attainment target in the SJV 2007 

Ozone Plan would be to perform new air 

quality modeling, but both also 

recognize the time and effort involved 

in such modeling. CARB has committed 

to update the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan 

modeling to reflect the emissions 

inventory improvements and any other 

new information by December 31, 2014 

or by the date the SIPs are due for the 

revised 8-hour ozone standard 

whichever comes first. See CARB 

Resolution 11–22, p. 3 and 2011 Ozone 

SIP Revisions, p. B–8. EPA is proposing 

to approve this commitment. 

EPA believes that a 75 percent 

reduction from the base year NOX

emissions level from the existing 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57861 

modeling provides the best currently 

available estimate of the NOX reductions 

needed to reach attainment. CARB has 

committed to, and has reaffirmed its 

commitment to achieve the reductions 

needed for attainment in the SJV. See 

CARB Resolution 07–28 (September 27, 

2007), Appendix B, p. 3, 2009 State 

Strategy Status Report, p. 13, and CARB 

Resolution 11–22, p. 3. It has also stated 

that these commitments are sufficient to 

address the attainment needs of the SJV. 

See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions 

Supplement, p. 1. As discussed above, 

CARB’s commitment to achieving 81 

tpd of NOX emissions reductions from 

new technologies is sufficient to cover 

any reductions that may be needed for 

attainment due to the changes to the 

base year inventory. 

For the foregoing reasons, we propose 

to approve the attainment 

demonstration in the SJV 2007 8-Hour 

Ozone SIP. 

D. Reasonable Further Progress 

Demonstration 

1. Requirements for RFP Demonstrations 

CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that 

plans for nonattainment areas provide 

for reasonable further progress (RFP). 

RFP is defined in section 171(1) as 

‘‘such annual incremental reductions in 

emissions of the relevant air pollutant as 

are required by [title 1, part D] or may 

reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

[standard] by the applicable date.’’ CAA 

Section 182(b)(1) specifically requires 

that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas 

that are classified as moderate or above 

demonstrate a 15 percent reduction in 

VOC emissions between the years of 

1990 and 1996. For ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

serious or higher, CAA Section 

182(c)(2)(B) also requires, in addition to 

the 15 percent reduction required under 

CAA 182(b)(1), a three percent per year 

reduction (averaged over three-year 

periods) of ozone precursor emissions 

until attainment. 

The ozone implementation rule 

interprets the RFP requirements for the 

purposes of the 1997 ozone standards, 

establishing requirements for RFP that 

depend on the area’s classification as 

well as whether the area has an 

approved 15 percent rate of progress 

plan for VOC under CAA section 

182(b)(1) for the 1-hour ozone standard 

that covers the entire 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 

51.910(d) and 70 FR 71612. In 1997 EPA 

approved a 15 percent rate of progress 

plan for the SJV which covers the 

current 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

nonattainment area. See 62 FR 1150, 

1172 (January 8, 1997). As a result, the 

area does not need to demonstrate 

another 15 percent reduction in VOC. 

Instead, under the ozone 

implementation rule, the 8-hour ozone 

SIP for SJV must provide for an average 

of three percent per year of VOC and/ 

or NOX emissions reductions for (1) the 

six-year period beginning January 1 of 

the year following the year used for the 

baseline and (2) all remaining three-year 

periods after the first six-year period out 

to the area’s attainment date. 40 CFR 

51.910(a)(1)(ii)(B). Except as specifically 

provided in CAA section 182(b)(1)(C), 

emissions reductions from all SIP 

approved, federally promulgated, or 

otherwise SIP creditable measures that 

occur after the baseline are creditable 

for purposes of demonstrating RFP 

targets are met. The implementation 

rule also sets the baseline for RFP 

calculations as 2002. 

The RFP demonstration must 

calculate and exclude the non-creditable 

reductions described in CAA 

182(b)(1)(D). These non-creditable 

reductions include emissions reductions 

from pre-1990 federal motor vehicle 

programs. The method for calculating 

the target emissions levels is found in 

Appendix A to the preamble of the 

ozone implementation rule. See 70 FR 

71612 at 71696. 

2. RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2007 

8-Hour Ozone SIP 

California has made several 

submittals to address the RFP 

requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard in the SJV. The last of these is 

found in Appendix A of the 2011 Ozone 

SIP Revisions. This revised 

demonstration incorporates the 

inventory revisions described in section 

IV.A. above as well as reductions from 

measures that have been adopted since 

the 2007 Ozone Plan’s submittal except 

for those that EPA has determined by 

rule are not currently creditable. See 

2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. 2. 

3. Proposed Action on the RFP 

Demonstration 

CARB calculated the RFP target levels 

following the method provided in the 

ozone implementation rule and 

preamble. See 40 CFR 51.910 and 70 FR 

71612 at 71631–71650. EPA has made 

minor adjustments to the State’s 

calculations to remove reductions from 

currently unapproved measures (e.g., 

pesticides). A summary of our 

evaluation of the State’s RFP 

demonstration, taking into account 

these minor adjustments, is shown in 

Table 11 below. The detailed analysis 

can be found in section II.G. of the TSD. 

As shown in the Table 11, the SJV 2007 

8-Hour Ozone SIP provides for RFP in 

each milestone years. We propose, 

therefore, to approve the SIP’s RFP 

demonstration. 

TABLE 11—SAN JOAQUIN RATE OF PROGRESS DEMONSTRATIONS

[Summer planning tons per day] 

2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 

VOC Calculation 

Target level of VOC needed to meet ROP requirement.365.0 ........... 327.2 ........... 293.6 ........... 264.4 ........... 239.7 ........... 218.1 

Baseline VOC in milestone year (with uncreditable 

reductions removed).

408.8 ........... 355.9 ........... 333.5 ........... 331.0 ........... 333.0 ........... 341.5 

Apparent shortfall ................................................... 43.8 ............. 28.7 ............. 39.9 ............. 66.6 ............. 93.3 ............. 123.4 

Percent apparent shortfall in VOC ......................... 9.8% ............ 6.5% ............ 9.2% ............ 15.4% .......... 21.6% .......... 28.6% 

Shortfall previous provided by NOX substitution .... 0.0% ............ 9.8% ............ 9.6% ............ 9.2% ............ 15.4% .......... 21.6% 

Percent actual shortfall in VOC .............................. 9.8% ............ ¥3.3% ........ ¥0.4% ........ 6.2% ............ 6.2% ............ 7.0% 

NOX Calculations 

Adjusted NOX baseline (MVCP and uncreditable 

reductions removed).

425.5 ........... 359.6 ........... 309.0 ........... 260.3 ........... 226.5 ........... 196.5 

Change in NOX since 2002 adopted controls only 122.9 ........... 184.4 ........... 213.4 ........... 278.0 ........... 310.8 ........... 537.0 

Percent change in NOX since 2002 ....................... 22.4% .......... 33.9% .......... 42.8% .......... 51.5% .......... 57.8% .......... 63.4% 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
57862 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

32See also 60 FR 48896 (September 21, 1995) 

approval of Illinois’ vehicle miles traveled plan for 

the Chicago area; 62 FR 23410 (April 30, 1997) and 

62 FR 35100 (June 30, 1997), proposed and final 

approval of New Jersey’s 15 percent ROP plan and 

other provisions for the New York-New JerseyConnecticut ozone nonattainment area; 66 FR 23849 

(May 10, 2001), approval of the New York’s 

attainment demonstration and related provisions for 

the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut ozone 

nonattainment area; 66 FR 57247 (November 14, 

2001), approval of the VMT offset plan for the 

Houston-Galveston ozone nonattainment area; 70 

FR 25688 (May 13, 2005), approval of the 

Washington, DC area’s 1-hour attainment 

demonstration and related provisions; and 70 FR 

34358 (June 14, 2005), approval of Atlanta’s VMT 

plan. 

TABLE 11—SAN JOAQUIN RATE OF PROGRESS DEMONSTRATIONS—Continued 

[Summer planning tons per day] 

2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 

Percent change in NOX used for VOC substitution 

through previous milestone.

0% ............... 9.6% ............ 9.6% ............ 9.6% ............ 15.8% .......... 22.0% 

Percent reductions since 2002 available for RFP 

substitution and contingency in the milestone 

year.

22.4% .......... 24.1% .......... 33.0% .......... 41.8% .......... 41.8% .......... 41.1% 

Percent change since 2002 used for VOC substitution in the milestone year, percent.9.8% ............ 0.0% ............ 0.0% ............ 6.2% ............ 6.2% ............ 7.0% 

Percent change since 2002 surplus after meeting 

substitution in the milestone year.

12.6% .......... 24.1% .......... 33.0% .......... 35.6% .......... 35.5% .......... 34.1% 

RFP met? ............................................................... Yes .............. Yes .............. Yes .............. Yes .............. Yes .............. Yes. 

E. Transportation Control Strategies and 

Transportation Control Measures To 

Offset Emissions Increases From VMT 

Increases, To Provide for RFP and 

Attainment 

1. Requirements for Transportation 

Control Strategies and Transportation 

Control Measures To Offset Emissions 

Growth, To Provide for RFP and 

Attainment 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires 

that areas classified as severe or extreme 

submit transportation control strategies 

and transportation control measures 

(TCM) sufficient to offset any growth in 

VOC emissions from growth in VMT or 

the number of vehicle trips, and to 

provide (along with other measures) the 

reductions needed to meet the 

applicable RFP requirement. CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A) also requires that 

states choose and implement such 

measures as are specified in section 

108(f), to the extent needed to 

demonstrate attainment. In selecting the 

measures, Congress directed that States 

‘‘should ensure adequate access to 

downtown, other commercial, and 

residential areas and should avoid 

measures that increase or relocate 

emissions and congestion rather than 

reduce them.’’ CAA 182(d)(1)(A). 

EPA believes that it is appropriate to 

treat the three required elements of 

section 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting 

emissions growth, attainment of the RFP 

reduction, and attainment of the ozone 

standard) as separable. As to the first 

element of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) 

(i.e., offsetting emissions growth), EPA 

has historically interpreted this CAA 

provision to allow areas to meet the 

requirement by demonstrating that 

emissions from motor vehicles decline 

each year through the attainment year. 

General Preamble at 13521–13522.32

2. Transportation Control Strategies and 

Transportation Control Measures To 

Offset Emissions Growth, To Provide for 

RFP and Attainment in the SJV 2007 8- 

Hour Ozone SIP 

Information in 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions reproduced in Table 12 below 

shows that on-road mobile source 

emissions of VOC and NOX decline 

steadily from 2008 to 2023. This decline 

in emissions is due to EPA’s and 

California’s on-road mobile source 

programs, California’s clean fuels and 

SmogCheck programs, and CARB’s inuse truck and bus rule. As discussed 

above in section IV.B., these programs 

are fully creditable for SIP planning 

purposes in attainment and RFP 

demonstrations, including 

demonstrating compliance with CAA 

section 182(d)(1). The on-road 

emissions in Table 12 are calculated 

using EMFAC2007 (the most recent 

EPA-approved mobile source emissions 

model) and the same planning 

assumptions used to develop the RFP 

and attainment demonstrations and 

transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emissions budget in the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. 

C–1. As described above in section 

IV.B., the SJV MPOs evaluated a wide 

variety of transportation control 

strategies and measures, including those 

measures listed in CAA section 108(f), 

and determined that there were no 

combinations of reasonable measures 

that would expedite attainment of the 8- 

hour ozone standard in the SJV. See 

2007 Ozone Plan, Appendix C. 

TABLE 12—ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 2008–2023 

[Tons per summer day] 

Year 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 

VOC ......................................................... 78 66 50 43 39 37 

NOX .......................................................... 229 183 153 115 91 69 

Source: 2011 8-Hour Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix B, page B–3. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57863 

33CARB only presented mobile source emissions 

estimates for the RFP milestone years rather than 

for each year between 2011 and 2023. We believe 

this adequately meets the CAA section 182(d)(3) 

requirement. There is nothing in the record to 

indicate that mobile sources emissions in the SJV 

are likely to increase between milestone years 

before returning to their historic downward trend 

in the milestone years. 

34An area would not be eligible for a protective 

finding under the transportation conformity 

regulation if EPA finalizes a disapproval of a 

control strategy implementation plan revision (i.e., 

a plan that demonstrates reasonable further progress 

or attainment) because the plan revision does not 

contain adopted control measures or written 

commitments to enforceable control measures that 

fully satisfy the emissions reductions requirements 

relevant to the statutory provision for which the 

implementation plan revision was submitted. 40 

CFR 93.120(a)(3). 

35 Memorandum, G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/ 

Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch to Air Directors, 

‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,’’ June 1, 1992. 

3. Proposed Action Transportation 

Control Strategies and Transportation 

Control Measures To Offset Emissions 

Growth, To Provide for RFP and 

Attainment in the SJV 2007 8-Hour 

Ozone SIP 

Because both VOC and NOX

emissions from on-road mobile sources 

decline steadily over the entire time 

period covered by the 2007 8-hour 

Ozone SIP,33 the SIP need not include 

additional transportation control 

strategies and TCM to offset growth in 

emissions from growth in VMT. 

Therefore, we propose to find that the 

SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP meets the 

requirement in CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) to include transportation 

control strategies and TCM sufficient to 

offset any growth in emissions from 

growth in VMT or the number of vehicle 

trips. 

In Association of Irritated Residents v. 

EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011), the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit held that, with respect to the 

first element, section 182(d)(1)(A) of the 

CAA requires States to adopt 

transportation control measures and 

strategies whenever vehicle emissions 

are projected to be higher than they 

would have been had vehicle miles 

traveled not increased, even when 

aggregate vehicle emissions are actually 

decreasing. EPA has filed a petition for 

rehearing on this issue. Docket Nos. 09– 

71383 and 09–71404 (consolidated), 

Docket Entry 41–1, Petition for Panel 

Rehearing. 

The Ninth Circuit has yet to issue its 

mandate in the Association of Irritated 

Residents case, and EPA has not 

adopted the court’s interpretation for 

the reasons set forth in the Agency’s 

petition for rehearing, pending a final 

decision by the court. If the court denies 

the Agency’s petition for rehearing and 

issues its mandate before EPA issues a 

final rule on the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone 

SIP, then we anticipate that we would 

not be able to finalize approval of the 

SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP with respect 

to the first element (i.e., offsetting 

emissions growth) of section 

182(d)(1)(A). Therefore, in today’s 

action, and in the alternative to the 

proposed approval, we are 

simultaneously proposing to disapprove 

the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP with 

respect to the first element (i.e., 

offsetting emissions growth) of section 

182(d)(1)(A) based on the plan’s failure 

to include sufficient transportation 

control strategies and TCM to offset the 

emissions from growth in VMT. If EPA 

were to finalize the proposed 

disapproval, the area would be eligible 

for a protective finding under the 

transportation conformity rule because 

the submitted SIP contains adopted 

control measures and enforceable 

commitments that fully satisfy the 

emissions reductions requirements for 

reasonable further progress and 

attainment. 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).34

As discussed above in section IV.D., 

we are proposing to find that the SJV 

2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP provides for 

RFP consistent with all applicable CAA 

and EPA regulatory requirements. 

Therefore, we also propose to find that 

the SIP meets the requirement in CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A) to include 

transportation control strategies and 

TCM as necessary to provide (along 

with other measures) the reductions 

needed to meet the applicable RFP 

requirement. 

Finally, as discussed in sections IV.B. 

and IV.C. above, we are proposing to 

find that the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP 

provides expeditious attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. Therefore, 

we propose to find that the SIP meets 

the requirement in CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) to include measures to the 

extent needed to demonstrate 

attainment. 

F. Contingency Measures 

1. Requirements for Contingency 

Measures 

Under the CAA, 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas classified under 

subpart 2 as moderate or above must 

include in their SIPs contingency 

measures consistent with sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Contingency 

measures are additional controls to be 

implemented in the event the area fails 

to meet a RFP milestone or fails to attain 

by its attainment date. These 

contingency measures must be fully 

adopted rules or measures which are 

ready for implementation quickly upon 

failure to meet milestones or attainment. 

The SIP should contain trigger 

mechanisms for the contingency 

measures, specify a schedule for 

implementation, and indicate that the 

measures will be implemented without 

significant further action by the State or 

EPA. See 68 FR 32802, 32837 and 70 FR 

71612, 71650. 

Additional guidance on the CAA 

contingency measure provisions is 

found in the General Preamble at 

13510–13512 and 13520. The guidance 

indicates that states should adopt and 

submit contingency measures sufficient 

to provide a 3 percent emissions 

reduction from the adjusted RFP base 

year. EPA concludes this level of 

reductions is generally acceptable to 

offset emission increases while States 

are correcting their SIPs. These 

reductions should be beyond what is 

needed to meet the attainment and/or 

RFP requirement. States may use 

reductions of either VOC or NOX or a 

combination of both to meet the 

contingency measure requirements. 

General Preamble at 13520, footnote 6. 

EPA guidance also provides that 

contingency measures could be 

implemented early, i.e., prior to the 

milestone or attainment date.35

Consistent with this policy, states are 

allowed to use excess reductions from 

already adopted measures to meet the 

CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) 

contingency measures requirement. This 

is because the purpose of contingency 

measures is to provide extra reductions 

that are not relied on for RFP or 

attainment that will provide continued 

progress while the plan is being revised 

to fully address the failure to meet the 

required milestone. Nothing in the CAA 

precludes a State from implementing 

such measures before they are triggered. 

This approach has been approved by 

EPA in numerous SIPs. See 62 FR 15844 

(April 3, 1997) (approval of the Indiana 

portion of the Chicago area 15 percent 

ROP plan); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 

1997) (approval of the Illinois portion of 

the Chicago area 15 percent ROP plan); 

66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) (proposed 

approval of the Rhode Island post-1996 

ROP plan); and 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 

634 (January 3, 2001) (approval of the 

Massachusetts and Connecticut 1-hour 

ozone attainment demonstrations). In 

the only adjudicated challenge to this 

approach, the court upheld it. See LEAN 

v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004). 70 

FR 71611, 71651. 

In addition, CAA section 182(e)(5) 

authorizes EPA to ‘‘approve provisions 

of an implementation plan for an 

Extreme Area which anticipate 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
57864 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

36These contingency measures should, at a 

minimum, ensure that an appropriate level of 

emissions reduction progress continues to be made 

if attainment is not achieved and additional 

planning by the State is needed. See General 

Preamble at 13524. 

development of new control techniques 

or improvement of existing control 

techniques, and an attainment 

demonstration based on such 

provisions,’’ if the State meets certain 

criteria. See CAA 182(e)(5). Such plan 

provisions may include enforceable 

commitments to submit, at a later date, 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain under CAA section 172(c)(9), in 

addition to the contingency measures to 

be implemented if the anticipated 

technologies approved under section 

182(e)(5) do not achieve planned 

reductions. These contingency measures 

must be submitted no later than three 

years before proposed implementation 

of the plan provisions and approved or 

disapproved by EPA in accordance with 

CAA section 110. Id. 

2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 

2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP 

Contingency measure provisions are 

described in Section 11.6. of the 2007 

Ozone Plan and Appendix D of the 2007 

State Strategy as updated on February 1, 

2008. The provisions were again 

updated in the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, Appendix A. To provide for 

contingency measures for failure to 

make RFP, the SIP relies on surplus 

NOX reductions in the RFP 

demonstration. See 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revision, Attachment A, p. A–3. See 

also Table 11 above. To provide for 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain, the SIP relies in part on the 

additional incremental emissions 

reductions resulting from fleet turnover 

in the 2024. Fleet turnover in 2024 is 

expected to reduce NOX emissions by 2 

tpd and VOC emissions by less than 0.5 

tpd. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions 

Supplement, Attachment 2. 

Additionally, as discussed above in 

section IV.B.2.d., we are proposing to 

determine that CARB and the 

SJVUAPCD have satisfied the criteria in 

section 182(e)(5) for reliance on the new 

technology provision as part of the 

attainment demonstration in the 2007 8- 

Hour Ozone SIP. Based on the State’s 

anticipated development of these new 

technologies, CARB has submitted an 

enforceable commitment to submit, no 

later than 2020, additional contingency 

measures under CAA section 182(e)(5) 

that meet the requirements for 

attainment contingency measures in 

CAA section 172(c)(9), in addition to 

contingency measures to be 

implemented if the anticipated longterm measures approved pursuant to 

section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned 

reductions. See CARB Resolution No. 

11–22 (July 21, 2011). 

3. Proposed Action on the Contingency 

Measures 

As discussed above in section IV.D., 

we are proposing to approve the 2007 8- 

Hour Ozone SIP’s RFP demonstration. 

As seen in the second to last line on 

Table 11 above (the RFP demonstration), 

there are sufficient excess reductions of 

NOX in each milestone year beyond 

those needed to meet the next RFP 

percent reduction requirement to 

provide the 3 percent of adjusted 

baseline emissions reductions needed to 

meet the RFP contingency measure 

requirement for 2011, 2014, 2017, and 

2020. 

No RFP contingency measures are 

needed for 2008, since the 2011 Ozone 

SIP Revisions demonstrate that SJV has 

already met its 2008 milestone. See 

Table 11 above. As a result, contingency 

measures for failure to meet the 2008 

RFP benchmark will never be triggered 

and thus are not needed. 

Contingency measures for failure to 

attain—The incremental additional 

emissions reductions that will occur in 

2024 (the year after the attainment year) 

from the continuing implementation of 

both on- and off-road motor vehicle 

controls may be used to meet the 

contingency measure requirement for 

failure to attain. For the SJV, these 

reductions are 2 tpd of NOX and less 

than 0.5 tpd of VOC. 

In addition, based on our proposal to 

determine that the State has satisfied the 

criteria in section 182(e)(5) for reliance 

on long-term measures as part of the 

attainment demonstration in the 2007 8- 

Hour Ozone SIP, we propose to approve 

CARB’s enforceable commitment to 

submit, no later than 2020, additional 

contingency measures under CAA 

section 182(e)(5) that meet the 

requirements for attainment 

contingency measures in CAA section 

172(c)(9), in addition to contingency 

measures to be implemented if the 

anticipated long-term measures 

approved pursuant to section 182(e)(5) 

do not achieve planned reductions.36

CARB Resolution No. 11–22 (July 21, 

2011). 

Accordingly, we propose to approve 

the RFP and attainment contingency 

measures in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 

182(c)(9), based in part on CARB’s 

commitment to submit by 2020 

additional contingency measures 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 172(c)(9) and 182(e)(5). 

Following the State’s submittal of these 

additional contingency measures, EPA 

will approve or disapprove the 

provisions in accordance with CAA 

section 110. 

G. Advanced Control Technology and 

Clean Fuels for Boilers 

1. Requirements for Advanced 

Technology and Clean Fuels for Boilers 

CAA section 182(e)(3) provides that 

SIPs for extreme areas must require each 

new, modified, and existing electric 

utility and industrial and commercial 

boiler that emits more than 25 tpy of 

NOX to either burn as its primary fuel 

natural gas, methanol, or ethanol (or a 

comparably low polluting fuel), or use 

advanced control technology (such as 

catalytic control technology or other 

comparably effective control methods). 

These provisions are due three years 

after designation and the control 

requirements must be in place eight 

years after designation. Further 

guidance on this requirement is 

provided in the General Preamble at 

13523. According to the General 

Preamble, a boiler should generally be 

considered as any combustion 

equipment used to produce steam and 

generally does not include a process 

heater that transfers heat from 

combustion gases to process streams. 

General Preamble at 13523. In addition, 

boilers with rated heat inputs less than 

15 million Btu (MMBtu) per hour which 

are oil or gas fired may generally be 

considered de minimis and exempt from 

these requirements since it is unlikely 

that they will exceed the 25 tpy NOX

emission limit. General Preamble at 

13524. 

2. Provisions for Controls on Boilers in 

the SJV District Rules 

The 2007 Ozone Plan, which 

addresses the CAA section 182(e)(3) 

requirements on page 2–9, states that 

District Rules 4305, 4306, and 4352 

address NOX from affected boilers and 

that these rules meet the requirements 

of the CAA. Since submittal of the 2007 

Ozone Plan, Rule 4305 has been 

superseded by Rule 4306. 

Rule 4306 ‘‘Boilers, Steam Generators, 

and Process Heaters—Phase 3’’ as 

revised on September 18, 2003, applies 

to any gaseous fuel or liquid fuel fired 

boiler, steam generator, or process 

heater with a total rated heat input 

greater than 5 million Btu per hour. The 

emission limits in the rule (5 ppm to 30 

ppm for gaseous fuels and 40 ppm for 

liquid fuels) cannot be achieved without 

the use of advanced control 

technologies. See ‘‘Alternative Control 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57865 

Techniques Document—NOX Emissions 

from Industrial/Commercial/ 

Institutional (ICI) Boilers,’’ Emissions 

Standards Division, EPA, March 1994; 

see also 74 FR 33933 at 33945 (July 14, 

2009) and 75 FR 10420 at 10434 (March 

8, 2010) (proposed and final rules 

approving 1-hour ozone plan for SJV). 

All units subject to Rule 4306 were 

required to comply with the limits in 

the rule no later than December 1, 2008. 

See Rule 4306, section 7.0. We approved 

Rule 4306 as a SIP revision on May 18, 

2004 at 69 FR 28061. 

Rule 4352 ‘‘Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, 

Steam Generators And Process Heaters’’ 

as revised May 18, 2006, applies to any 

boiler, steam generator or process heater 

fired on solid fuel at a source that has 

a potential to emit more than 10 tons 

per year of NOX or VOC. All units 

subject to Rule 4352 were required to 

comply with the Rule’s limits no later 

than January 1, 2007. Rule 4352, section 

7.0. We approved Rule 4352 into the 

California SIP on October 1, 2010. In 

that action, we determined that all of 

the NOX emission limits in Rule 4352 

effectively require operation of Selective 

Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) control 

systems, which are comparably effective 

to SCR for the affected sources. SNCR 

also appears to achieve NOX emission 

reductions comparable to combustion of 

clean fuels at these types of boilers. We 

therefore concluded that Rule 4352 

satisfies the requirements of section 

182(e)(3) for solid fuel-fired boilers in 

the SJV. See TSD, section II.I.; see also 

74 FR 33933 at 33945 and 75 FR 10420 

at 10434. 

New and modified boilers that will 

emit or have the potential to emit 25 tpy 

or more of NOX are subject to the 

District’s new source permitting rule, 

Rule 2201 ‘‘New and Modified 

Stationary Source Review.’’ This rule 

requires new and modified source to 

install and operate best available control 

technology/lowest achievable emissions 

reductions technology. EPA approved 

Rule 2201 into the SIP at 75 FR 26102 

(May 11, 2010). 

3. Proposed Finding on the Advanced 

Technology and Clean Fuels for Boilers 

Based on our review of the emission 

limitations in SJVAPCD’s rules, we 

propose to find that the SJV area meets 

the clean fuel/clean technology for 

boilers requirement in CAA section 

182(e)(3). 

H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity 

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets 

CAA section 176(c) requires Federal 

actions in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas to conform to the 

SIP’s goals of eliminating or reducing 

the severity and number of violations of 

the NAAQS and achieving expeditious 

attainment of the standards. Conformity 

to the SIP’s goals means that such 

actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute 

to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen 

the severity of an existing violation, or 

(3) delay timely attainment of any 

NAAQS or any interim milestone. 

Actions that involve Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the EPA’s 

transportation conformity rule, codified 

at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this 

rule, metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment 

and maintenance areas coordinate with 

state and local air quality and 

transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA, 

and FTA to demonstrate that an area’s 

regional transportation plans (RTP) and 

transportation improvement programs 

(TIP) conform to the applicable SIP. 

This demonstration is typically done by 

showing that estimated emissions from 

existing and planned highway and 

transit systems are less than or equal to 

the motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(budgets) contained in the SIP. An 

attainment, maintenance, or RFP SIP 

should establish budgets for the 

attainment year, each required RFP year 

or last year of the maintenance plan, as 

appropriate. Budgets are generally 

established for specific years and 

specific pollutants or precursors. Ozone 

attainment and RFP plans should 

establish budgets for NOX and VOC. See 

40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(i). 

Before an MPO may use budgets in a 

submitted SIP, EPA must first determine 

that the budgets are adequate or approve 

the budgets. In order for us to find the 

budgets adequate and approvable, the 

submittal must meet the conformity 

adequacy requirements of 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) and be approvable under all 

pertinent SIP requirements. To meet 

these requirements, the budgets must 

reflect all of the motor vehicle control 

measures contained in the attainment 

and RFP demonstrations. See 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4)(v). 

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 

the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP 

The SJV Ozone SIP as submitted in 

2007 included budgets for VOC and 

NOX for the attainment year of 2023 and 

the RFP years of 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 

and 2020. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Section 

9.2.3 and Appendix C and CARB Staff 

Report, Appendix D (updating MVEB 

for Madera and San Joaquin Counties). 

On January 8, 2009, we notified CARB 

that we found the budgets in the 2007 

Ozone Plan for the RFP milestone years 

2011, 2014, and 2017 adequate and the 

MVEB for the RFP milestone years 2008 

and 2020 and the attainment year of 

2023 inadequate for transportation 

conformity purposes. See letter Deborah 

Jordan, EPA Region 9, to James 

Goldstene, CARB, ‘‘RE: Adequacy Status 

of San Joaquin Valley 8-Hour Ozone 

Reasonable Further Progress and 

Attainment Plan Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets,’’ January 8, 2009. 

We published a notice of our findings at 

74 FR 4032 (January 22, 2009). 

CARB submitted updated MVEB for 

the San Joaquin Valley and their 

documentation in Appendices A and C, 

respectively, of the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions. The updated MVEB are for 

NOX and VOC for the RFP years of 2011, 

2014, 2017 and 2020 the attainment year 

of 2023 and are intended to replace the 

budgets for these years that were 

submitted in 2007. No budgets were 

included for the RFP year of 2008 

because it is no longer applicable as a 

conformity analysis year. Additional 

information associated with the motor 

vehicle emission budget calculations 

were provided in an e-mail from 

Douglas Ito, CARB to Elizabeth Adams, 

EPA Region 9, ’’Additional Clarifying 

Information,’’ August 11, 2011. 

3. Proposed Action on the Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

As part of its review of the budgets’ 

approvability, EPA has evaluated the 

revised budgets using our adequacy 

criteria in 40 CFR 93.318(e)(4). As 

documented in Table K–3 in the TSD, 

we found that they meet each adequacy 

criterion. We have completed our 

detailed review of the 2007 SJV 8-Hour 

Ozone SIP and supplemental submittals 

including the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions 

and are proposing to approve the SIP’s 

attainment and RFP demonstrations. We 

have also reviewed the proposed MVEB 

submitted with the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revision and have found that they are 

consistent with the attainment and RFP 

demonstrations and were based on 

control measures that have already been 

adopted and implemented. Therefore, 

we are proposing to approve the 2011, 

2014, 2017, 2020, and 2023 MVEB as 

shown in Table 13. 

EPA is not required under its 

Transportation Conformity rules to find 

budgets adequate prior to proposing 

approval of them. However, we will 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
57866 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

complete the adequacy review of these 

budgets either prior to or concurrently 

with our final action on SJV 2007 8- 

Hour Ozone SIP. We will also post the 

revised budgets on EPA’s adequacy 

review web page. 

As stated in section IV.E., if we were 

to finalize a disapproval with respect to 

the plan’s section 182(d)(1)(A) element, 

then the area would be eligible for a 

protective finding under the 

transportation conformity rule because 

the submitted SIP contains adopted 

control measures and enforceable 

commitments that fully satisfy the 

emissions reductions requirements for 

reasonable further progress and 

attainment. 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3). 

TABLE 13—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGET IN THE SJV 2007 OZONE SIP AS REVISED ON JULY 21, 2011 

[Tons per summer day] 

Year 

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 

ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX

County 

Fresno ....................................................... 14.3 36.2 10.7 30.0 9.3 22.6 8.3 17.7 8.0 13.5 

Kern (SJV) ................................................ 12.7 50.3 9.7 42.7 8.7 31.7 8.2 25.1 7.9 18.6 

Kings ......................................................... 2.8 10.7 2.1 8.9 1.8 6.7 1.7 5.3 1.6 4.0 

Madera ...................................................... 3.4 9.3 2.5 7.7 2.2 5.8 2.0 4.7 1.9 3.6 

Merced ...................................................... 5.1 19.9 3.7 16.7 3.2 12.4 2.9 9.9 2.8 7.4 

San Joaquin .............................................. 11.1 24.6 8.4 20.5 7.2 15.6 6.4 12.4 6.3 10.0 

Stanislaus .................................................. 8.5 16.9 6.4 13.9 5.6 10.6 5.0 8.4 4.7 6.4 

Tulare ........................................................ 8.8 16.0 6.7 13.2 5.8 10.1 5.3 8.1 4.9 6.2 

I. Other Clean Air Act Requirements 

Applicable to Extreme Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas 

In addition to the requirements 

discussed above, title 1, subpart D of the 

CAA includes other provisions 

applicable to extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas, such as the San 

Joaquin Valley. We describe these 

provisions and their current status 

below for information purposes only. 

1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance Programs 

CAA section 182(c)(3) requires states 

with ozone nonattainment areas 

classified under subpart 2 as serious or 

above to implement an enhanced motor 

vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/ 

M) program in those areas. The 

requirements for those programs are 

provided in section 182(c)(3) and 40 

CFR part 51, subpart S. 

On July 1, 2010 (75 FR 38023), EPA 

approved California’s inspection and 

maintenance program in the San 

Joaquin Valley as meeting the 

requirements of the CAA and applicable 

EPA regulations for enhanced I/M 

programs. 

2. Reformulated Gasoline Program 

As an extreme ozone nonattainment 

area for the 1-hour ozone standard, the 

San Joaquin Valley was covered under 

the federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) 

program. See CAA section 211(k)(10)(D). 

As an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, 

SJV continues to be covered under the 

federal RFG program. See 40 CFR 

80.70(m)(1)(i) and 70 FR 71685. 

California has its own RFG program 

(California Phase III RFG (CaRFG3)), 

which also applies in the SJV. EPA 

approved CaRFG3 program into the 

California SIP on May 12, 2010. See 75 

FR 26633. 

3. New Source Review Rules 

CAA section 182(a)(2)(C) requires 

states to develop SIP revisions 

containing permit programs for each of 

its ozone nonattainment areas. The SIP 

revisions are to include requirements for 

permits in accordance with CAA 

172(c)(5) and 173 for the construction 

and operation of each new or modified 

major stationary source (with respect to 

ozone) anywhere in the nonattainment 

area. See also CAA sections 182(e). 

EPA’s implementation regulations for 

nonattainment new source review (NSR) 

programs are in 40 CFR 51.165, and 

guidance specific to ozone 

nonattainment areas is provided in the 

preamble to the 8-hour ozone 

implementation rule, 70 FR 71612 at 

71671–71684. EPA approved the SJV 

District’s new source review rules, Rules 

2201 ‘‘New and Modified Stationary 

Source Review’’ and Rule 2020 

‘‘Exemptions,’’ into the SJV portion of 

the California SIP based in part on a 

conclusion that they adequately 

addressed the NSR requirements 

specific to extreme areas. See 75 FR 

26102 (May 11, 2010). 

4. Clean-Fuel Vehicle Program 

CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 

require California to submit for EPA 

approval a SIP revision that includes 

measures to implement the Clean Fuel 

Fleet Program. Section 182(c)(4)(B) of 

the Act allows states to opt-out of the 

clean-fuel vehicle fleet program by 

submitting a SIP revision consisting of 

a program or programs that will result 

in at least equivalent long term 

reductions in ozone-producing and 

toxic air emissions. 

In 1994, CARB submitted a SIP 

revision to opt-out of the federal clean 

fuel fleet program and demonstrating 

that is low-emissions vehicle program 

achieved emission reductions at least as 

large as the federal program would. EPA 

approved the State’s opt-out on August 

27, 1999. See 64 FR 46849. 

5. Gasoline Vapor Recovery 

CAA section 182(b)(3) mandates that 

States submit a revised SIP by 

November 15, 1992 that requires owners 

or operators of gasoline dispensing 

systems to install and operate gasoline 

vehicle refueling vapor recovery (‘‘Stage 

II’’) systems in ozone nonattainment 

areas classified as moderate and above. 

California’s ozone nonattainment areas 

had implemented Stage II vapor 

recovery well before the passage of the 

CAA Amendments of 1990. See General 

Preamble at 13514. 

Under California State law (Health 

and Safety Code Sections 41954), CARB 

is required to adopt procedures and 

performance standards for controlling 

gasoline emissions from gasoline 

marketing operations, including transfer 

and storage operations. State law also 

authorizes CARB, in cooperation with 

districts, to certify vapor recovery 

systems, to identify defective 

equipment, and to develop test 

methods. CARB has adopted numerous 

revisions to its vapor recovery program 

regulations. See Table A–7 in Appendix 

A to this TSD. See also CARB’s Web 

site, http://www.evrhome.org. 

In the San Joaquin Valley, the 

installation and operation of CARBcertified vapor recovery equipment is 

required and enforced by SJVUAPCD 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57867 

37Starting in 2007, EPA’s monitoring rules (see 71 

FR 61236, October 17, 2006) required the submittal 

and EPA action on annual monitoring network 

plans. 

38SJVUAPCD submitted Rule 3170, ‘‘Federally 

Mandated Ozone Nonattainment Fee,’’ and a feeequivalent program to address the requirements of 

CAA section 185 for the 1-hour ozone standard. 

EPA recently proposed to approve these programs 

as a revision to the SJVUAPCD portion of the 

California SIP. See 76 FR 45212 (July 28, 2011). 

Rules 4621 and 4622, the latest versions 

of which were approved by into the SIP 

on October 30, 2009. See 74 FR 56120. 

6. Enhanced Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring 

CAA Section 182(c)(1) requires that 

all ozone nonattainment areas classified 

as serious or above implement measures 

to enhance and improve monitoring for 

ambient concentrations of ozone, NOX, 

and VOC, and to improve monitoring of 

emissions of NOX and VOC. 

The SJVAPCD’s Annual Air Quality 

Monitoring Network Plan (June 30, 

2010) describes the steps the state has 

taken to address the requirements of 

CAA section 182(c)(1). The SJV’s 

Photochemical Assessment Monitoring 

Station (PAMS) network consists of six 

sites operated by SJVAPCD centered 

around Fresno and Bakersfield, as 

described on pages 13 and 17 of the 

monitoring network plan.37 EPA has 

approved the SJVAPCD PAMS network. 

See letter, Matthew Lakin, EPA Region 

9 to Scott Nester, SJVAPCD, November 

1, 2010. 

7. CAA Section 185 Fee Program 

CAA section 185 requires that the SIP 

for each severe and extreme ozone 

nonattainment area provide that, if the 

area fails to attain by its applicable 

attainment date, each major stationary 

source of VOC and NOX located in the 

area shall pay a fee to the State as a 

penalty for such failure for each 

calendar year beginning after the 

attainment date, until the area is 

redesignated as an attainment area for 

ozone. States are not yet required to 

implement CAA section 185 fee 

programs for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard.38

V. EPA’s Proposed Actions 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

is proposing to approve California’s 

submitted SIP for attaining the 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone standard in the SJV extreme 

ozone nonattainment area. In the 

alternative, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the submitted SIP with 

respect to certain requirements for 

transportation control strategies and 

measures pending resolution of 

petitions before the 9th Circuit U.S. 

Court of Appeals in Association of 

Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 

(9th Cir. 2011). The submitted SIP 

consists of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan (as 

revised 2008 and 2011) and the SJVspecific portions of CARB’s 2007 State 

Strategy (as revised in 2009 and 2011) 

that address CAA and EPA regulations 

for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the SJV. 

Specifically, EPA proposes to approve 

under CAA section 110(k)(3) the 

following elements of the SJV 2007 8- 

Hour Ozone SIP: 

1. The revised 2002 base year 

emissions inventories as meeting the 

requirements of CAA sections 182(a)(1) 

and 40 CFR 51.915; 

2. The reasonably available control 

measures demonstration as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) 

and 40 CFR 51.912(d); 

3. The reasonable further progress 

demonstration as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) 

and 182(c)(2)(B) and 40 CFR 51.910; 

4. The attainment demonstration as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 

51.908; 

5. The provisions for the development 

of new technologies pursuant to CAA 

section 182(e)(5) and CARB’s 

commitment to adopt and submit by 

2020 contingency measures to be 

implemented if the new technologies do 

not achieve the planned emissions 

reductions, in addition to additional 

attainment contingency measures 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

172(c)(9), pursuant to CAA section 

182(e)(5) and CARB’s commitment to 

develop and submit by 2020 revisions to 

the SIP that will: (1) Reflect 

modifications to the 2023 emission 

reduction target based on updated 

science and (2) identify additional 

strategies and implementing agencies 

needed to achieve the needed 

reductions by 2023. 

6. The contingency measure 

provisions for failure to make RFP and 

to attain as meeting the requirements of 

CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9); 

7. The demonstration that the SIP 

provides for transportation control 

strategies and measures sufficient to 

offset any growth in emissions from 

growth in VMT or the number of vehicle 

trips and to provide for RFP and 

attainment as meeting the requirements 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A); 

8. The revised motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for the RFP years of 

2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020 and the 

attainment year of 2023 because they are 

derived from approvable RFP and 

attainment demonstrations and meet the 

requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 

40 CFR part 93, subpart A; 

9. SJVUAPCD’s commitments to 

achieve specific aggregate emissions 

reductions of direct VOC and NOX, as 

listed in Table 6–1 of the 2007 Ozone 

Plan (as revised December 18, 2008); 

and 

10. CARB’s commitments to propose 

certain defined measures, as listed in 

Table B–1 on page 1 of Appendix B of 

the 2011 Progress Report and in 

Appendix A–3 of the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, to achieve specific aggregate 

emissions reductions of VOC and NOX

by 2023 as provided in CARB 

Resolution 07–28, Attachment B and the 

2009 State Strategy Status Report; p. 20; 

and to achieve the emissions reductions 

needed to attain the 8-hour ozone 

standard in the SJV as provided in 

CARB Resolution 07–28 (September 27, 

2007), Appendix B, p. 3, 2009 State 

Strategy Status Report, p. 13. 

Finally, we propose to find that 

SJVUAPCD has satisfied the clean fuel/ 

advanced technology requirement for 

boilers in CAA section 182(e)(3) for the 

SJV. 

In the alternative, if the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the 9th Circuit denies the 

Agency’s petition for rehearing in AIR v. 

EPA and issues its mandate before EPA 

issues a final rule on the SJV 2007 8- 

Hour Ozone SIP, we propose to 

disapprove the SIP under CAA section 

110(k)(3) with respect to the first 

element (i.e., offsetting emissions 

growth) of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) 

based on the plan’s failure to include 

sufficient transportation control 

strategies and measures to offset the 

emissions from growth in VMT. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
57868 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because proposed SIP approvals 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act do not create any 

new requirements but simply propose to 

approve requirements that the State is 

already imposing. Therefore, because 

this proposed Federal SIP approval does 

not create any new requirements, I 

certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed action does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This Federal action 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This proposed rule will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely proposes to approve a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

EO 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in EO 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes. Thus, EO 

13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed rule from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed rule is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045, 

because it proposes to approve a State 

rule implementing a Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

EO 13211 ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this proposed action. 

Today’s proposed action does not 

require the public to perform activities 

conducive to the use of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EO 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) 

establishes federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs federal agencies, to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57869 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submittals, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove State choices, based on the 

criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 

action merely proposes to approve 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP under CAA section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D will not in-and-of 

itself create any new requirements. 

Accordingly, it does not provide EPA 

with the discretionary authority to 

address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable 

and legally permissible methods, under 

EO 12898. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: September 7, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23656 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2