# Technical Support Document

for the

Final Rulemaking Action

on the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan

and the South Coast Portions of the Revised

2007 State Strategy

Air Division U.S. EPA Region 9 December 2011EPA

- Region 9 Page 2

For further information on this technical support document, please contact:

Wienke Tax Office of Air Planning (AIR

- 2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

– Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 947

- 4192 tax.wienke@epa.gov

Documents referenced in this technical support document may be found in the docket for this rulemaking , docket number EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0 622 , which may be found at www.regulations.gov or at the address listed above.i 

### Technical Support Document for the Final Action on South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan and the South Coast Portions of the

Revised 2007 State Strategy

T able of Contents I. Introduction and Background

A. The 8

- hour Ozone National Am bient Air Quality St andards

1. The 8

- hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards a. Level and Form of the Standard b. Health Effects c. Revisions to the 8

- Hour Ozone Standard s

2. Implementing the 8

- hour Ozone NAAQS a. Designations b. California‘s Request for Reclassification of the South Coast 8

- hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

c. 1997 8

- Hour Ozone NAAQS Planning Requirements

B. Ozone Air Quality in the South Coast

C. California ‘s Submittals Constituting the South Coast 8

- hour Ozone Standard Attainment St ate Implementation Plan

D. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for and Completeness Determinations on SIP Submittals

1. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for SIP Submittals 2. Completeness Determinations on SIP Submittals

II. Evaluation of the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan and the Revised 2007 State Strategy

A . Emissions Inventories

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories 2. Emissions Inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP for 8

- Hour Ozone and revised 2007 State Strategy 3

. September 2011 Proposed Action on Emissions Inventories 4. Evaluation, Conclusion , and Final Action on Emissions Inventories

B

. Air Quality Modeling and Other Analyses in the South Coast 2007 AQMP 1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling 2. Overview of the Conceptual Description, Modeling Approach, and Modeling Protocol in the South Coast 2007 AQMPii

3. Air Quality Model Selection 4. Episode Selection 5. Domain Size and Spatial Resolution 6. Initial and Boundary Conditions 7. Meteorological Model 8. Air Q uality Model Performance 9. Modeled Attainment Test for Ozone 10. Weight of Evidence 11. September 2011 Proposed Finding on Air Quality Modeling and Other Analyses 12. Evaluation, Conclusion and Final Action on the Air Quality Modeling and Other Analyses

C. Reaso nably Available Control Measure Demonstration and Control Strategy

1. Requirements for RACM 2. RACM Analy sis in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan a. District‘s RACM Demonstration and Control Strategy b. Local Jurisdiction RACM Demonstration c. CARB RACM Demonstration and Control Strategy d. CAA Section 182(e)(5) New or Improved Technology Provision 3. Control Strategy in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan 4. September 2011 Proposed Action on the RACM Demonstration and Control Strategy 5. Evaluation, Conclusion and Final Action on the RACM Demonstration and Control Strategy

D

. Attainment Demonstration

1. Requirements for Attainment Demonstrations 2. Attainment Demonstration in the Sout h Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan 3

. Enforceable Commitments in the Attainment Demonstration 4

. September 2011 Proposed Action on the Attainment Demonstration 5. Evaluation, Conclusion , and Final Action on the Attainment Demonstrations

E . Reasonable Furthe r Progress Demonstration

1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration s 2. RFP Demonstrat ion in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan 3. September 2011 Proposed Action on the RFP Demonstration 4. Evaluation, Conclusion , and Final Actio n on the RFP Demonstration

F

. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions Increases from Vehicle Miles Travelled Increases, to Provide for RFP and Attainment 1. Requirements for Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions Increases from Vehicle Miles Travelled Increases, to Provide for RFP and Attainmentiii

2. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions Increases from Vehicle Miles Travelled Increases, to Provide for RFP and Attainment in the South Coast 2007 AQMP 3. September 2011 Proposed Action on the Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions Increases from Vehicle Miles Travelled Increases, to Provide for RFP and Attainment 4. Evaluation, Conclusion , and Final Action on the Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions Increases from Vehicle Miles Travelled Increa ses, to Provide for RFP and Attainment

G

. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures 2. Contingency Me asures in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan 3. September 2011 Proposed Action on the Contingency Measures 4. Evaluation, Con clusion , and Final Action on the Contingency Measures

H

. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budg ets in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budg ets in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozo ne Plan 3. May 6, 2008 Adequacy/Inadequacy Finding on the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 4. September 2011 Proposed Action on the Budgets Submitted in 2011 5

. Evaluation, Conclusion, and Final Action on the Revised 2011 Budgets

I

. Other CAA Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone Nonattainment Areas 1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program 2. Reformulated Gasoline Program 3. New Source Review Rule 4. Clean

- Fuel Vehicle Program 5. Gasoline Vapor Recovery 6. Enhanced Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 7. Clean Fuels or Advanced Technology for Boilers 8. CAA Section 185 Fee Program

III. Response to Comments

A. Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments

1. Enforceable Commitments

2. Baseline Measures, Baseline Inventories, and Attainment Demonstration B. Pre

- Baseline Emission Reduction Credits

C. Rule Effectiveness in District Rules D

. CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technology Provisions

E. CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A) Requirementsiv

F

. Comments on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets G. General Comments

Appendix A

– CARB Rules and Measures



### A. Complete List of State Measures 

### B. State Rules That Do Not Address Ozone Precursors in the South Coast 

### C. State Fuel Measures 

### D. State On

- Road Mobile Source Measures 

### E. State Consumer Product Measures 

### F. State Vapor Recovery Measures 

### G. Other State Measures

Appendix B

– South Coast District Rulesv 

## Acronyms & Terms AB: California Assembly Bill ACT: Alternative Control Technique AERR: Air Emissions Report Rule, 40 CFR part 51, subpart A AQIP: Air Quality Improvement P rogram AQMD: air quality management district AQMP: air quality management plan AQS: Air Quality Subsystem ARB: California Air Resources Board (also CARB) ATPZEV: Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emission Vehicle BAR: California Bureau of Automotive Repai r BARCT: best available retrofit control technology CAA: Federal Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 CALMET: a diagnostic 3

- dimensional meteorological model CAMx: Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions CARB: California Air Resources Board (also ARB) CCR: California Code of Regulations CEFS: California Emissions Forecasting and Planning Inventory System CEIDARS: California Emissions Inventory Development and Reporting System CERR: Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule, 40 CFR part 51, subpart A CFR: Code of Federal Regulations CO: carbon monoxide CTG: Control Techniques Guidelines CSBA: California Small Business Alliance District: South Coast Air Quality Management District DPR: California Department of Pesticide Regulation EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency FDDA: Four Dimensional Data Assimilation FHWA: Federal Highway Administration Fine particulate matter: PM 2.5 FMVCP: Federal motor vehicle control program FR: Federal Register FTA: Federal Transit Administration G HG: greenhouse gas ICE : internal combustion engine km: kilometer
m: meter MATES: Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study MM5: Mesoscale model MOA: Memorandum of Agreement MPO: metropolitan planning organization MVEB: motor vehicle emissions budget NAAQS: national ambient air quality standard NATTS: National Air Toxics Trends Station NCEP: National Centers for Environmental Prediction NH 3 : ammoniavi

NO 2 : nitrogen dioxide NO x : oxides of nitrogen NYQ: not yet quantified O 3 : ozone OTAQ: EPA‘s Office of Tran sportation and Air Quality PBL: planetary boundary layer PM: particulate matter PM 10 : particulate matter with a diameter of 10 μm or less, includes PM 2.5 PM 2.5 : particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 μm or less PZEV: partial zero emissions vehicle RACM: reasonably available control measures RACT: reasonably available control technology RAMS: Regional Atmospheric Modeling System RECLAIM: Regional Clean Air Incentives Market RFP: reasonable further progress ROG: reactive organic gases, used interch angeably with ―VOC‖ RRF: relative response factor RTIP: regional transportation improvement program RTP: regional transportation plan SAPRC99: Statewide Air Pollution Research Center

- 99 SC: South Coast SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE: Southern California Edison SCR: selective catalytic reduction SNCR: selective non

- catalytic reduction SCOS97: Southern California Ozone Study 1997 SIP: state implementation plan SJV: San Joaquin Valley SJVAPCD: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Cont rol District SO 2 : sulfur dioxide SO x : oxides of sulfur STMPRAG : Scientific, Technical, and Model ing Peer Review Advisory Group TCM: transportation control measures TCS: transportation control strategies tpd: tons per day TSD: technical support document UTM: Universal transverse Mercator VMT: vehicle miles traveled VOC: volatile organic compounds WOE: weight of evidence WRAP: Western Regional Air Partnership WRF: Weather Research and Forecasting WSPA: Western States Petroleum Association ZEV: zero em issions vehicleEPA

- Region 9 Page 1 

## Technical Support Document for the Final Rulemaking Action on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for 8

- hour Ozone and the South Coast Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strategy

This document provides supporting information and analysis for EPA‘s final rulemaking actions on the South Coast Air Quality Management District‘s 2007 AQMP ( adopted June 1, 2007 and revised March 4, 2011 ) and the related portions of the California Air Re sources Board‘s State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (adopted with amendments on September 27, 2007, revised and upd ated on April 24, 2009 and July 21, 2011) that address attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s in the South Coast 8

- hou r ozone nonattainment area. It describe s the Clean A ir Act (CAA) requirements for 8

- hour ozone attainment plans and EPA‘s regulations and policies interpreting these requirements. It also describes the elements of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, as re vised and supplemented, that address these requirements

, and E PA‘s evaluation of whether the S tate ‘s submittals meet these requirements

.


### A. The 8

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

1. The 8

- hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

a. Level and Form of the Standard s
On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone to replace the then

- current 1

- hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) with an 8

- hour ozone standard set at a stricter level of 0.08 ppm

. 1

, 2 (62 FR 38856 ). The 8

- hour standards are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the three year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8

- hour avera ge ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm

. 3 40 CFR § 50.10(b)

Ground level ozone pollution is formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, often referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources,

1 EPA promulgated the 1

- hour ozone standard of 0.12 ppm in 1979. 44 FR 8202 (February 9, 1979). The 1

- hour standards were met when the number of expected days per year on which the level o f the standard was exceeded was less than or equal to 1.0 when avera ged over 3 years. We revoked the 1

- hour ozone standards effective June 15, 2005. 40 CFR § 50.9(b), 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004).
2 In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering the level to 0.075 ppm. The form of the standards remained unchanged. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
3 The number of significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the rounding convention for comparing the computed 3

- year average annual fourth

- highest daily maxi mum 8

- hour ozone concentration to the level of the standard. The level of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard is expressed to the second decimal place, 0.08 ppm. The third decimal place of the computed value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 ro unding up. Thus, a computed 3

- year average 8

- hour ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, section 2.3

.T SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan Decem ber 15 , 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 2 including on

- road and off

- road motor vehicles and engines (e.g., cars, trucks

, construction equipment and locomotives) power plants and industrial facilities, and smaller area sources (e.g., paints, lawn and garden equipment, and open burning)

. b. Health Effects

Ozone is a significant health concern, particularly for children and people with asthma and other respiratory diseases. Ozone has been associated with increased hospitalizations and emergency room visits for respiratory causes, school absences, and reduced activity and productivity because people are suffering from ozone

- related respiratory symptoms.

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 respi ratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases. Ozone exposure also has been associated with increased susceptibility to respiratory infections, medication use, doctor visits, and emergency department visits and hospital admissions for individ uals 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, wh ich increases their exposure. 62 FR 33856, 33589.

More detailed information on the health effects of ozone as well as information on the welfare effects of ozone c an be found at the following web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_index.html

.
2. Implementing the 8

- hour Ozone NAAQS

a. Designations

The process for designating areas either attaining or not attaining following promulgation of a n ew or revised NAAQS is found in CAA section 107(d)

. Under this section , each state Governor or t ribal leader has an opportunity to recommend air quality designations to EPA

, including the appropriate boundaries for areas . Under CAA section 107, state and t ribal

r ecomm endations are due within one year of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS , and EPA has one to two additional years to promulgate final designation s

. By no later than 120 days prior to promulgating designati ons, EPA is required to notify states or t ribes of any intended modifications to their recommended areas and boundaries. States and t ribes then have an opportunity to provide a demonstration as to why the modification s indicated by EPA are inappropriate. CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii). Whether or not a s tate or t ribe provides a recommendation, EPA must promulgate the designation that it deems appropriate

.

For the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s , t he Tran sportati on Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA

- 21) revised the deadline to promulgate nonattainment desig nations to provide an additional year (to July 2000) and additional Congressional action restricted EPA‘s authority to spend money to designate areas until the earlier of June 2001 or the date of the Supreme Court ruling on the litigation challenging the 1 997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS

.T SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan Decem ber 15 , 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 3 In June 2000

, we asked each state and tribal Governor or tribal leader to submit their designation recommendations (including boundary recommendations) and supporting documentation to EPA. Because of uncertainties due to ongoing litigation on the 1997 8

- hour

ozo ne standard s , we did not notify States and T ribes of any intended modifications and did not designate areas at that time. After the legal challeng es to the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS we re resolved in 2001, we requested that States and T ribes provide updated recommendations based on ambient air quality data for the years 2000 to 2002 and any additional supporting documentation by July 15, 2003.

On Jun e 15, 2003, California submitted its recommendations , including the recommendation that the South Coast air basin be designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s

. 4 On September 8, 2003, E PA p ublished a Notice of Availability (NOA)

announ cing the availability of the State and Tribal recommen dations. See 68 FR 52933.

O n December 3, 2003, we notified California via letter of our inten t to accept its recommendations for designating the South Coast air basin as nonattainment. On December 10, 2003 , we published a NOA announcing the availability of our letters. See 68 FR 68805

. States were asked to submit by no later than February 6, 2004 a demonst ration as to why our modification s w ere not appropriate.

On April 15, 2004 , we designated the South Coast air basin as nonattainment for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s and classified the area as ―severe

- 17 ‖ under CAA section 181( a ) (1) and 40 CFR § 51.903(a), Table 1. 5 See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). The designation, which became eff

ective on June 15, 2004, is codified at 40 CFR § 81.305

. The d esignation of an area as nonattainment for any NAAQS starts the process whereby a
state or t ribe (or EPA, in lieu of a tribe, where necessary) develop s a n implementation plan that includes, among other things, a demonstration showing how the area will attain the NAAQS by the attainment dates prescribed in the CAA. Under CAA section 182 for ozone nonattainment areas and EPA‘s regulations implementing the 1997 ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR part 51 , subpart X ) , states had until June 15, 2007

— three years after final designations to nonattainment

— to submit to EPA their SIPs demonstrating RFP and attainment. 6 40 CFR §§ 51.910(a)(1)(ii)(B) and 51.908(a).

4 See Letter, Catherine Witherspoon, CARB, to Jack Broadbent , EPA

- Region 9

, June 15, 2003

.

5 See Letter, Michael O. Leavitt, Administrator, EPA, to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, April 15, 2004.

6 The SIP submittals for meeting the requirements in CAA section 182(a)(1) for emissions inventories and CAA section 182(b)(2) for th e implementation of reasonably available control technologies (RACT) were due 27 months after the effective date of designation. 40 CFR §§ 51.915 and 51.912(a)(2), respectively.T SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan Decem ber 15 , 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 4 b. California’s Request for Reclassification of the South Coast 8

- hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

As part of California‘s submittal for the South Coast 1997 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area, the State requested a reclassification of the South Coast from ―severe

- 17 ‖ to ― extre me ‖ under section 181(b)(3) of the CAA. 7

Section 181 (b)(3) states: ―The Administrator shall grant the request of any State to reclassify a nonattainment area in that State in accordance with Table 1 of subsection (a) of this section to a higher classification. The Administrator shall publish a notice in the Federal Register of any such request and of action by the Administ rator granting the request.‖ This provision for voluntary reclassification has been brought forward as part of the transition from the 1

- hour ozone standard s to the 1997 8

- hour ozone standa rd s . See 40 CFR 51.90 3(b) (―A State may request a higher classification for any reason in accordance with section 181(b)(3) of the CAA‖) and 40 CFR 51.903(a) Table 1.

We granted California‘s request for the South Coast Air Basin (and three other areas in California)

, except for Indian country pertaining to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians , on May 5, 2010 (see 75 FR 24409)

. Because t he South Coast 2007 Ozone Plan was developed to address the extreme area planning requirements for the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS in the CAA and EPA‘s implementing regulations, California did not need to make additional submittals in response to this reclassification for South Coast.

c. 1997 8

- Hour Ozone NAAQS Planning Requiremen ts

In order to assist states in developing effective plans to address their ozone nonattainment problems, EPA issued a rule for implementing the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s , also known as the ozone implementation rule. We issued this rule in accordance wi th the statutory requirements of the CAA set forth in subparts 1 and 2 of Part D of Title 1, i.e.
, sections 171

- 179B , 181 and 182. The rule was proposed on June 2, 2003 (68 FR 32802) and finalized in two phases. The Phase I rule addressed classifications f or the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards ; revocation of the 1

- hour ozone standards ; antibacksliding principles for 1

- hour requirements to ensure continuing progress toward attainment of the 1997 8

- hour standards ; attainment dates; and the timing of emissions red uctions needed for attainment. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004 )

. 8 The Phase II rule addressed, among other things, the requirements for reasonably available control technology and measures (RACT and RACM), reasonable further progress,(RFP), modeling and a ttainment demonstrations, and new source review. See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). The rule is codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X

.

7 See South Coast Governing Board Resolution 07

- 9, (June 1, 2007), p. 12; CARB Resolution no. 07

- 41 (September 22, 2007), p. 8, and letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 28, 2007.
8 EPA has revised or proposed to revise several elements of the 8

- hour ozone implementation rule since its initial promulgation in 2004. See 70 FR 30592 (May 25, 2005); 70 FR 39413 (July 8, 2005); 74 FR 2936 (January 16, 2009); 75 FR 51960 (August 24, 2010) ; and 75 FR 80420 (December 22, 2010). None of these revisions, either proposed or final, affect any of EPA‘s proposed actions here.T SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan Decem ber 15 , 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 5 The ozone implementation rule s c over most CAA requirements for 1997 8

- hour ozone

s tate implementation plans. EPA has issued other documents that provide additional guidance on these CAA requirements. We will provide references to these documents as appropriate.



### B. 8

- Hour Ozone Air Quality in the South Coast

The South Coast 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area is located in the southern part of California. It comprises portions of Los Angeles County, all of Orange County, and the urbanized portions of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. It is home to almost 18 million people and is the nati on‘s leading area for goods movement. See Figure IB

- 1 for a map of the South Coast nonattainment area and the major sources of air pollution in the nonattainment area

. The local air district with primary responsibility for de veloping a plan to attain the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS in this area is the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( ― SCAQMD ‖ or

― District ‖ ). For a complete description of the 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area, please refer to 40 CFR part 81.305.

8

- Hour Ozone Levels in the South Coast

8

- hour ozone levels in South Coast are some of the highest in the country with a design value of 0.112 ppm for the 2008

- 2010 period at the Crestline site

. 9 See EPA, Air Quality System, Quick Look Report, April 14 , 2011

. 10 See Figures IB

- 2 for 8

- hour ozone trends . Figure I B

- 3 is a map of the current ozone monitoring network in the South Coast.

Since com prehensive monitoring began for ozone in the South Coast in the 1960s , the area has seen a decline in ambient levels

. Data presented in Figure IB

- 2 have bee n validated. All data except 2010 dat a have been certified by SCAQM D. Data for all sites except Compton exceeds 75% annual completeness.

9 See EPA, Air Quality System Quick Look Report dated April 14, 2011 in the docket for today‘s action. A design value is an ambient concentration calculated using a specific methodology from monitored air quality data and is used to compare an area‘s air quality to a NAAQS

. The methodolog y for calculating design values for the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS is found in 40 CFR 50, Appendix I. This value is based on 2008 and 2009 data that are complete, validated, and certified by the District and on 2010 data that are complete and validated but not yet certified by the District, except for the Compton site, which does not have complete data

. 10 Ibid . This value is based on 2008 and 2009 data that are complete, validated, and certified by the District and on 2010 data that are complete and validated but not yet certified by the District.T SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan Decem ber 15 , 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 6 Figure IB

- 1. South Coast Nonattainment Area and Location of Major Sources of Air Pollution



### and Location of Major Sources of Air Pollution F igure IB

- 1T SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan Decem ber 15 , 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 7 Figure IB

- 2T SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan Decem ber 15 , 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 8 

### F igure IB

- 3

– Ambient Ozone Monitoring Locations In the South Coast Air Basin

Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/AQ

- Reports/AQMonitoringNetworkPlan/AppendixA.pdfT SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan Decem ber 15 , 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 9 

### C. California Submi ttals Constituting the South Coast 8

- hour Ozone

State Implementation Plan

Five submittals or parts of submittals comprise the South Coast 8

- hour ozone attainment plan. We will refer to these five submittals or parts of submittals collectively as the South Coast 2007 8

- hour ozone plan.

1. Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan

, SCAQMD, adopted June 1, 2007, submitted with the adopting resolutions and other supporting documentation by CARB on November 28, 2007. See South Coast Air Quality Management D istrict Governing Board Resolution 07

- 9 ; CARB Resolution No. 07

- 41 , September 27 , 2007 ; and l etter , James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, No vember 28, 2007 with enclosures; and letter, James N. G oldstene, 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)

. This document will be r eferenced in this TSD and the Federal Register proposal as the ―2007 AQMP‖ and the ―South Coast 2007 AQMP ‖.

2. Proposed State Strategy for California’ s 2007 State Implementation Plan , adopted September 27, 2007, submitted with the adopting resolution and other supporting doc umentation by CARB on November 16, 2007

. See CARB Resolution No. 07

- 28, September 27, 2007 and letter

, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB

, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 16, 2007

, with enclosures. This document will be r eferenced in this TSD and the Federal Register proposal as the ―2007 State Strategy‖.

3. Status Report on the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revisions to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy , adopted April 24, 2009, submitted with the adopting resolution and other supporting documentation by CARB on August 12, 2009. See CARB Resolution No. 09

- 34, April 24, 2009 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, t o Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 12, 2009 with enclosures. This document will be referenced in this TSD and the Federal Register proposal as the ―revised 2007 State Strategy ‖. 11

4

. Progress Report on Implementation of P M 2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions

, adopted on April 2 8

, 20 11 by CARB , submitted with the adopting resolution and other supporting documentation by CARB on May 18

, 20 11

. 12 See CARB Board Resolution 11

- 24

,

11 Only pages 11

- 27 of the 2009 State Strategy Status Report are submitted as a SIP revision. The balance of the report is for informational purposes only. See Attachment A to the CARB Resolution, No. 09

- 34.

12 Only Appendices B, C, and D of the 20 11 Progress Report are submitted as a SIP revision. The balance of the report is for informational purposes only. See letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated May 18, 2011.T SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan Decem ber 15 , 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 10 April 2 8, 2011 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld , Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, May 18, 2011 with enclosures. This document will be referenced in this TSD and the Federal Register notice as the 2011 Progress Report

. Appendix F of this SIP revision contained the SCAQMD‘s Revisions to the 2007 PM

2.5 and Ozone State Implementation Plans for the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley (SIP Revisions), adopted on March 4, 201 1 by the SCAQMD Governing Board and approved by the CARB Board on April 28, 2011. This SIP revision includes an update on District rule implementation and commitments provided by SCAQMD for the 2007 AQMP for ozone and PM 2.5
. This SIP revision wa s included as Appendix F in CARB‘s 2011 Progress Report and will be referred to as such.

5

. 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South C oast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins

, June 20, 2011 , with Appendices . Adopted by the CARB Board on July 21, 2011 (s ee CARB Board Resolution 11

- 22)

, and submitted on July 29 , 2011. Among other things, t his SIP revision includes a revised RFP demonstration for the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS and revised 8

- hour ozone precursor motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation conformity. 13 (2011 Ozone SIP Revision)

Future references in this TSD and the Federal Register notice to the 2007 State Strategy will be to the Strategy as revised in 2009 and 2011

, and the South Coast AQMP as revised in 2011, respectively, unless explicitly noted otherwise. We will also refer to the 2007 State Strategy as revised in 2009 and 2011 as the revised 2007 State Strategy. Finally

, both the District and CARB have provided a dditional information on the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP. This additional information includes:

1. Letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Office r , CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA

– Re gion 9, May 18 , 2011 , with attachments

. (2011 Progress Report Supplement).

2. Letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Office r , CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA

– Region 9, August 10, 2011. (2011 Ozone SIP Revision S upplement).

3. Letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Office r , CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air D ivision, EPA

– Region 9, August 10

, 2011 (providing additional information on the transportation conformity budgets).

4. Electronic Mail, Douglas Ito, Chief, Air Quality and Transp ortation Planning Branch, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air D ivision, EPA

– Region 9, August 9

, 2011 (providing additional information on the transportation conformity budgets).

13 Only Appendix A of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision is submitted as a SIP revision. The balance of the report is for informational purposes only. See Attachment A, CARB Res olution No. 11

- 22

.T SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan Decem ber 15 , 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 11 5. Electronic Mail, Douglas Ito, Chief, Air Quality and Transportatio n Planning Branch, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA

– Region 9, August 11

, 2011 (providing additional information on the transportation conformity budgets).

6. Letter, Elaine Chang, DrPH, Deputy Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Wienke T ax, EPA Region 9, Air Division, dated August 12, 2011 (providing clarifying information on CAA section 182(a)(1)(A) demonstration )

. 7. Letter, Elaine Chang, DrPH, Deputy Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Elizabeth Adams

, Deputy Director, EPA Region 9, Air Division, dated August 23 , 2011 (providing information on CAA section 182(e)(3) requirements)

. 8. Letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated August 29 , 2011 (providing information on CAA section 182(e)(5) requirements)

. 9. Letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated November 18 , 2011 (providing information on CAA section 182(e)(5) contingency measures).T SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan Decem ber 15 , 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 12 

### D. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for and Completeness Determinations on SIP Submittals

1. Public Notice and Public Hearing Requirements for SIP Submittals

CAA sections 110(a) and (l) require a State to provide reasonable public notice and hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. Thus, every SIP submittal should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and a public h earing was held consistent with EPA‘s implementing regulations in 40 CFR § 51.102.

Both the D istrict and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the S outh Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy. T he District conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan on June 1, 2007. Documentation accompanying the AQMP describes a public and agency outreach effort. See, e.g., the SCAQMD‘s Response to Comments on the Draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (February 2007), submitted by CARB on November 28, 2007 as enclosure I

E, describing nine regional workshops held from October 24 throug h December 6, 2006 to discuss the draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) released on October 10, 2006. The sequence of public meetings held to discuss the elements of the draft State Strategy for California‘s 2007 SIP (State Strategy) is described i n the CARB staff report developed for the CARB Board‘s consideration prior to adoption of the State Strategy. CARB also provide d the required public notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its September 27 , 2007 public hearing on the South Coast 2007 AQMP. See CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan for Attaining th e Federal 8

- hour Ozone and PM 2.5 Standards in the South Coast Air Basin and the Coachella Valley . See http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/ma/2007/ma092707.htm and http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/nonreg/scsip07.pdf

.

CARB conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held a public hearing prior to its adoption of the 2007 State Strategy on September 27, 2007. See CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of the Proposed State Strategy for Cali fornia‘s State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Federal 8

- Hour O z one and PM 2.5 Standards, May 7, 2007 and CARB Resolution No. 07

- 28, September 27, 2007

. CARB provide d the required public notice, opportunity for public comment, and public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009 adoption of revisions to the Strategy , and its July 21, 2011 adoption of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision

. 14

14 See CARB, Notice of Public Hearing to Consider a Status Report on the State Strategy for California‘s 2007 State Implementation Pl an and Consider Approval of a Proposed Revision to the State Implementation Plan Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy, March 24, 2009 and CARB Resolution No. 09

- 34, April 24, 2009; See CARB, Notice of Public Hearing to Consider the Approval of Proposed State Implementation Plan Revisions for 8

- Hour Ozone and Minor Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, June 20, 2011 and CARB Resolutio n No. 11

- 22, July 21, 2011.T SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan Decem ber 15 , 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 13 2. Completeness Determination s on SIP Submittals

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 that we have not affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of law six months after the day of submittal by operation of law. A c ompleteness review allows us to determine if the submittal includes all the necessary items and information we need to act on it.

We make completeness determinations using criteria we have established in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. These criteria fall into two categories: administrative information and technical support information. The administrative information provides documentation that the State has followed basic administrative procedures during the SIP

- adoption process and thus we have a legal ly

- adopted SIP revision in front of us. The technical support information provides us the information we need to determine the impact of the proposed revision on attainment and maintenance of the air quality standards.

We notify a state of our completen ess determination by letter unless the submittal become complete by operation of law. A finding of completeness does not approve the submittal as part of the SIP nor does it indicate that the submittal is approvable. It does start the 12

- month clock we h ave to act on the SIP submittal. See CAA section 110(k)(2).

The November 28, 2007 submittal of the South Coast 2007 AQMP became complete by operation of law on May 28, 2008. The November 16, 2007 submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and the August 12, 2009 submittal of the 2009 revisions to the State Strategy beca me complete by operation of law on May 16, 2008 and February 12, 2010, respectively

.

We found CARB‘s 2011 Progress Report submittal of May 18, 2011 complete on June 13 , 2011

. See Letter, Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, US EPA Region 9, to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, dated June 13, 2011.

We fo und CARB‘s 2011 Ozone SIP Revision submittal of July 29 , 2011 complete on August 23 , 2011. See Letter, Deborah Jord an, Air Division Director, US EPA Region 9, to James Goldstene, Executiv e Officer, CARB, dated August 23 , 2011.T SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 14 

## II. Evaluation of the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan and the

Revised 2007 State StrategyT SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 15 

### A. Emission s I nventor ies

1. Requirements for Emission s Inventories

CAA section 182(a)(1) requires states with marginal or above ozone nonattainment areas to submit, within two years of an area‘s designation as nonattainment, a ―comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of ac tual emissions from all sources‖ of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in accordance with guidance provided by EPA. To implement this section, the 8

- hour ozone implementation rule requir es a S tate to submit an emissions inventory meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1) for each of its subpart 2 8

- hour ozone nonattainment areas by June 15, 2006 (for those areas designated nonattainment effective June 15, 2004). See 40 CFR § 51.915. These in ventories should meet the ozone

– relevant data requirement s of EPA‘s Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR, codified at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A). 15 40 CFR § 51.915. The inventories should also meet all other applicable EPA guidance.

EPA has issued the ― Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozo ne and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, ‖ EPA

– 454/ R

– 99

– 006

, November 2005 ( ―EI Guidance,‖ available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chie f /eidocs/eiguid/

index.html). EPA developed the EI G uidance to complement the CERR and to pr ovide specific guidance on how to develop base year and baseline emissions inventories for 8

- hour ozone, PM 2.5 , and regional haze SIPs.

EPA recommends that the base year inventory required by CAA section 182(a)(1) should be for the calendar year 2002 for areas that were initially designa ted nonattainment for the 8

- hour ozone standards in 2004. EI Guidance, p. 8. 16

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 71612, at 71664 and EI Guidance, p. 40. In estimating mobile s ource emissions, states should use the latest emissions models and planning assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed. 68 FR 32802

, at 32854 and 70 FR 71612, at 71666. For California, t he lates t emissions model means the most recently EPA appr oved version of EMFAC. C urrent ly, this is EMFAC2007. See 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008).

The emissions inventories required under the 8

- hour ozone implementation rule (as opposed to the CERR) are SIP revisions that must be approved by EPA under CAA secti on 110(k) and are thus subject to the public hearing requirements of section 110(a)(2) and 110(l).

15 In late 2008, EPA promulgated the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) at 73 FR 76539 (December 17, 2008)

. The AERR updates the CERR reporting requirements by consolidating and harmonizing new emissions reporting requirements with pre

- existing sets of reporting requirements under the NOx SIP Call (which does not apply to California). Because this AERR was not finalized until after the submittal of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, its data requirements, in that they differ from the CERR requirements, do not apply to the South Coast 2007 AQMP.
16 See also Memorandum, Lydia Wegman and Peter Tsirigotis to Regional Air Division Directors, ―2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory SIP Planning: 8

- hour Ozone, PM 2.5 and Regional Haze Programs,‖ November 18, 2002. This document is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/2002bye_gm.pdf and the docket for this fina l action

.T SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 16 For areas classified under subpart 2, the emissions inventory submittals are due one year before the attainment and/or RFP plan. Applicable EPA policy allows a state to defer the public hearing on its inventory until the time it adopts its attainment and/or RFP plan. 70 FR 71612 at 71664 and memorandum, John Calcagni and William Laxton, EPA

- OAQPS, ―Public Hearing Requirements for 1990 Base Year Emissions Inven tories for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Areas,‖ September 29, 1992.

In addition to the base year inventory, states must also develop baseline inventories as part of the reasonable further progress demonstration required by CAA section 182(b)(1) and (c)(2)(B ). The requirements for RFP baseline inventories will be discussed in section II.G. of this TSD.

2. Emissions Inventories in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan and the Revised 2007 State Strategy

Note : We discuss CARB‘s statewide inventory to provide background to our evaluation of the emissions inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP. We are not approving any SIP action on the statewide inventory here, onl y on the South Coast inventory

.

C ARB submitt ed statewide inventories for the ozone precursors VOC and NOx as part of the 2007 State Strategy. 17 See Appendix A of the Statewide Strategy for the emission inventory output tables and Appendix F of the Statewide Strategy for documentatio n of the emission s inventory. Summer planning i nventories are provided for the base year of 2002 and 2005, and the RFP years of 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020, and the attainment year of 2023. 18 Inventories are also provided for 2009, 2012, 2013 (for PM2.5 planning), 201 0 (the1

- hour ozone attainment date), and 2018 (the 8

- hour ozone attainment date for the Coachella Valley, which is also under SCAQMD jurisdiction). These statewide emissions inventories are assembled and maintained by CARB in the California Emission Invent ory Development and Reporting System (CEIDARS) and the California Emission Forecasting and Planning Inventory System (CEFS) databases. Both systems are described in Appendix F of the 2007 State Strategy

. In 2004, CARB submitted the 2002 base year invento ry including all necessary data elements to EPA as required by the CERR.

The inventories in Appendix A of the 2007 State Strategy are summer season planning inventories on which the 2007 State Strategy is based. Baseline inventories incorporate reduction s from control measures adopted prior to December 2006

. 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1. Specific adjustments for State and District rules adopted in the 2004 to 2006 time period, as well as adjustments to among other things, heavy duty truck VMT i n 2005 and pesticide emissions, are described in the int roductory section to Appendix A of the State Strategy and also in Appendix III of the South Coast 2007 AQMP

.

17 CARB uses the term ROG (reactive organic gases) where we use the term VOC. We will use the term VOC to refer to both ROG and VOC.
18 The Revised 2007 State Strategy and the 2007 South Coast AQMP address both the 8

- hour ozone standard and the PM 2.5 standards; therefore, baseline inventories are giv en not on ly for years of importance for 8

- hour ozone plans but also one s of importance for PM 2.5 plans.T SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 17 The baseline planning inventories for VOC, NOx, and CO for the South Coast 8

- hour

ozone nonattainment area together with additional documentation for the inventories are found in Appendices III and V of the Sout h Coast 2007 AQMP . Average annu al day, winter planning day and summer day planning inventories are provided for ozone precursors for the year 2002 (the base year for the attainment and RFP demonstrations), 2005

, and the RFP years 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020, and for the attainment year of 2023

. (2023 is the attainment year for extreme areas, South Coast‘s current classification). The inventories use EMFAC2007 for estimating on

- road motor vehicle emissions. See South Coast 2007 AQMP page 3

- 1. The inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III are consistent with the inventories in the 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A. These i nventories provide the basis for the control measure analysis and the RFP and attainment demonstrations.

All inventories include emissions from point, are a, on

- road, and non

- road sources . N one specifically show emissions from non

- anthropogenic sources (that is, natural sources) although inventories developed for input into the air quality modeling do include such sources. South Coast 2007 AQMP , p. 1

- 4.

A sum mary of the 2002 base year and the baseline planning inventorie s f or the years 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014 , 2017, 2020 and 2023 from the South Coast 2007 AQMP as submitted in November of 2007 is p rovided in Table A

- 1 below.

Additional Revisions to the Plan’s Base Year and Projected Baseline Inventories As part of its 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, CARB submitted revised base year and baseline inventories. These revisions were the result of several factors including revised inventory methodologies, better activity and usage data, the reductions from measures adopted since 2007, and changes to economic forecasts for certain source categories in 2008 and later years

. CARB also made technical changes to the inventory for diesel trucks and buses as part of its December 2010 rulemaking amending its In

- Use On

- Road Truck and Bus Rule. These included updates and revisions to: regional allocation factors

out

- of

- state vehicle miles traveled estimates new vehicle inventory categories lifetime mileage assumptions
See CARB, Staff Report: Initial State of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Propo sed Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulations, The Drayage Truck Regulation and the Tractor

Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation , October 2010, p. 17. CARB also comprehensively updated and revised the inventory for off

- road equipment as part its December 20 10 rulemaking amending the In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment Rule. These included updates and revisions to: equipment population hours of use load factors future equipment sales and activityT SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 18 See CARB, Staff Report: Initial State of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for In

- Use Off

- Road Diesel

- Fueled Fleets and the Off

- Road Large Spark

- Ignition Fleet Requirements, October 2010, pp. 16

- 17. Collectively, these revisions reduce the total 2002 base year NO x and VOC inventory by approximately 5 percent and 2 percent, respectively. CARB 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix B. See Table A

- 2 below. These percentage differences were calculated by taking the difference between the 2002 NOx and VOC base year emissions in Table A

- 1 (1078 tpd NOx and 896 tpd VOC, respectively), subtracting the revised 2002 NOx and VOC base year emissions in Table A

2 (1 024 tpd NOx and 881 tpd VOC), dividing by the 2002 base year emissions value from Table A

- 1, and multiplying by 100.

Fr om late 2007 until mid

- 2009 , California experienced a n economic recession that greatly reduced the level of a ctivity in the State‘s construction and goods movement sectors

. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix B. As a result, current and projected emission l evels from these categories in the years up to 2017

- 2018 are now substantially lower than were origi nally projected in 2007 South Co ast Ozone Plan as submitted in November 2007.

Recession

- caused decreases in emissions do not affect either the Plan‘s modeling validation y ear s ( 1997/2004/2005), base year (200 2 ) , or future year (2020 and 2023) inventories and thus do not change the carrying capacity estimates in the Plan (that is, they do not in themselves affect the target level of overall emissions nee ded to demonstrate attainment) or the starting point for the reasonable further progress demonstration. Their principal effect is to reduce the reductions needed from the SIP‘s control strategy to demonstrate RFP in the years prior to 2018.

3. September 2 011 Proposed Action on Emissions Inventor ies In our September 2011 proposal on the South Coast 2007 8

- hour ozone SIP, we proposed to find that the 2002 emissions inventory in the 2007 State Strategy and the South Coast 2007 AQMP met the CAA se ction 182(a) (1 ) requirement for the State to submit a plan provision that includes a ―comprehensive, accurate, current, inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant .‖ We also proposed to find that the baseline inventories in the South Coast 2007 8

- hour ozone SIP provided an adequate basis for the reasonably available control measure, reasonable further progress and attainment demonstrations in the Plan. See 2011 TSD, section II.A. and 76 FR 57872, at 57875

- 57876.

4

. Evaluation , Conclusion

, and Final Action on Emissions Inventories

The emissions inventories were made available to the public for comment at the same time as the draft 2007 S tate Strategy and the draft South Coast 2007 AQMP, and were subject to public hearing as part of final v ersion of the 2007 State Strategy and the South Coast 2007 AQMP . See CARB Resolution 07

- 28, p.3, and South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board Resolution 07

- 9

, June 1, 2007

, p. 2. Revisions to the inventory were also made available to the public for comment prior to adoption. See CARB, ―Notice of Public Hearin g to Consider the Approval of Proposed State Implementation Plan Revisions for 8

- Hour Ozone and Minor Technical Revisions t o the PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, ‖ June 20, 2011 and CARB Resolution No . 11

- 22 , July 21, 2011.T SD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 19 CARB has revised the RFP demonstration, the contingency measures, and the transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budge ts in the South Coast 2007 Ozone Plan to incorporate both methodology and (when appropriate) recession changes to the inventories. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix A, and also section s II.E

, G, and H of this TSD.

Consistent with the 8

- hour ozone implementation rule, the South Coast 2007 AQMP uses a 2002 base year inventory. When considered together with the inventory documentation in Appendix F of the State Strateg y, Appendix III of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, and the air quality modeli ng documentation in Appendix V of the South Coast 2007 AQMP , it contains all the elements required by EPA‘ s emission inventory guidance. The on

- road mobile source inventories use the latest EPA

- approved version of California‘s mobile source emissions model, EMFAC2007.

Based on our evaluation of the inventories and the recent changes to them , we find that the 2002 base year emissions inventory in the 2007 State Strategy and the 2007 So u t h Coast AQMP for 8

- hour ozone

, as revised by the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision

, provides for a ―comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of ac tual emissions from all sources o f the relevant pollutant‖ at the time of their submittal, as required by CAA section 182(a)(1)

. W e also find that the future year baseline inventories in the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP provide an adequate basis for the SIP‘s reasonably available control measure demonstration and the adjusted base year inventory in the RFP demonstration.

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the Emissions Inventory

We received several comments on our proposed approval of the emissions inventory . We have reviewed these comments and provided respon ses to them. See section III of this TSD. No issues raised in these comments changed our finding that the emissions inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP for 8

- hour ozone are consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 20 Table A

- 1 

### Emission Inventory Summary for the South Coast 8

- Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area , South Coast 2007 AQMP (tons per summer average day)

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 NOx Stationary and Area Sources 89 91 82 74 71 69 69 69

On

- Road Mobile Sources 611 563 427 354 287 232 184 161

Off

- Road Mobile Sources 378 365 339 310 292 278 272 275

Total 1078 1020 848 738 650 578 524 506

VOC Stationary and Area Sources 317 277 252 258 264 271 278 285

On

- Road Mobile Sources 360 302 214 175 148 129 114 103

Off

- Road Mobile Sources 219 218 189 170 157 150 147 148

Total 896 796 655 603 569 549 538 536TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 21 Table A

- 1 

### Emission Inventory Summary for the South Coast 8

- Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area , South Coast 2007 AQMP (tons per summer average day)

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 CO Stationary and Area Sources 89 110 115 113 113 114 116 117

On

- Road Mobile Sources 3646 2951 2098 1688 1385 1149 971 839

Off

- Road Mobile Sources 1230 1201 1193 1192 1218 1251 1297 1355

Total 4965 4262 3406 2993 2715 2515 2385 2312

Source: South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, Tables B

- 1, B

- 2, B

- 3, B

- 5, B

- 6, B

- 7, B

- 8

, and B

- 9

. Numbers may not add to 100% due to rounding.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 22 

### Table A

- 2. Revised Emissions Inventory Summary for the South Coast Ozone Nonattainment Area (summer planning inventory emissions in tons per day) a

Emissions Inventory category NOx

200 2 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

Stationary/Areawide Sources 89 82 73 71 68 68 68

On

- road Mobile Sources 652 422 327 276 224 185 140

Off

- road Mobile Sources 283 225 191 185 187 176 170

TOTAL 1024 728 591 532 479 428 378

VOC

200 2 2008 2011 2014 2017 20 20 2023

Stationary/Areawide Sources 318 247 252 254 260 267 273

On

- road Mobile Sources 361 211 171 135 119 107 98

Off

- road Mobile Sources 202 174 156 146 141 140 142

TOTAL 881 632 580 535 520 514 513

a Numbers may not add due to rounding. Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix B

- 2. Incorporates reductions from measures adopted prior to 2011.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 23 

### B. Air Quality Modeling and Other Analyses in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires states to submit a plan which ―shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.‖ The Act requires SIPs for nonattainment areas to demonstrate that the area will attain the 8

- hour ozone stan dards as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than outside dates established by the Act. The Phase 2 Rule provides timing and guidance for this requirement for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards and identifies the modeling guidance available to make the demonstration. Extreme 1997 8

- hour ozone nonattainment areas must attain the standards no later than June 15, 2024. An attainment demonstration SIP must include technical analyses to locate and identify sources of emissions that are causing violations of the NAAQS within nonattainment areas; adopted measures with schedules for implementation and other means and techniques necessary and appropriate for attainment; and contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) of the Act that can be implemented without further action by the State or the Administrator to cover failures to meet RFP milestones and/or attainment.

EPA‘s regulations at 40 CFR 51.908(c) specifically require that areas classified as moderate and above submit a modeled attainment demons tration based on a photochemical grid modeling evaluation or any other analytical method determined by the Administrator to be at least as effective as photochemical modeling. Section 51.908(c) also requires each attainment demonstration to be consistent w ith the provisions of section 51.112, including Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (i.e.,  ̳ ̳EPA‘s Guideline on Air Quality Models,‘‘ 68 FR 18440, April 15, 2003). EPA has issued the

― Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze‖, EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007, (available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/final

- 03

- pm

- rh

- guida nce.pdf

, which describes the criteria that an air quality model and its application should meet to qualify for use in an 8

- hour ozone attainment demonstration.

As with any predictive tool, there are inherent uncertainties associated with photochemical

m odeling. EPA‘s guidance recognizes these limitations and provides approaches for considering other analytical evidence to help assess whether attainment of the NAAQS is likely. This process is called a WOE determination. EPA‘s modeling guidance for the 19 97 8

- hour attainment demonstration procedures includes a WOE analysis as an integral part of the attainment demonstration. This guidance strongly recommends that all attainment demonstrations include supplemental analyses beyond the recommended modeling. T hese supplemental analyses would provide additional information such as data analyses, and emissions and air quality trends, which would help strengthen the overall conclusion from the photochemical modeling. A WOE analysis is specifically recommended to b e included as part of any attainment demonstration SIP where the modeling results predict Future Design Values (FDVs) ranging from 82 to less than 88 ppb (EPA‘s 2007 A.D. guidance document s ).

2. Overview of the Conceptual Description, Modeling Approach, and Modeling Protocol in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

a. Conceptual ModelTSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 24 EPA Recommendations

EPA ‘s recommendations on conceptual model s for 8

- hour ozone are discussed in the ― Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze‖, EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007, the Guidance in Section 11, How Do I Get Started?

- A ―Conceptual Description‖. A ―conceptual description‖ is a qualitative way of characterizing the nature of an are a‘s nonattainment or regional haze problem. It is best described by identifying key components of a description. 19 The guidance identifies twelve key components of a description for 8 hour ozone 20 :

Conceptual Model of an 8

- Hour Ozone Episode in the AQPM

The conceptual model of an 8

- Hour ozone episode for the South Coast Air Basin is discussed in Chapter 4 of Appendix V of the South Coast 2007 AQMP , and in the Draft Modeling Protocol f or Ozone a nd Particulate Matter Modeling i n Support o f t he South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 Air Quality Management Plan Update. 21 (available at : http://aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/aqmp/Appendix_V.pdf )

Several field studies (SCAQS, [1987], and SCOS97, [1998 ]) and previous AQMPs have described at length the development of an ozone episode in the Basin. The focus of many of these analyses was to simulate the observed 1

- hour maximum concentration in the modeling domain

. The District used Classification and Regression Tree analysis (CART) to determine whether the conceptual model for a 1

- hour ozone episode differed from the meteorological profile characterizing an 8

- hour average ozone episode in the Basin. The results of the analysis indic ated that the peak 1

- hour episodes were a subset of the 8

- hour episodes and the meteorological profiles contributing to both scenarios were nearly identical. As such, the development of the 8

- hour conceptual model for the Basin and the methodology to selec t and characterize episodes relies on the basic models constructed to describe the Basin 1

- hour ozone episode.

The Draft Modeling Protocol provides an extended discussion of the meteorological and air quality profile of four of the five 2004 and 2005 epis odes, in addition to the August 1997 episode, selected for evaluation in the ozone attainment demonstration. The August 2

- 9, 2005 meteorological episode was selected as a replacement for the June 2004 episode after the release of the Draft Modeling Protoco l. In general, elevated concentrations of ozone (both 1

- and 8

- hour average) occur under a west coast or Four Corners ridge of high pressure aloft. Typically, the 500 mb pressure surface heights above mean sea level (msl) exceed 5880 m and generate a stron g low level subsidence inversion (10 o C in strength or higher). The surface pressure gradient (i.e.

, wind forcing) typically is less than 5 mb between the coast and the desert (approximately 200 km in distance) and days often begin with a deck of morning c oastal stratus that extends into the near valleys then burns off in the

19 Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze‖, EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007, p. 126.
20 Guidance, pp. 126

- 127.
21 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., Attachment 3.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 25 late morning hours. The more severe episodes tend to have neutral to slightly off shore pressure gradient forcing and clear skies.

Each of the 2004 and 2005 meteorological episodes se lected for the ozone attainment demonstration fit this model. Figure V

- 4

- 3 illustrates the 500 mb upper air structure over the west coast during the July 2005 meteorological episode. Figure V

- 4

- 4 provides the 1200 UTC (4:00 am PST) temperature profile for July 16, 2005. 22

b . Modeling Approach

A summary of the modeling methodologies used in the Final 2007 AQMP is listed in Table V

- 1

- 1.

, below. The methodologies used in the 2003 AQMP are provided for comparison. 23

c

. Modeling Protocol, Peer Review, and Advisory Committee

EPA Recommendations

EPA‘s recommendations for a modeling protocol are discussed in the Guidance in Section 1 2.0: What Does A Modeling/Analysis Protocol Do, And What Does Developing One Entail? 24

.

22 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V

- 4

- 12.
23 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V

- 1

- 3.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 26 As noted above, the most important fu nction of a protocol is to serve as a means for planning and communicating up front how a modeled attainment demonstration will be performed. The protocol is the means by which States/Tribes, U.S. EPA, and other stakeholders can assess the applicability of default recommendations and develop alternatives. A good protocol should lead to extensive participation by stakeholders in developing the demonstration. It should also reduce the risk of spending time and resources on efforts which are unproductive or in consistent with EPA policy.

The protocol also serves several important, more specific functions. First, it should identify who will help the State/Tribe or local air quality agency (generally the lead agency) undertake and evaluate the analyses needed to support a defensible demonstration (i.e., the stakeholders). Second, it should identify how communication will occur among States/Tribes and stakeholders to develop consensus on various issues. Third, the protocol should describe the review process applied to key steps in the demonstration. Finally, it should also describe how changes in methods and procedures or in the protocol itself will be agreed upon and communicated with stakeholders and the appropriate U.S. EPA Regional Office(s). Major steps to impl ement the protocol should be discussed with the appropriate U.S. EPA Regional Office(s) as they are being decided. States/Tribes may choose to update the protocol as major decisions are made concerning forthcoming analyses.

The Guidance also lists key ele ments that should be discussed in the protocol. 25

1. Overview of Modeling/Analysis Project a. Management structure b. Technical committees or other communication procedures to be used c. Participating organizations d. Schedule for completion of attainment demonstration or uniform rate of progress analyses e. Description of the conceptual model for the nonattainment area (or Class I area(s)) 2. Model and Modeling Inputs a. Rationale for the selection of air quality, meteorological, and emissions models b. Mo deling domain c. Horizontal and vertical resolution d. Specification of initial and boundary conditions e. Episode selection f. Description of meteorological model setup g. Development of emissions inputs h. Geographic area identified for application of th e attainment test(s) i. Methods used to quality assure emissions, meteorological, and other model inputs 3. Model Performance Evaluation a. Describe ambient data base b. List evaluation procedures

24 Guidance, p. 133.
25 Guidance, p. 134.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 27

c. Identify possible diagnostic testing that could be used to improve model performance 4. Supplemental Analyses a. List additional analyses to be completed to corroborate the model attainment test b. Outline plans for conducting a weight of evidence determination, should it be
necessary 5. Procedural Requirements a. Identify how modeling and other analyses will be archived and documented b. Identify specific deliverables to EPA Regional Office

Modeling Protocol in the AQMP

The Modeling Protocol for Ozone and Particulate Matter Modeling in Support of the South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 Air Quality Management Plan Update Draft Report May 9, 2006 is included as an attachment to the South Coast 2007 AQMP 26

. The protocol for the 2007 AQMP was reviewed by a technical and advisory group.

The Scientific, Technical, and Modeling Peer Review Advisory Group (STMPRAG) role expands upon that of the MWG and includes experts in socioeconomic assessment and human health, p roviding review of AQMD modeling, monitoring and related scientific issues. The STMPRAG assists AQMD in resolving technical issues related to air quality and socio

- economic modeling by providing ongoing technical review and consensus of procedures and ana lyses. The STMPRAG consists of approximately 20 members appointed by the Governing Board, with representatives from USEPA, CARB, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the California Small Business Alliance (CSBA), Southern California Edis on (SCE), Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), and technical experts from universities and consultant firms. 27

A s ummary of p reliminary c ritiques of p eer r eviewers of the m odeling p rotocol is included in the 2007 AQMP. 28

EPA Discussion

The protocol adequately addresses the management structure, including the technical advisory committees. The required technical elements outlined in the Guidance are included in the protocol, and the individual elements are discussed below. Future protoc ol should address the procedural requirements in greater detail.

3. Air Quality Model Selection

26 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p. 20 DRAFT Modeling Protocol for Ozone And Particulate Matter Modeling in Support of the South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 Air Quality Management Plan Update, Draft Report May 9, 2006 .
27 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p. 20 DRAFT Modeling Protocol for Ozone And Particulate Matter Modeling in Support of the South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 Air Quality Management Plan Update Draft Report May 9, 2006.
28 So uth Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 4.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 28 EPA Recommendations

EPA‘s recommendations for air quality model selection are discussed in the Guidance in Section13.0: ―What Should I Consider In Choosing An Air Quality Model ? A model should meet several general criteria for it to be a candidate for consideration in an attainment demonstration or uniform rate of progress assessment. These general criteria are consistent with requirements in 40 CFR 51.112 an d 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W (U.S. EPA, 2005d). We are not recommending a specific model for use in attainment demonstration or uniform rate of progress assessment. At present, there is no single model which has been extensively tested and shown to be cle arly superior than its alternatives. Thus, 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W does not identify a ―preferred model‖ for use in attainment demonstrations of the NAAQS for PM2.5. Based on the language in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W, models used for these purposes shou ld meet requirements for ―alternative models‖. 29

States/Tribes should use a non

- proprietary model, which is a model whose source code is available for free (or for a ―reasonable‖ cost). Furthermore, the user must be able to revise the code to perform diagnostic analyses and/or to improve the model‘s ability to describe observations in a credible manner. Several additional prerequisites should be met for a model to be used to support an attainment demonstration.

(1) It should have received and been rev ised in response to a scientific peer review. (2) It should be appropriate for the specific application on a theoretical basis. (3) It should be used with a data base which is adequate to support its application. (4) It should be shown to have performed we ll in past ozone or PM modeling applications. (If the application is the first for a particular model, then the State should note why it believes the new model is expected to perform sufficiently.) (5) It should be applied consistently with a protocol on m ethods and procedures.

Air Quality Model Selection in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

The selection process, models considered, issues, and comments for the air quality and meteorological models are discussed in the mo deling protocol on pages 25

- 27. These issues are summarized in TABLE 3: Summary of Proposed 2007 AQMP Model Selection and Application, of the modeling protocol. 30

29 Guidance, p. 136.
30 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p.13

- 18 DRAFT Modeling Protocol for Ozone And Particulate Matter Modeling in Support of the South Coast Air Quality Management District 20 07 Air Quality Management Plan Update Draft Report May 9, 2006.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 29 The model selection process is also discussed in South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Chapters 1 and 4

.

CAMx was selected as the modeling tool used in the Final 2007 AQMP ozone modeling attainment demonstration. CAMx is an urban scale, three

- dimensional, grid

- type, numerical simulation model. For the Final 2007 AQMP, CAMx has been coupled with SAPRC99 gaseous chemistry for the o zone attainment demonstration. In addition, as prev i ou s ly discussed, CAMx is one of the modeling platforms recommended by the peer review.

Modeling ApproachTSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 30 CAMx simulations were conducted using a Lambert Confo r mal projection over the 5 km squared grid SCOS97 modeling domain. The modeling analyses were run using 16 vertical layers up to 5000 m above ground level. CAMx simulations were generated for six meteorological episodes including one period in 2004, four periods in 2005 and one in 1997. Table V

- 1

- 2 provides a comparison for the meteorological episodes evaluated in the current and preceding attainment demonstrations. The August

, 1997 SCOS97 m eteorological episode was retained for this analysis to provide a bridge from the 2003 AQMP attainment demons tration. The five episodes observed in 2004 and 2005 occurred during MATES

- III, a period of enhanced air quality monitoring in the Basin. Supporting MATES

- III, the District operated three radar wind profilers in the Basin, with radio acoustic sounding syst ems and also enhanced its Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) programs. Additional profiler data was obtained from operating sites in Ventura and San Diego Counties. 31

The model system configuration is described in Table V

- 4

- 6, below.

TABLE V

- 4

- 6 : Air Quality Modeling System Configuration 32

31 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V

- 1

- 10.
32 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V

- 4

- 17.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 31 EPA Discussion

EPA believes that the air quality model selection process was appropriate for ozone modeling in the South Coast Basin. The model and a ir q uality m odeling s ystem c onfiguration are appropriate for the specific application on a theoretical basis . The a ir q uality m odeling s ystem c onfiguration received and was revised in response to scientific peer review. CAMx was shown to have performed well in a previous ozone modeling applications (although it was not the model that was the basis for the 2003 attainment demonstration).

4. Episode selection

EPA Recommendations

EPA‘s Recommendations for episode selection are discussed in the Guidance in Section 14.1: What Are The Most Important Cr iteria For Choosing Episodes? The Guidance lists the criteria for episode selection.

At a minimum, four criteria should be used to select time periods which are appropriate to model 33 :

1) Simulate a variety of meteorological conditions: a) 8

- Hour Ozon e

- Choose time periods which reflect a variety of meteorological conditions which frequently correspond with observed 8

- hour daily maxima > 84 ppb at multiple monitoring sites. 2) Model time periods in which observed concentrations are close to the appropr iate baseline design value or visibility impairment. 3) Model periods for which extensive air quality/meteorological data bases exist. 4) Model a sufficient number of days so that the modeled attainment test applied at each monitor violating the NAAQS is b ased on multiple days

. Episode Selection Discussion in the AQMP

Episode selection is discussed in Chapter 4 of Appendix V in the AQMP, and in the draft modeling protocol.

The meteorological episodes span three years: 2004 and 2005 when the MATES

- III monitoring program was in effect and primary modeling episode used in the 2003 AQMP, August 5

- 6, 1997, which occurred during the 1997 Southern California Ozone Study (SCOS97). T he 2004 and 2005 episodes occurring during the MATES

- III sampling program integrate data from the network of radar wind and temperature profiles distributed throughout Southern California. In addition, advances in satellite data acquisition used in
meteoro logical model initialization since SCOS97 and readily available global model output have shifted the focus of regional meteorological modeling from diagnostic/objective

33 Guidance p. 141

. The four identified primary criteria for choosing meteorological episodes to model, discuss the secondary criteria, which may be important in specific applications, are discussed in greater detail on pages 141

- 147.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 32 analysis towards 4

- dimensional data assimilation in prognostic modeling. Equally import ant, the 2004

- 2005 episodes occurred in the post California Phase III reformulation period and represent the current VOC emissions profile. The 1997 episode is one of several meteorological episodes that were intensively monitored through the SCOS97 field program and was included in the analysis to provide continuity between the Final 2007 AQMP and 2003 Ozone Plans. The base year for the ozone modeling demonstration and emissions inventory characterization is 2002. 34

EPISODE SELECTION

The 2003 AQMP benefited from the intensive monitoring conducted under the Southern California Ozone Study where the August 4

- 7, 1997 episode was the cornerstone of the modeling analysis. The requirements for multiple episode days at individual stations pose a different challenge for the Final 2007 AQMP. Five additional meteorological episodes with regionally observed higher ozone concentrations were added to the 2003 AQMP modeling episode. The five episodes observed in 2004 and 2005 occurred during MATES

- III, a period of enhanced air quality monitoring in the Basin. Supporting MATES

- III, the District operated three radar wind profilers in the Basin, with radio acoustic sounders. Additional profiler data was obtained from operating sites in Ventura and San Diego Counties. Table V

4

- 5 lists the complement of meteorological episodes used in the ozone attainment demonstration. Selection of episodes from 2004 and 2005 was also made to avoid the commingling associated with the Phase III California Fuel Reformulation where the pr imary oxygenate was changed from MTBE to ethanol. Commingling of ethanol and nonethanol based fuels leads to enhanced evaporative VOC emissions and thus more ozone. Quantification of the amount of commingling taking place on a daily or episodic basis was

n early impossible. Implementation of the fuel switch from MTBE to ethanol took place in California during 2003 and was assumed to be completed by December 31, 2003. Selecting meteorological episodes for the post 2003 emissions reduced the uncertainty associ ated with the estimation of the VOC emissions inventory due to commingling. 35

Statistical Episode Characterization and Ranking

CAMx simulations were generated for six meteorological episodes including two periods in 2004, three periods in 2005 and one in 1997. Table V

- 4

- 5 characterizes the selected episodes two ways: first by an assessment of the meteorological profile using a statistical model to rank the episodes based on meteorological stagnation potential and second by comparing observed maximum ozone concentrations to the annual design values. The meteorological classification is based on an empirical analysis presented in the 2003 AQMP which provides both a stagnation severity rank (1 being the highest) and the percentile the meteorological episode ha d in a 22

- year distribution. The observed maximum 8

- hour average concentrations on each episode day, and the average of the 8

- hour maximum concentrations observed for each multi

- day episode are also provided for comparison to the annual 4th highest 8

- hour average ozone value observed in the year that the episode takes place.

34 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., pp. V

- 4

- 1, 2.
35 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V

- 4

- 11.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 33 Briefly, the selected episode days mostly rank in the 95th percentile or higher for meteorological stagnation potential. The episode average of the 8

- hour maximum concentrations is wi thin 5 ppb of the annual 4th highest 8

- hour observed concentration for four of the six simulation periods. 36

TABLE V

- 4

- 5 37

36 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V. p. V

- 4

- 15.
37 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V

- 4

- 16.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 34 TABLE 7: Summary of Ozone Episodes to be Simulated for the 2007 AQMP 38

EPA Discussion of Episode Selection

The episode selection criteria outlines in the Guidance have been adequately addressed. The selected episodes represent a variety of meteorological conditions which frequently correspond with observed 8

- hour daily maxima > 84 p pb at multiple monitoring si tes, and are time periods in which observed concentrations are close to the appropriate baseline design value or visibility impairment.

E xtensive air quality and meteorological data bases exist for the 1997 Southern California Ozone Study (SCOS97) and the 2004

- 2005 MATES

– III study. There is a sufficien t number of days so

38 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., Attachment 3, DRAFT Modeling Protocol, p. 40.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 35 that the modeled attainment test applied at each monitor violating the NAAQS is based on multiple days . This is discussed in greater detail in the Section II. B. 9: Modeled At tainment Test, below.

5. Domain Size and Spatial Resolution

EPA Recommendations:

EPA ‘s r ecommendations for modeling domain size, horizontal resolution and vertical resolution are discussed in the Guidance in Section 15.1: How is the Size of the Modeli ng Domain Chosen? 39

a . Domain Size

The EPA recommendations for domain size are summarized in the paragraph below:

The principal determinants of model domain size are the nature of the ozone and/or PM2.5 problem and the scale of the emissions which impact the nonattainment area. Isolated nonattainment areas that are not impacted by regional transport of ozone and/or PM and its precursors may be able to use a relatively small domain. Some areas of the western U.S. may fall into this category. Most nonattain ment areas in the eastern U.S. have been shown to be impacted by transported ozone and/or PM and ozone and/or PM precursors from hundreds of miles or more upwind of the receptor area (U.S EPA, 1998b) 40 (U.S. EPA, 2005b) 41 . The modeling domain should be desig ned so that all major upwind source areas that influence the downwind nonattainment area are included in the modeling domain. The influence of boundary conditions should be minimized to the extent possible.

The inner domain of a nested model application s hould include the nonattainment area surrounding counties and/or States. The size of the inner domain depends on several factors. Among them are:

1) The size of the nonattainment area. 2) Proximity to other large source areas and/or nonattainment areas.

- Relatively isolated areas may be able to use a smaller fine grid domain.

- Nearby source areas should be included in the fine grid. 3) Proximity of topographical features which appear to affect observed air quality. 4) Whether the model application is inte nded to cover multiple nonattainment areas. 5) Typical wind speeds and re

- circulation patterns.

- Very light wind speeds and re

- circulation patterns may obviate the need for a large fine grid domain. 6) Whether the photochemical model utilizes one

- way or two

- way nested grids.

39 Guidance, p. 15 3.
40 U.S EPA, (1998b)―Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone; Final Rule,‖ 63 FR 57,356 (October 27, 1998).
41 U.S. EPA, (2005b), ―Technical Support Document for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule

- Air Quality Modeling‖, March 2005. Docket number OAR

- 2003

- 0053

- 0162. http://www.epa.gov/CAIR/pdfs/finaltech0 2.pdfTSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 36 - The fine grid domain of a model with one

- way nested grids may need to be larger (compared to a model with two

- way nested grids). The grid needs to be large enough to capture re

- circulation due to shifting wind directions. A two

- way n ested grid model allows for continuous feedback from the fine grid to the coarse grid and vice versa. 7) Computer and time resource issues.

b . Horizontal Resolution

EPA‘s recommendations for horizontal resolution for ozone modeling are summarized in Sec tion 15.3.1 : Horizontal Resolution Recommendations for Ozone 42

For coarse portions of regional grids, we recommend a grid cell size of 12 km if feasible, but not larger than 36 km. For urban and fine scale portions of nested regional grids, it may be desi rable to use grid cells about 4 km, but not larger than 12 km. States/Tribes should examine past model applications and data analyses for their area when choosing the fine grid resolution. Past model applications and data analyses may help determine whethe r a grid cell size as small as 4 km (or smaller) is necessary for a particular area. Model performance and the relative response to emissions controls should be considered in the decision. States/Tribes should consider diagnostic tests to assess the differ ence in model performance and response from varying model grid resolution, particularly in oxidant

- limited areas.

All ozone monitor locations within a nonattainment area should ordinarily be placed within the fine scale portion of a nested regional grid i f nested models are used. States/Tribes choosing an urban grid or fine portion of a nested grid with cells 12 km or larger should consider applying plume

- in

- grid algorithms to major point sources of NOx. The use of plume

- in

- grid should be discussed with th e appropriate EPA Regional Office.

c . Vertical Resolution

EPA ‘s recommendations for vertical resolution for ozone modeling are summarized Section 15.4: How Should the Vertical Layers Be Selected?

As described in Section 16, the preferred approach for g enerating meteorological data fields for input to air quality simulation models is to use a prognostic meteorological model with four dimensional data assimilation (FDDA). Such models normally use more than 30 vertical layers. To minimize a number of assum ptions needed to interface meteorological and air quality models, it is better to use identical vertical resolution in the air quality and meteorological models. However, application of air quality models with as many as 30 vertical layers may not be feasi ble or cost effective. In this section we identify factors to consider in choosing the number of vertical layers chosen for the air quality model applications. 43

In the past, short ozone episodes of only several days usually encompassed periods of mostly c lear skies with very little precipitation. As such, ozone models often did not

42 Guidance, p. 157.
43 Guidance, p. 159.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 37 explicitly model clouds or precipitation. However, we are recommending modeling longer episodes (or even a full ozone season) for ozone and a full year for PM2.5 and regional ha ze applications. Therefore the photochemical model needs to account for cloud processes and a full range of precipitation types. In order to adequately parameterize these processes, the top of the modeling domain should typically be set at the100 millibar level (~16,000 meters). In turn, this means that many more vertical layers will be needed to capture the meteorological processes both below and above the boundary layer, up to the top of the model.

The accuracy of predicted base case ozone and PM concent rations will be affected by how well the model is able to characterize dilution of ozone, PM, and precursors. This, in turn, depends in part on how precisely the model can estimate mixing heights (i.e., the PBL). The precision of mixing height estimates is affected by the thickness of the model‘s vertical layers aloft which are near the anticipated mixing height (Dolwick, 1999) 44 . Ozone concentrations are most heavily influenced by the rate of rise in the morning mixing height and the maximum afternoon mixing height. Since PM is measured as a 24

- hour average concentration, PM is also influenced by the strength of nighttime mixing and the presence of a low level inversion. Because mixing heights may vary on different days and it is necessary to simulate n umerous days and locations, model predictions can be influenced by the number of vertical layers considered by the model.

Placement of vertical layers within the planetary boundary layer is also an important issue. For practical reasons, it is best to hav e an air quality model‘s vertical layers align with the interface between layers in the meteorological model. In view of the importance of carefully specifying the temporal variation in mixing height, we recommend high precision below and near the anticipa ted maximum afternoon mixing height. In addition, specifying the vertical extent of mixing overnight during stable conditions is also an important consideration in determining the vertical layer structure. In this regard, we recommend that the lowest layer in the air quality model be no more than 50 meters thick. In general, layers below the daytime mixing height should not be too thick, or large unrealistic step increases in mixing may occur. Layers above the boundary layer are important for characterizing clouds and precipitation, but are less important to the daily mixing processes of pollutants. Therefore, vertical resolution above the boundary layer is typically much coarser.

There is no correct minimum number of vertical layers needed in an attainment demonstration. The vertical resolution will vary depending on the application. Recent applications of one atmosphere models (with model tops at 100mb) have used anywhere from 12 to 21 vertical layers with 8

- 15 layers approximately within the boundary laye r (below 2500 m) and 4

- 6 layers above the PBL (Baker, 2004b) 45 , (Hu, 2004) 46

. There are also ozone model applications which may not need to consider the full set of meteorological data through the tropopause. These applications typically use vertical

44 Dolwick, P.D., C. Jang, and B. Timin, (1999), ―Effects of Vertical Grid Resolution on Photochemical Grid Modeling‖, Paper 99

- 309 , Presented at 99th AWMA Meeting, St.Louis, MO, (June 1999).
45 Baker K., (2004 b), ―Meteorological Modeling Protocol For Application to PM2.5/Haze/OzoneModeling Projects‖, Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium / Midwest Regional Planning Organization, Des Plaines IL.
46 Hu, Y., D. Cohen, M.T. Odman, and T. Russell, (2004), ―Fall Line Air Quality Study

- Draft Final Report

- Air Quality Modeling of the August 11

- 20, 2000 Air Pollution Episode.‖TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 38 domains which extend up to 4 or 5 km. These applications are most appropriate for short ozone episodes that occur under high pressure conditions (little cloud cover or precipitation). In these cases, fewer vertical layers are needed to represent the atmosphere up to the top of the domain (4

- 5 km). However, where appropriate, EPA encourages the use of full

- scale

one

- atmosphere models which account for all atmospheric processes up to ~100 mb.

Discussion of Domain Size

, Horizontal Resolution and Vertical Resolution in the A QMP i

. Domain Size and Horizontal Resolution are discussed in Chapter 4 of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, and summarized below. The modeling domain used in the photochemical modeling analysis, also shown in Figure V

- 4

- 1, encom passes the entire Basin, Ventura County, Antelope Valley (AVAQMD), San Diego County, the Coachella Valley, portions of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD), and Imperial County. Ventura County, the Antelope Valley and Mojave Desert ar e classified as "moderate" (attainment year: 2010). These areas experience pollutant transport from the Basin, and at times are an upwind source of pollution. San Diego County is classified as ―basic‖ with an attainment year of 2009 and Imperial County is classified as ―marginal‖ with an attainment year of (2007). 47

FIGURE V

- 4

- 1 48 Southern California Modeling Domain Used in the Ozone Attainment Demonstration As previously stated, the CAMx ozone simulations were run on a 5 km squared grid using a Lambert Con formal projection of the SCOS97 modeling domain depicted in Figure V

- 4

- 1. The modeling analyses were run using 16 vertical layers up to 5000 m above ground level.

47 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V

- 4

- 4.
48 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V

- 4

- 7.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 39 The eastern extent of the domain is approximately 100 miles offshore of the Basin. The large domain was chosen to minimize uncertainties in the upwind boundary conditions. 49

ii

. Vertical Resolution

For sufficient vertical representation of the atmosphere, 16 vertical layers will be used for the CAMx ozone modeling, to a top height of nearly 5000 m AGL. Five of the layers will be below 500 m AGL (the nominal height of the summer afternoon mixing height within the Los Angeles coastal plain). The computational resources required for the annual particulate matter modeling necessitate a reduction in th e number of layers used in the CAMx model for particulates. For this, eight vertical layers will used to a top height of approximately 5000 m AGL. The proposed vertical structure for the ozone and PM models are shown in Table 6, along side of the MM5 verti cal structure. 50

49 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V

- 4

- 1 5.
50 DRAFT Modeling Protocol, South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p. 38.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 40 TABLE 6 : Vertical Structures for the CAMx Ozone and PM Simulations with Corresponding MM5 Meteorological Model Layers 51

EPA Discussion

EPA believes that the domain size and grid resolution is appropriate for this application. The model ing domain is sufficiently large so that all major upwind source areas that influence the downwind nonattainment area are included in the modeling domain and t he influence of boundary conditions is minimized to the extent possible. The grid cells size of 5 km meets EPA‘s recommendation f

or urban and fine scale portions of nested regional grids . The number of ver tical layers meets EPA requirements, and is sufficient for ozone modeling in the South Coast Basin.

51 DRAFT Modeling Protocol, South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p. 38.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 41 6 . Initial and Boundary Conditions

EPA Reco mmendations

EPA ‘s r ecommendations for Initial and Boundary Conditions are discussed in the Guidance in Section 15.2: How are the Initial and Boundary Conditions Specified? 52 Air quality models require specification of initial conditions for model species in each grid cell in the model domain (in all layers) and boundary conditions for all grid cells along each of the boundaries (in all layers). Generation of initial and bounda ry conditions for individual model species include gas

- phase mechanism species, aerosols, non

- reactive species and tracer species. There is no satisfactory way to specify initial conditions in every grid cell. Thus, we recommend using a ―ramp

- up‖ period by beginning a simulation prior to a period of interest. Sensitivity simulations can be completed to determine the necessary length of the
ramp

- up period. A longer ramp

- up period may be needed for very large domains where the characterization of long range t ransport is important.

One atmosphere model applications for ozone and PM may commonly use global models to specify boundary conditions. This is especially important for PM species due to their long lifetimes. A number of recent studies show that long

- ra nge, intercontinental transport of pollutants is important for simulating seasonal/annual ozone and particulate matter diminish the importance of initial conditions103. We recommend a ramp

- up period of at least 2

- 3 days for ozone modeling. Due to longer li fetimes of fine particulate matter, we recommend a
ramp

- up period of at least 5

- 10 days for PM2.5. In this way, the choice of initial conditions is not likely to influence the modeling results. For nested model applications, initial conditions can be speci fied using model predictions from the outer grid if the nested grids are started after the beginning of the simulation for the outer grid.

Boundary conditions can be specified in several ways. One option is to nest the area of interest within a much large r domain using nested regional models, as described previously. As noted above in Section 15.1, use of a large regional domain acts to diminish the importance of boundary conditions. Alternatively, initial and boundary conditions can be derived from anothe r regional nested modeling application or from a global model104. Another option is to use default initial and boundary concentration profiles representing relatively clean conditions which have been formulated from available measurements or results obtain ed from prior modeling studies, (e.g. prescribing 35 ppb for annual ozone). Another approach to consider is using the model‘s simulated pollutant values (generated for emissions) averaged over one or more of the upper layers to specify a value for the late ral and top boundary conditions. This approach allows for better representation of spatial and temporal variation of boundary conditions (i.e., diurnal/seasonal/vertical profiles). This method also avoids arbitrarily guessing at the future year boundary co nditions.

If there is no larger regional model application available, then it is recommended that background boundary conditions be used to specify initial and boundary concentrations for the attainment demonstration modeling. However, concentration field s derived from a larger

52 Guidance p. 153.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 42 domain regional or global chemistry model (i.e. nesting approach) is considered more credible than the assumption of static concentrations, since the pollutant concentration fields reflect simulated atmospheric chemical and physical processes driven by assimilated meteorological observations. Therefore, we recommend using boundary conditions derived from a regional or global scale model, whenever possible.

Diagnostic testing which indicates a large impact on the model results from i nitial or boundary conditions may indicate that the domain is not large enough or the ramp

- up period is too short. In either case, it should generally be assumed that initial and boundary conditions do not change in the future. The use of altered initial o r boundary conditions in the future year should be documented and justified.

AQMP Discussion of the Initial Conditions

Initial Conditions 53

Initial conditions in the air quality models define the spatial distribution of chemical species concentrations throughout the 3

- dimensional modeling domain at the time at which the air quality model simulation begins. There are two limitations inherent in defining initial conditions. The first is that chemical species concentrations are only measured at discrete lo cations and, for some species, for discrete time periods. In particular, observed VOC data is sparse although some PAMS monitoring stations data are available. Therefore, observed concentrations must be extrapolated to estimate concentrations throughout th e modeling domain. The second limitation is that observed chemical species concentrations may not represent chemical equilibrium, especially since not all important chemical species are measured explicitly.

To minimize the importance of initial conditions on air quality model simulation results, the simulation is frequently started at some time interval before the period of interest. Historically, this ―spin

- up‖ time interval has ranged between 8 and 72 hours. For the 2007 AQMP episodes, the modeling perio d starts early in the morning (typically 0000 PDT) of the day before the first day of interest for spinup. This allows a full diurnal cycle of sunlight for air quality model to reach chemical equilibrium. Since most of the modeling episodes
encompass sever al days, the day with the worst air quality is typically well into the simulation.

AQMP Discussion of the Boundary and Top Air Quality Concentrations

The boundary concentrations can have a marked impact on RRFs for the South Coast Air Basin. In the Draft 2007 AQMP (released in October 2006) boundary conditions for the ozone simulations were extracted from the annual WRAP Regional Haze modeling conducted for the model year 2002

. This modeling was conducted using CB4 chemical mechanism. There are some uncer tainties on c onversion from CB4 to SAPRC species. In

53 DRAFT Modeling Protocol , South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, At tachment 3, p. 48.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 43 addition, the converted SAPRC99 species profile did not reflect emissions inventory SAPRC99 species composition. The WRAP modeling results included occas ional high levels of VOC and NOx that may not repr esent existing boundary concentrations. 54

For the Final 2007 AQMP, the ozone simulations were conducted using the EPA default boundary concentration profile USEPA (1991) 55 . Uncertainties identified in the episodic diurnal profiles for the ozone simulations were sufficiently large enough to warrant a return to the boundary conditions used in the 2003 AQMP ozone attainment demonstration. This profile is commonly referred to as the ―EPA

- Clean‖ boundary. The boundary conditions were adjusted to match the ROG SAP RC profile.

Table V

- 4

- 7 summarizes the boundary conditions used for all simulations. All concentrations were constant horizontally and, except for NO2, constant vertically. For each profile, the sum of VOC concentrations is approximately 22 ppbC. For each simulation, the domain top boundary concentrations were the same as the lateral boundaries, with the exception that the top ozone concentration was 60 ppb. The initial concentrations for the all episodes were set using the air quality data from the District and neighboring district‘s air monitoring stations.

TABLE V

- 4

- 7

Future Boundary, Top and Initial Air Quality Conditions

For the future year scenarios, the boundary, region top and ambient air quality concentrations were rolled back based on the percentage reduction in emissions from 2002 base year to the projected emissions levels for future year of the simulation (2017, or 2023).

54 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V

- 4

- 18.
55 USEPA. 1991. Guideline For Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model. EPA Publication No. EPA

- 450/4

- 91

- 013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 44 The future year the top ozone concentrations were reduced to 45 ppb. The lateral boundary concentrations were no t rolled back since the boundary concentrations used base year is considered to be clean. 56

7 . Meteorological Model

EPA Recommendations

EPA ‘s r ecommendations for meteorological modeling are discussed in the Guidance in Section 16.0: How are the Mete orological Inputs Prepared for Air Quality Modeling ? The recommendations are summarized below:

a . Meteorological Model Selection A description of the methods used to generate the meteorological fields should be included in the modeling protocol. In case s in which standard meteorological modeling (e.g., MM5, RAMS, or WRF in a retrospective analysis mode) is not used, it is recommended that a detailed description of the technique that is used to generate the three

- dimensional meteorological fields be share d with the appropriate EPA regional office(s) prior to conducting the air quality modeling analysis. 57

b . Meteorological Model Domain It is expected that most attainment demonstrations will cover large areas and use nested grids. The outermost grid should capture all upwind areas that can reasonably be expected to influence local concentrations of ozone, and/or PM2.5. In terms of selecting an appropriate meteorological modeling domain, one should extend the grid 3 to 6 cells beyond the domains of each air quality modeling grid to avoid boundary effects. For example, if 4 km grid cells are to be used in the fine portion of a nested regional air quality model, then the meteorological fields at this detail would need to extend 12

- 24 km beyond the bounds of the 4 km grid used for air quality predictions. In terms of grid resolution, EPA recommends that the dynamic meteorological models use the same grid resolution as desired for the air quality model applications. In some cases, however, this may not always be f easible. One possible reason for modeling with meteorology using a different grid resolution is in the case of unacceptable model performance from the meteorological model at the desired grid resolution. In other instances, the need for finer resolution ma y be emissions

- driven more than meteorologically

- driven and the costs do not warrant the generation of additional resolution in the meteorological data. In these specific situations it is recommended that the air quality model application use available res ults from meteorological models on the next coarser scale (i.e., 36 km for a desired 12 km estimate, 12 km for a desired 4 km estimate). The coarse grid meteorological fields can be mapped to the more finely resolved air quality modeling domain.

56 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., pp. V

- 4

- 18, 20.
57 Guidance, p. 161TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 45 c . Data Assimilation As noted above, the use of FDDA helps to keep the model predictions from widely diverging from what was actually observed to occur at a particular point in time/space. However, if used improperly, FDDA can significantly degrade overall model performance and introduce computational artifacts (Tesche and McNally, 2001) 58

. Inappropriately strong nudging coefficients can distort the magnitude of the physical terms in the underlying atmospheric thermodynamic equations and result in "patchwork" meteo rological fields with strong gradients between near

- site grid cells and the remainder of the grid. Additionally, if specific meteorological features are expected to be important for predicting the location and amount of pollution formed, based on an area's conceptual model, then the meteorological modeling should be set up to ensure that FDDA does not prevent the model from forming these features (e.g. nocturnal low

- level wind jets). In general, analysis nudging strengths should be no greater than 1.0 x 10

- 4 for winds and temperatures and 1.0 x 10

- 5 for humidity. In the case of observation nudging (i.e., FDDA based on individual observations as opposed to analysis fields), it is recommended that the resultant meteorological fields be examined to ensure that the results over the entire domain are still consistent. Further, based on past experience, we recommend against using FDDA below the boundary layer for thermodynamic variables like temperature and humidity because of the potential for spurious convection. If the dynamic model is applied without FDDA, it is suggested that the simulation durations be shorter than 24 hours.

d . Meteorological Model Performance

Operational Evaluation: The operational evaluation results should focus on the values and distribu tions of specific meteorological parameters as paired with and compared to observed data. It is recommended that the observation

- model matching be paired as closely as possible in space and time. Typical statistical comparisons of the key meteorological parameters105 will include: comparisons of the means, mean bias, mean normalized bias, mean absolute error, mean absolute normalized error, root mean square error (systematic and unsystematic), and an index of agreement. For modeling exercises over large d omains and entire ozone seasons or years, it is recommended that the operational evaluation be broken down into individual segments such as geographic subregions and/or months/seasons to allow for a more comprehensive assessment of the meteorological stren gths and weaknesses. 59

Discussion of meteorological modeling in the 2007 AQMP

The selection process for the meteorological model is discussed in the Model Protocol. 60
The models considered are listed in TABLE 3: Summary of Proposed 2007 AQMP Model Select ion and Application. 61

58 Tesche, T. W., and D. E. McNally, (2001), "Evaluation of the MM5, RAMS, and SAIMM Meteorological Model for the 6

- 11 September 1993 COAST and 25 August

- 1 September 2000 TexAQS2000 Ozon e SIP Modeling Episodes", report prepared for the Business Coalition for Clean Air

- Appeals Group, prepared by Alpine Geophysics, LLC, Ft. Wright, KY.
59 Guidance p. 163

- 167
60 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., Attachment 3.
61 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendi x V., Attachment 3, p. 13.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 46 2007 AQMP Meteorological Modeling Approach

The SCOS97 field study generated a dataset with a relatively high spatial density of meteorological observations. While this dataset suggests that an objective/diagnostic model could be ade quate to develop the meteorological parameter fields required for air quality modeling of the August SCOS97 episode, there are large portions of the modeling domain

— such as over the ocean or the inland desert

— where there are few observations. The approach for the 2007 AQMP modeling will be to use the MM5 prognostic model with a 5 km grid resolution. The meteorological boundary conditions for MM5 are generated using the output from a Global Climate Model (GCM) with a relatively coarse grid of 45 km. The MM5 prognostic model uses more accurate and complete physics than the diagnostic models used previously. The MM5 has relatively good replication of meteorological features of the Basin, such as the coastal eddies, Santa Ana winds, recirculation, & strong inver sions. The recent air quality models are designed to use inputs from the prognostic models, such as MM5, and the use of such a model is strongly encouraged by USEPA. In the past, the use of MM5 meteorological fields in air quality models has brought limite d success in the prediction of peak ozone concentrations that result from extreme meteorological conditions and complex distribution of precursor emissions. However, the prediction of ozone with MM5 meteorological fields on most days is comparable to the r esults using other models. Since the air quality model will be employed in more of a relative sense for the 2007 AQMP, with the use of relative reduction factors instead of peak concentration comparisons, the MM5 is an appropriate choice for the AQMP model ing. The premise is that the magnitude of RRF will reflect the ozone concentration resulting from the various meteorological episode classifications. With the use of the MM5 meteorological model, the AQMP modeling effort will move closer to the ―one atmosp here‖ air quality modeling perspective (i.e., ozone and fine particles simulated with the same model). The successful application of this prognostic model is critical for the development of multipollutant control strategies. Several MM5 initialization fiel ds and data ingest options are also being explored for the 2007 AQMP modeling effort: 62

• MM5 model initialized with the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) 12 km ETA/North American Model (NAM); • MM5 model with Aerospace Corp 3DVAR foreca st fields; • Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) community model using Aerospace Corporation 3DVAR; • MM5 model with NCEP database of upper air and surface observations and the 1degree by 1 degree Global Tropospheric Analysis • Above method of MM5 with NCEP database and Global Tropospheric Analysis and four

dimensional data assimilation (4DDA) of AQMD station meteorological data (this method is more mass consistent, but may be difficult to capture localized wind impacts (e.g., transport to San Fernando V alley); • Hybrid CALMET with MM5 as background field

62 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., Attachment 3, p. 24.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 47 Meteorological Modeling Domain

Nested domains of 15 km and 5 km are defined within MM5 to simulate meteorological fields for the fine grid scale of the modeling domain. The modeling domain for MM5 is defined in a Lambert

- Conformal projection with two parallels to account for curvature of the Earth within the modeling domain over such a large region. Figure 1 shows the nested MM5 domains. Figure 2 shows the finest scale (interior) MM5 domain, covering m ost of southern California. The vertical structure of MM5 is defined in a terrain

- following, ―sigma‖ coordinate system based upon a normalized pressure index. The 30 vertical layers defined for MM5 to approximately 15,000 m above ground level (AGL) can be transformed to fit the requirements of any air quality model. The MM5 meteorological fields are converted from Lambert

- Conformal projection to UTM coordinates for input into the air quality models.

FIGURE 1: Nested MM5 Domains 63

63 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p. 30TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 48 The horizontal grid resolu tion of the outermost domain is 45 km, for the middle domain is 15 km, and for the fine scale domain is 5 km.

Vertical Resolution

For the terrain

- following MM5 model, the proposed vertical layer consists of 34 layers to a height of over 15,000 meters AGL ,(as shown in Table 6, Vertical Structures for the CAMx Ozone and PM Simulations with Corresponding MM5 Meteorological Model Layers, below). For input into the air quality model, the 34 layers are reduced to match the vertical resolution of the ozone or p articulate matter air quality. 64

64 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., Attachment 3, p. 33TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 49 Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses

Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses for the meteorological modeling have been performed are presented in Chapter 4 of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V , and presented below

. 65

The MM5 data fields were extensively analyzed using the METSAT software. Figure V

- 4

- 5 illustrates the extent of surface meteorological measurements in southern California, and the data used in the meteorological model evaluation were derived from a subs et of the total archive. The summary performance statistics for the July 2005 episode are presented in Table V

- 4

- 8 and Figures V

- 5

- 6 through V

- 4

- 8. (The performance of MM5 for the July 2005 episode was characteristic of that of the remaining five episodes)

. 66

TABLE V

- 4

- 8: METSTAT Statistical Evaluation of MM5

- 4DDA for the July 2005 Episode: AQMD Air Monitoring Stations 67

Discussion

65 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., Attachment 3, p. 52.
66 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V

- 4

- 19.
67 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V

- 4

- 20.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 50 EPA believes the meteorological model choice, domain, horizontal resolution and vertical resolution are appropriate for this application.

8 . Air Quality Model Performance

EPA Recommendations

EPA recommendations for evaluation of model performance for ozone are discussed in the Guidance in Chapter 18.0 What are the Procedures for Evaluating Model Performance and What is the Role of Diagnostic Analyses? in subsection 18.4.1 : Ozone Operational Evaluation

.

Statistics: It is recommended that, at a minimum, the following three statistical measures be calculated for hourly ozone and 8

- hourly maxima ozone over the episode days in an attainment demonstration. • Mean Normalized Bias (MNB): This performance statistic averages the model/observation residual, paire d in time, normalized by observation, over all monitor times/locations. A value of zero would indicate that the model over predictions and model under predictions exactly cancel each other out. The calculation of this measure is shown in Equation 18.1.

(18.1)

• Mean Normalized Gross Error (MNGE): This performance statistic averages the absolute value of the model/observation residual, paired in time, normalized by observation, over all monitor times/locations. A value of zero would indicate that the m odel exactly matches the observed values at all points in space/time. The calculation of this measure is shown in Equation 18.2.

(18.2)

• Average Peak Prediction Bias and Error: These are measures of model performance that assesses only the ability of the model to predict daily peak 1

- hour and 8

- hour ozone. They are calculated essentially the same as the mean normalized bias and error (Equation 18.1 and 18.2), except that they only consider daily maxima data (predicted versus observed) at each monito ring location. In the attainment test, models are used to calculate relative response factors near monitoring sites by taking the ratio of the average 8

- hour daily maximum concentrations calculated for the future and current cases. Thus, the model's abilit y to predict observed mean 8

- hour daily maxima is an important indicator of model performance.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 51 Appendix A provides other statistics such as mean bias, mean error, mean fractional bias, mean fractional error, root mean square error, correlation coefficients , etc. which should also be 46 Past ozone modeling applications have used a minimum cutoff of either 40 ppb or 60 ppb. Due to the interest in predicted ozone concentrations at or above the 8

- hour standards (85 ppb), the higher cut off (60 ppb) is recommended.

The use of a 0 ppb threshold can add valuable information about the ability of the model to simulate a wide range of conditions. Because of the tendency of the MNB and MNGE metrics to inflate the importance of biases at the lowest observed values (which a re in the denominator), it is recommended that the alternate metrics of normalized mean bias (NMB) and normalized mean gross error (NMGE) be used as substitutes for evaluations with no minimum threshold. In certain instances, States/Tribes may also want t o conduct performance evaluations using the ―near the monitor‖ grid cell arrays. A ―near the monitor‖ analysis may be useful when strong ozone gradients are observed, such as in the presence of a sea breeze or in strongly oxidant limited conditions. Furthe rmore, a ―near the monitor‖ performance evaluation is consistent with the RRF methodology calculated to the extent that they provide meaningful information. Wherever possible, these types of performance measures should also be calculated for ozone precurso rs and related gas

- phase oxidants (NOx, NOy, CO, HNO3, H2O2, VOCs and VOC species, etc.) and ozone (and precursors) aloft.

Thresholds: EPA recommends that the three metrics above be calculated two ways: 1) for pairs in which the 1

- hour or 8

- hour observed concentrations are greater than 60 ppb, and 2 ) for all pairs (no threshold) . This will help to focus the evaluation on the models ability to predict NAAQS

- relevant ozone and minimize the effects of the normalization. In terms of pairing model predictions w ith monitored observations, EPA recommends that the grid cell value in which the monitor resides be used for the calculations. It would also be acceptable to consider bi

- linear interpolation of model predictions to specific monitoring locations48. States/T ribes should recognize that, even in the case of perfect model performance, model

observed residuals are unlikely to result in exact matches due to differences between the model predictions which are volume averages and the observations which are point val ues.

Averaging: The statistics should initially be calculated for individual days (averaged over all sites) and individual sites (averaged over all days). As appropriate, States/Tribes should then aggregate the raw statistical results into meaningful grou ps of subregions or subperiods. For example, examination of model performance within and near the non

- attainment area(s) of interest may be more important than examination of performance in other parts of the modeling domain. Similarly, priority may be pla ced on examination of the days that are potentially used in the attainment test (base period days with 8

- hour ozone > 70 or 85 ppb). That is not to say that model performance evaluations should ignore performance on lower ozone days or in areas outside of the nonattainment areas. Simply, additional factors should be considered when prioritizing more detailed analyses.

Plots/Graphics: Along with the statistical measures, EPA recommends that the following four sets of graphical displays be prepared and inclu ded as part of the performance analysis. • Time series plots of model and predicted hourly ozone for each monitoring location in theTSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 52 nonattainment area, as well as key sites outside of the nonattainment area. These plots can indicate if there are particula r times of day or days of the week when the model performs especially poorly. Figure 18.1 shows a sample time series plot. This graphic was developed using the air quality analysis module of the Atmospheric Model Evaluation Tool (AMET) (Appel, 2005) 68 , tho ugh other evaluation tools exist and can be used. 69

Air Quality Model Performance in the AQMP

The air quality model performance is discussed in South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Chapter 4. Base

- year station statistics for each of the ozone episodes are presented in South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 2: Model Performance Statistics.

The SCAQMD evaluated the air quality model performance for several regional zones. The model performance for the San Fernando Valley, the Eastern San Gabriel, Riv erside and San Bernardino Valleys, and Los Angeles and Orange County areas (shown in the map in FIGURE V

- 4

- 9: Performance Evaluation Zones, below) are discussed below. The base

- year performance evaluation for portions of Ventura County , the Mojave Desert and the Coachella Valley are also included in the AQMP.

BASE

- YEAR PERFOMANCE EVALUATION 70

For the CAMx performance evaluation the modeling domain is separated into nine subregions or zones. Figure V

- 4

- 9 depicts the sub

- regional zones used for base

- year simulation performance. The different zones present unique air quality profiles. In previous ozone modeling attainment demonstrations using a smaller modeling domain, the number and size of the zones was different. Seven zones represented the Basin and por tions of Ventura County, the Mojave Desert and the Coachella Valley. For the current analysis the Basin is represented by three of the zones: Zone 3

– the San Fernando Valley, Zone 4

– the Eastern San Gabriel, Riverside and San Bernardino Valleys, and Zone 5

– the Los Angeles and Orange County emissions source areas. Of the four areas, Zone 4 represents the Basin maximum ozone concentrations and the primary downwind impact zone. As such, the priority in evaluating model performance is focus on Zone 4.

68 Appel, W., S. Howard, R. Gilliam, and S. Phillips, (2005), ―The Atmospheric Model Evaluation Tool: Air Quality Module‖, 4th Annual CMAS Models

- 3 Users' Conference, September 26

- 28, 2005, Chapel Hill, NC.
69 Guidance pp. 197

- 200.
70 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V. , p. V

- 4

- 24.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 53 FI GURE V

- 4

- 9: Performance Evaluation Zones 71

71 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V. , p. V

- 4

- 24.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 54 The CAMx ozone simulations generally met the 1

- hour average unpaired peak model performance goal in all three zones on most days. Nearly all stations in zone 4 met the unpaired peak and normalized error goals with performance in zones 3 and 5 lagging,TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 55 part icularly for the May 2005 episode. In general, the bias tends to be negative indicating that model performance tended to under

- predict ozone concentrations. Overall, the 8

- hour average evaluation was slightly better. 72

EPA Discussion of the Model Performan ce Analysis

Based on their analysis, South Coast concludes and EPA agrees that model performance is acceptable for this application.

9

. Modeled Attainment Test for Ozone

EPA Recommendations

a . Modeled Attainment Test

EPA‘s Recommendations are the modeled attainment test are discussed in the Guidance in Section 2.1 : What Is The Recommended Modeled Attainment Test for Ozone and PM 2.5 ?

- An Overview. Ozone specific recommendations are presented in the Guidance in Section 4.2 How Do I Apply The Recommended 8

- Hour Ozone Modeled Attainment Test?

A modeled attainment test is an exercise in which an air quality model is used to simulate current and future air quality. If future estimates of ozone and/or PM2.5 concentrations are less than the NAAQS, then this element of the attainment test is satisfied11. Our recommended test is one in which model estimates are used in a ―relative‖ rather than ―absolute‖ sense. That is, we take the ratio of the model‘s future to current (baseline) predictions at monitors. We call these ratios, relative response factors . Future ozone and/or PM2 .5 concentrations are estimated at existing monitoring sites by multiplying a modeled relative response factor at locations ―near‖ each monitor by the observation

- based, monitor

specific, ―baseline‖ design value. The resulting predicted ―future concentrati ons‖ are compared to NAAQS. 73

Ozone specific recommendations are presented in the Guidance in Section 4.2 How Do I Apply The Recommended 8

- Hour Ozone Modeled Attainment Test? 74

States/Tribes should apply the modeled attainment test at all monitors within t he nonattainment area plus other nearby counties within the State 34 . Inputs described in Section 3.1 are applied in Equation (3.1) to estimate a future design value at all monitor sites and grid cells for which the modeled attainment test is applicable. Wh en determining compliance with the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS, the standards is met if, over three consecutive years, the average 4th highest 8

- hour daily maximum ozone concentration observed at each monitor is < 0.08 ppm (i.e., # 84 ppb using rounding convention s) 35 . Thus, if all resulting predicted future design values (DVF) are # 84 ppb, the test is passed. The modeled attainment test is applied using 3 steps.

72 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V

- 4

- 25.
73 Guidance, p. 15.
74 Guidance, p. 40.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 56 Step 1. Compute baseline design values. Compute site

- specific baseline design values (DVBs) from obse rved data by using the average of the design value periods which include the baseline inventory year.

Step 2. Estimate relative response factors. Use air quality modeling results to estimate a relative response factor for each grid cell near a monitoring site

. (RRF) I = (mean 8

- hr daily max) future / (mean 8

- hr daily max) baseline
Step 3. Calculate future design values for all monitoring sites in the nonattainment area. Multiply the observed baseline design values obtained in Step 1 times the relative response factors obtained in Step 2.

Modeled Attainment Test in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

The modeled attainment test for 8 hour ozone follows EPA‘s recommendations and is discussed in Chapter 4 of the South Coast 2007AQMP

. Ozone Air Quality Projections

CAMx simulations were conducted for the year base emission scenarios (2017 and 2023), and future year controlled scenarios (2017, and 2023). As discussed earlier, the ozone attainment demonstration relies on the use of site specific RRFs being applied to the 2002 weighted design values. The RRFs are determined from the future year controlled and the 2002 base year simulations. 75

Future year 8

- hour ozone attainment demonstrations are required for those sites with design values that exceed 84 ppb. As such, t he current demonstrations are focused on 16 locations in the Basin. The initial screening for station days to be included in the attainment demonstration included the following criteria: (1) having an observed concentration equaling or exceeding 85 ppb and (2) a simulation predicted base year (1997, 2004 or 2005) concentration over 60 ppb. Additional criteria were added to the selection process as the simulations were evaluated.

A minimum of 5

- episode days are recommended to determine the site specific RRF

. The evaluation requires that the model performance for the day is within specific performance goals. The final criteria used to select an episode station day for the RRF calculation included: (1) the base

- year observed concentration lie with 25 percent of the station design value, (2) the absolute prediction accuracy (predicted minus observed in the base

- year) is within 25 percent and (3) that a minimum base

- year observed concentration at each site used in the analysis 85 ppb or greater. A maximum of 19 episode days were evaluated for inclusion in the RRF calculation. If a site did not meet the 5

- episode day threshold, the smaller reduction determined from either the average of the RRFs for all Basin sites or the 19 day average RRF from that site, regard less of model performance, was applied to estimate the future design value at that station.

75 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V

- 4

- 46.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 57 Since the CAMx simulations are run on a 5 km grid, the maximum 8

- hour average concentration from the 49 grid cells representing the monitoring site are used to gen erate the simulated concentration at the monitor. The results of the attainment demonstration for 2023 are presented in Table V

- 4

- 15

.

b . Unmonitored Area Analysis

EPA Recommendations

EPA‘s recommendations for an unmonitored analysis are discussed in the Guidance in Section 3.4: Estimating design values at unmonitored locations: what is an unmonitored area analysis and wh y is it needed?

An additional review is necessary, particularly in nonattainment areas where the ozone or PM 2.5 monitoring netwo rk just meets or minimally exceeds the size of the network required to report data to Air Quality System (AQS). This review is intended to ensure that a control strategy leads to reductions in ozone or PM 2.5 at other locations which could have baseline (an d future) design values exceeding the NAAQS were a monitor deployed there. The test is called an ―unmonitored area analysis‖. The purpose of the analysis is to use a combinationTSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 58 of model output and ambient data to identify areas that might exceed the NAAQS if monitors were located there.

Section 3.4.2: Implementation of Gradient A djusted Spatial Fields, outlines the basic steps in unmonitored area analysis.

Gradient adjusted spatial fields are first created for the base year. Future year estimates can th en be created by applying gridded RRFs to the gradient adjusted spatial fields. The basic steps are as follows:

1) Interpolate base year ambient data to create a set of spatial fields. 2) Adjust the spatial fields using gridded model output gradients (ba se year values). 3) Apply gridded model RRFs to the gradient adjusted spatial fields. 4) Determine if any unmonitored areas are predicted to exceed the NAAQS in the future.

EPA has developed a software package called ―Modeled Attainment Test Software‖ (MATS) which will spatially interpolate data, adjust the spatial fields based on model output gradients and multiply the fields by model calculated RRFs (steps 1

- 3 above) (ABT, 2007). MATS also uses a version of VNA. States will be able to use the EPA

- pr ovided software or are free to develop alternative techniques that may be appropriate for their areas or situations.

Unmonitored analysis provided in the A QMP

The unmonitored area analysis is provided in the 2007 AQMP, including an outline of the process the SCAQMD used to create the Gradient Adjusted Spatial Fields , and a graphical depiction of the results for the base year and future year (with and without control), shown in figures V

- 4

- 17,18,and 19, below.

The process that the SCAQMD used to generate the unmonitored area analysis follows the four steps outlined in the Guidance in Section 3.4.2: Implementation of Gradient A djusted Spatial Fields

. This process is discussed in Chapter 4 of the 2007 AQMP, Appen dix V.

Graphical Distribution

The spatial distribution of ozone design values for the 2002 base year is shown in Figure V

4

- 17. The distribution was generated using GIS mapping of the station based ozone design values overlaid onto the modeling grid wh ile applying a distance weighted interpolation scheme to expand the prediction. Future year ozone air quality projections for 2024 with and without implementation of all control measures are presented in Figures V

- 4

- 18 and V

- 4

- 19. The predicted ozone conce ntration will be significantly reduced in the future years in all parts of the Basin with the implementation of proposed control measures in the South Coast Air Basin. 76

76 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V

- 4

- 4 7.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 59TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 60 As shown in Figure V

- 4

- 19, above, the model

– predicted 2024 controlled 8

- hour ozone design concentrations are at or below 84 ppb for all grid cells in the South Coast Air Basin.

EPA Discussion of the Modeling for the Modeled Attainment Test, including the unmonitored area analysis. The modeled attainment test results at the moni toring sites follow EPA recommendations and support that the South Coast Air Basin area will reach attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards by its attainment date of June 15, 2024 . The unmonitored area analysis also ensures that the control strategy leads to reductions in ozone at other locations which could have baseline (and future) design values exceeding the NAAQS were a monitor deployed there.

10 . Weight of Evidence

EPA Recommendations

EPA‘s Recommendations for the Weight of Evidence Analys is are outlined in Section 2.3 What Does A Recommended Supplemental Analysis/Weight Of Evidence Determination Consist Of?

-- An Overview

. As we describe in more detail in Section 7, States/Tribes should always perform complementary analyses of air quality, emissions and meteorological data, and consider modeling outputs other than the results of the attainment test. Such analyses are instrum ental in guiding the conduct of an air quality modeling application. Sometimes, the results of corroboratory analyses may be used in a weight of evidence determination to show that attainment is likely despite modeled results which may be inconclusive. The further the attainment test is from being passed, the more compelling contrary evidence produced byTSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 61 corroboratory analyses must be to draw a conclusion differing from that implied by the modeled attainment test results. If a conclusion differs from the ou tcome of the modeled test, then the need for subsequent review (several years hence) with more complete data bases is increased. If the test is failed by a wide margin (e.g., future design values outside the recommended range at an individual site or multi ple sites/locations), it is far less likely that the more qualitative arguments made in a weight of evidence determination can be sufficiently convincing to conclude that the NAAQS will be attained. Table 2.1 contains guidelines for assessing when corrobor atory analyses and/or weight of evidence determinations may be appropriate. 77

EPA‘s recommendations for a weight of evidence determination are also discussed in the Guidance in Section 7.2 : What Is Entailed In A Weight Of Evidence Determination?

As discussed in Section 2, augmenting a modeled attainment test with supplemental analyses may yield a conclusion differing from that indicated by the modeled attainment test results alone. Past modeling analyses have shown that future design value uncertaint ies of 2

- 4 ppb for ozone, can result from use of alternate, yet equally appropriate, emissions inputs, chemical mechanisms, and meteorological inputs. Because of this uncertainty, EPA believes that weight of evidence determinations can be used in some cas es to demonstrate attainment conclusions that differ from the conclusions of the model attainment test.

77 Guidance, p. 17.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 62 Weight of Evidence Discussion in the AQMP

The AQMP included a dditional m odeling

- b ased s ensitivity s tudies , discussed below, in the weight of eviden ce discussion. 78

A set of CAMx sensitivity simulations were generated to test, model performance and evaluate alternate emissions scenarios. The stress tests conducted for the PM2.5 modeling analysis were also applied to the ozone simulations where emissi ons motor vehicle emissions were doubled, the model was run solely with biogenic emissions and the top ozone boundary condition was modified. The results of the simulations suggested a better fit of the data when VOC emissions were increase throughout the Basin bringing them in line with the ambient VOC/NOx ratio measured through the PAMS network. Reducing the top concentration (top boundary of the model simulation) resulted in a reduction of surface ozone ranging several ppb, but with no specific trend in time of day. Three ozone simulations were conducted: (Alternative 1) a control strategy of heavy VOC and heavy NOx reductions, (Alternative 2) Extensive VOC reductions and little NOx, and (Alternative 3) the 2003 (previous) AQMP. The results of the simulat ions indicated that only the first scenario could result in attainment of the ozone standards

. South Coast AQMP Air Quality Data

The air quality data from 2000 to 2010 for all ambient ozone monitoring sites in the South Coast Basin are presented in Figu re IB

- 2 in Section I. B. 8

- Hour Ozone Air Quality in the South Coast , of this document. The location of the monitoring sites is shown in Figure IB

- 3

– Ambient Ozone Monitoring Locations In the South Coast Air Basin

. Since comprehensive monitoring began for ozone in the South Coast in the1960s, the area has seen a decline in ambient levels.

11. September 2011 Proposed Action on the Air Quality Modeling and Other Analyses

In our September 16, 2011 proposal, we proposed to find that the modeling analysis used for the attainment demonstration in the 2007 Plan meet s the CAA section 172(c)(1) requirement that the plan ―shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards‖ at the time of its submittal in 2007

, and that the modeli ng in the 2007 Plan provides an adequate basis for the reasonably available control measure, reasonable further progress, and attainment demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan.

1 2

. Evaluation, Conclusion , and Final Action on Air Qualit y Modeling and Other Analyses

The modeling used for the attainment demonstration was made available to the public for comment at the same time as the draft 2007 plan, and was subject to public hearing as part of final version of the Plan.

The air quality modeling documentation in Appendix V of the 2007 AQMP contains all the elements requir ed by EPA‘s modeling guidance. The modeling is based on the best and most

78 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V

- 4

- 54.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 63 current information available at the time the plan was developed. EPA is finding that, taken in balance, the available modeling, evidence, analyses, monitoring data, and additional information support that the South Coast Air Basin area will reach attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards by its attainment date of June 15, 2024 . T he mod eling show s significant reductions in ozone from the base period. The modeling predicts values 83 ppb or below at all of the twenty ozone monitoring stations. EPA has considered the most recent ambient data which indicates that the area is on a track tha t is consistent with achieving attainment of the 8

- hour standards by 2024. Taking these factors together, we believe the modeling, including all the WOE measures, is consistent with attainment

.

Based on our evaluation

, discussed above, we find that the m odeling analysis used for the attainment demonstration in the 2007 Plan meet s the CAA section 172(c)(1) requirement that the plan ―shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards‖ at the time of its submittal in 2007

, an d that the modeling in the 2007 Plan provides an adequate basis for the reasonably available control measure, reasonable further progress, and attainment demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan.

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Finding on the Air Quality Modeling and Other Analys e s for the Attainment Demonstration

We received no comments on our proposed finding that the modeling analysis used for the attainment demonstration meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and EPA modeling guidance. No issues were raised that changed our finding that the air quality modeling in the South Coast 2007 8

- hour ozone plan is consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 64 

### C. Reasonably A vailable Control Measure Demonstration and Control Strategy

1. Requirement s for RACM

CAA s ection 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 th rough 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 r equired 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. See 40 CF R § 51.912(d).

EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM requirement in the General Preamble at 13560 79 and 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 t he requirement to adopt all RACM , states should consider all potential ly reasonable contr ol 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 ar ea‘s attainment date by one year or more

. See 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.‖

For ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above, CAA secti on 182(b)(2) also requires the implementation of reasonably available control technologies on all major sources of VOC and for each VOC source category for which EPA has issued Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) documents. CAA section 182(f) requires that RACT under section 182(b)(2) also apply to major stationary sources of NOx. In extreme 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 section s 182(e) and (f)

.

Under the 8

- hour ozone implementation rule, states are requi red to submit SIP revision s meeting the RACT requirement of CAA sections 182(b) and 182(f) no later than 27 months after designation for the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS (September 15, 2006 for areas designated in April 2004) and to implement the required RACT measu res no later than 30 months after the RACT SIP is due. See 40 CFR § 51.912(a).

79 The ―General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,‖ published at 57 FR 13498 on A pril 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.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 65 EPA defines RACM as any potential control measure for application to point, area, on

- road and non

- road emissions source categories that meets the following five criteria: the c ontrol measure is (1) technologically feasible, (2) economically feasible, (3) does not cause ―substantial widespread and long

- term adverse impacts‖, (4) is not ―absurd, unenforceable, or impracticable‖, and (5) collectively can advance the attainment date by at least one year. General Preamble at 13560.

Any measures that are necessary to meet these requirements which 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. 7 2 FR 20586, at 20614

. CAA Section 172(c)(6) requires nonattainment plans to ―include enforceable emissions limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions o f emissions 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 implementa tion 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 non attainment area‘s attainment date. 40 CFR 51.900 (g).

2. RACM Analysis in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan

The South Coast 2007 AQMP and t he revised 2007 State Strategy are parts of a series of air quality plans that the District and CARB have dev eloped to provide for attainment of the federal air quality standards in the South Coast nonattainment area. 80 These planning efforts have resulted in a comprehensive set of rules and programs that address the majority of emissions in the South Coast
nonat tainment area.

For the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the revised 2007 State Strategy, the District, CARB and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the South Coast metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the area, each undertook a pro cess to identify and evaluate potential RACM that could contribute to expeditious attainment of the 8

- hour ozone standards in the South Coast nonattainment area. We describe each agency‘s efforts below.

80 These plans include the 2003 PM 10 Plan (approved 70 FR 69081, November 10, 2005), the 2003 AQMP addressing the 1

- hour ozone standard (partially approved at 74 FR 10176, March 10, 2009), the 2003 State Strategy (portions that address the South Coast 1

- hour ozone standard partially approved at 74 FR 10176, March 10, 2009) and the South Coast 2007 AQMP (submitted November 28, 2007). We proposed partial approval/partial disapproval of the South Coast 2007 AQMP portion that addresses the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS on July 14, 2011 (see 76 FR 41562) , and finalized that action on November 9, 2011 (see 76 FR 69928)

. Our 2009 final action was challenged in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which pu blished an opinion remanding certain aspects of EPA's action for further action consistent with the opinion. See Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA , 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011). The issues in dispute relate to the consequences of an EPA disapproval of a SIP submittal, the adequacy of EPA's evaluation of a particular control measure from the 2003 State Strategy, and the rationale for EPA's approval of the State's submittal as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)(TCMs to offset growth in emissions from growth in VMT) in the South Coast. EPA has sought rehearing on some of the issues, and the mandate in this case has not yet been issued pending action by the court on the petition for rehearing.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 66 As required by CAA section 1 82(b)(2) and (f) and 40 CFR § 51.912(a) , the District developed a RACT SIP. The District adopted its RACT SIP on July 14, 2006 and CARB submitted it to EPA on January 31, 2007. We found that it met CAA requirements and fully approved it on December 18, 2008, effective Jan uary 20, 2009 (see 73 FR 76947 ).

a. District’s RACM Analysis and Control Strategy

The District‘s RACM analysis and its results are described in Chapter 6 and Appendix VI of the 2007 AQMP. The analysis focused on emissions from stationary and area source s that the District has jurisdiction to regulate . Since the 1970s, the SCAQMD has adopted stationary source control rules that have resulted in significant improvement in air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. In addition to economically and tech nically feasible control requirements, the District has adopted economic inc entive approaches with programs such as the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) and the Carl Moyer program. While the District still relies on command and control regula tions, the District‘s control strategies are now supplemented by market incentives and compliance flexibility approaches where appropriate. These regulations and strategies have yielded significant emissions reductions from sources under the District‘s jur isdiction. In developing the South Coast 2007 AQMP, the District conducted a process to identify RACM for the South Coast which involved public meetings to solicit input, evaluation of EPA suggested RACM, and evaluation of other air agencies‘ regulations. The District conducted a five step process which is described in detail below.

Step 1

- AQMP Summit

In June 2006, the Distri ct conducted a 2007 AQMP Summit . Over 125 attendees including experts from a variety of areas and the public provid ed input on new and innovative approaches to assist the District in attaining the ambient air quality standards for 8

- hour ozone by 2024

. 81 In total, the District received about 200 control measure suggestions. In general, District staff was advised to 1) promote ele ctrification; 2) focus on technology that improves energy efficiency and slows global warming; 3) influence consumer awareness and choice on low

- or zero

- VOC products; 4) incentivize low

- or zero

- emission control technologies; 5) promote the use of remote sensing to detect high polluting vehicles on roads and highways , and 6) improve public participation and multi

- agency collaboration.

Step 2

- U.S. EPA Suggested List of Control Measures

EPA published a list of suggested potential RACT and RACM for P M 2.5 in the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule (see 72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) . As shown in Table 2 of Appendix VI, the District and CARB has included in the 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan control measures for each PM 2.5 RACT and RACM provided by EPA in the preamble to the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule. Since the 2007 AQMP addresses both the 8

- hour ozone and PM 2.5 standards, some of these measures may be more effective in addressing PM 2.5 than ozone attainment.

81 While the applicable attainment date for extreme ozone areas is June 15, 2024, reductions must be implemented by 2023 to achieve attainment by that date. See 40 CFR § 51.908. Therefore, we refer to 2023 as the attainment year and June 15, 2024 as the attainment date.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 67 Step 3

– Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) Update d by U.S. EPA in September 2006

As required in CAA section 172(c)(1)

, the SIP for a nonattainment area must include RACM, including RACT for stationary sources . EPA defines RACT as:

― the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility ‖. 44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979)

Section 182(b)(2) and (f) of the Clean Air Act provides that for each ozone nonattainment area classified as moderate or above, the State must submit a revision to the applicable SIP to implement RACT for each VOC source covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document and any other major stationary source of VOC or NOx l ocated in the area

. We fully approved the CAA section 182 RACT SIP for the South Coast 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area on December 18, 2008. See 73 FR 76947. SCAQMD also looked at the updated CTGs issued by EPA for additional potential RACM measures.

S tep 4

- Other Districts’ Current Rules and Regulations

The District reviewed all rules and regulations recently adopted or amended, from 2000 to 2006, by San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento, Ventura and San Francisco air districts, and compared its rules t o analogous requirements in these other California districts. District staff selected these districts for comparison purposes based on their ozone nonattainment classifications.

Table 3 in Appendix VI of the AQMP contains a brief description of the 82 s ource

- specific rules that staff analyzed and a summary of more stringent requirements adopted by other districts

. In addition, Table 3 also includes a description of the control measures adopted by other agencies for their own 8

- hour ozone plans , and information on advanced technologies or U.S. EPA consent decrees that District staff is aware of that may result in additional emission reductions. In general, the District‘s current rules and regulations are equivalent to or more stringent than tho se developed by other California air districts, with a few exceptions shown in Table 3 where improvements are possible. Therefore, the District developed several control measures to address these areas, such as Control Measure MCS

- 01

– Facility Modernizat ion, MCS

- 07

– Application of All Feasible Measures, and CMB

- 02

– Reduction of Emissions in the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) . Table 3 in Appendix VI identifies these control measures. In general, the areas identified for potential improv ements are to explore the feasibility of lowering emission limits and increasing level of control in order to promote cleaner technologies, lowering VOC content of coatings/solvents, e stablishing standards and test methods for generic control equipment, lo wering release or leak thresholds, encouraging continuous wireless monitoring, improving leak detection, repair, inspection and maintenance, and adding best management practices.

With respect to technological and economic feasibility, the District assum ed that technologies and measures which are available and cost

- effective to implement in other air districts in California, would be avai lable and cost

- effective for implementation in the South Coast Basin in a timely manner. Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) isTSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 68 reevaluated every three years. The District refines emission inventory, emission reduction, and
cost

- effectiveness estimates as well as health benefits on an ongoing b asis, especially during the rule development process. In addition, the District commits to monitor rule development in other air districts, and will conduct further study and reevaluate the feasibility of revising the requirements in existing rules if nec essary. Instead of amending existing rules, new rules may be adopted to implement the control measures described in the South Coast 2007 AQMP in a more effective manner. Prioritization and schedule s fo r adoption and implementation are discussed in Chapte r 7 of the AQMP.

Step 5

- Additional Studies and Analyses

In addition to the above analyses, the District and SCAG have taken the following actions to meet the RACM requirements of the CAA:

• Evaluation of control measures developed by other air di stricts for their air quality management plans as described in Appendix IV

- A.

• Analysis of the s pecific costs of each SCAQMD stationary source and mobile source control measure, if available, as provided in Appendix IV

- A and B.

• Development of a schedule for implementing the control measures

, a s discussed in Chapter 7 of the AQMP, which demonstrates that the District will implement the control measures as expeditiously as practicable considering resources and budgets.

• Completion of a SCAQMD 8

- Hour Ozone RACT SIP Demonstration project which the District submitted to EPA in June 2006 for comment. The District concluded that 1) All SCAQMD rules to implement the 1

- hour ozone SIP fulfill RACT for the 8

- hour ozone SIP, and 2) a ll CTG sources and al l major non

- CTG sources in the Basin are subject to SIP

approved rules satisfying RACT requirements for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards . EPA fully approved the South Coast RACT SIP for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards on December 18, 2008 at 73 FR 76947

. District’s Conclusion Regarding RACM

Following is the summary of the District‘s findings:

The District evaluated all potentially reasonable control measures that were available for implementation in the area and inclusion in the South Coast 2007 AQMP.

The control measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP included all RACM suggeste d by the public and experts.

The control measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP included all RACT and RACM recommended by EPA in the P M 2.5 Implementation Rule

. In general the District‘s rules an d regulations are equivalent to or more stringentTSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 69 than other California districts ‘ rules and regulations and the control measures proposed in their respective SIPs. In several areas identified in Table 3 of Appendix VI of the AQMP , the existing source

- specific rules may be amended to lower the emissions standards, promote cleaner technologies, add additional best management practices, and improve enforceability. District staff will monitor the rule development processes of other air districts, explore all feasib l e control option s, and conduct further analyses to refine the emission inventory, emission reductions associated with specific rules , and cost

- effectiveness analysis.

Based on its RACM analysis for stationary and area sources under its jurisdiction, the District scheduled 15 new or revised stationa ry and area source control measures for development and adoption , including measures at least as stringent as those identified in other C alifornia districts‘ SIPs and several innovative measures

. For example , the District developed innovative stationary source control measu res, such as MCS

- 01

– Facility Modernization, CTS

- 02

- Clean Coating Certification , MCS

- 07

– Application of All Feas ible Measures, and FLX

- 01

– Economic Incentive Progr ams, that were not included in other California districts‘ SIPs

.

As to the few remaining control measures that District staff rejected from the RACM analysis, the District determined that these measures would not advance the attainment date or contribute to RFP due to the insignificant or non

- quantifiable amount of emission reductions that they would generate.

T he RACM demonstration for transportation contro l measures (TCM s) is included in Appendix IV

C. The District is treating all mobile source control measures provided by CARB to SCAQMD as RACM. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix VI, page VI

- 7.

Since the submittal of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, the District has adopted and submitted to EPA 13 of the measures scheduled for development and adoption to meet its commitments and to provide for the implementation of RACM.

Table C

- 1 summarizes the submittal and approval status of District rules. Table C

- 2 provides emissions reduction estimates for those rules.TSD for the Final Approval

of th e South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 70 

### Table C

- 1

. Subm ittal and Approval Status of District Rules in the South Coast 2007 A Q MP for Attainment of the 1997 8

- hour O zone Standards

Rule 445

- Woodburning fireplaces and wood stoves SIP

- approved 74 FR 27716, 6/11/09

Rule 461

– Gasoline transfer and dispensing SIP

- approved 71 FR 18216, 4/11/06

Rule 1110.2

– Liquid and gaseous fuels

– stationary ICEs SIP

- approved 74 FR 18995, 4/27/09

Rule 1111

- Further NOx reductions from space heaters SIP

- approved 75 FR 46845, 08/04/ 10

Rule 1143

- Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi

- Purpose Solvents SIP

- approv ed 76 FR 70888

, 11/16/ 11

Rule 1144

- Vanishing oils and rust inhibitors SIP

- approved 76 FR 70888

, 11/16/ 11

Rule 1145

– Plastic, Rubber, Leather and Glass Coatings SIP

- approved 75 FR 40726, 07/14/10

Rule 1147

– NOx reductions from miscellaneous sources SIP

- approved 75 FR 46845, 08/04/ 10

Rule 1149

- Storage Tank and Pipeline Cleaning and Degassing SIP

- approved 74 FR 67821, 12/21/09TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 71 

### Table C

- 2 . Status of District’s Short and Intermediate Term Control Meas u res in the South Coast 2007

AQMP Attainment Demonstration, as revised in 2011 (tons per summer day) Control

measure Rule No. Title Emissions Reduction Commitment in South Coast 2007 AQMP , as revised in 2011 Emissions Reductions Achieved a

NOx VOC NOx VOC BCM

- 03 445 Woodburning fireplaces and woodstoves n/a n/a 0.1 tpd 0.7 tpd

CTS

- 01 1144 Metalworking fluids and direct

- contact lubricants n/a 2.0 tpd n/a 4.2 tpd

CTS

- 03 b Consumer Products Certification and Emissions Reductions from the Use of Consumer Products at Inst. and Comm‘l Facilities n/a n/a n/a n/a

CTS

- 04 1143 Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi

- Purpose Solvents n/a n/a n/a 10.1 tpd

CMB

- 01 1147 NOx reductions from miscellaneous sources 4.1 tpd 4.1 tpd

FUG

- 02 461 Gasoline transfer and dispensing n/a 4.0 tpd n/a

FUG

- 04 1149 Storage Tank and Pipeline Cleaning and Degassing n/a n/a n/a 0.04 tpd

CMB

- 03 1111 Further NOx reductions from
space heaters 1.1 tpd n/a 3.0 tpd n/a MCS

- 01 1110.2 Liquid and gaseous fuels

– stationary ICEs 2.2 tpd 9.2 tpd 0.54 tpd 0.3 tpdTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 72

Measures not yet adopted, not yet acted on by EPA, or not fully approved by EPA

NOx VOC

MCS

- 01 1146 NOx from industrial, institutional, & commercial boilers, steam generators, and process heaters Emissions reductio ns not currently creditable; EPA proposed limited approval/limi ted disapproval published July 8 , 2011, see 76 FR 40303

1146.1 NOx from small ind, inst, &

comm‘l boilers, steam gens, and proc. htrs Emissions reductio ns not currently creditable; EPA proposed limited approval/limi ted disapproval published July 8 , 2011, see 76 FR 40303

EGM

- 01 2301 Emissions reductions from new or redevelopment projects 0.8 tpd 0.5 tpd Scheduled for adoption in 2012

.

MCS

- 05 1127 Livestock waste n/a 0.6 tpd EPA has not yet acted on.

FLX

- 02 1123 Refinery pilot program n/a 1.6 tpd Scheduled for adoption in 2012. MOB

- 05 AB923 LDV high emitter
program 0.4 tpd 0.7 tpd No rule associated with this

measure. MOB

- 06 AB923 MDV high emitter
program 0.6 tpd 0.6 tpd No rule associated with this

measure. SIP Commitments and Currently Creditable Reductions c

SIP commitment

- NOx 9.2 tpd NOx SIP

- creditable reductions

- NOx 7.7 tpd

SIP commitment

- VOC 19. 3 tpd VOC SIP

- creditable reductions

- VOC 15.3 tpd

a From SCAQMD‘s 2011 ―Revisions to PM2.5 and Ozone State Implementation Plan for South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley,‖ which was included as Appendix F in CARB‘s 2011 Progress Report, Tables 2 and 3, and District rule evaluation forms. Some emission s reduction commitments were revised from the information originally provided in the South Coast 2007 AQMP.
b Adopted by CARB in November 2010.

c EPA can only credit District rules that have been adopted, submitted to EPA, and approved for credit in the S IP

. n/a = not applicableTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 73 b . Lo cal Jurisdiction’s RACM Demonstration

The local jurisdiction‘s RACM demonstration was conducted by the Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG ) , the MPO for the Los Angeles region. This analysis, which focused on transportation control measures (TCMs), and its results are described in Appendix IV

- C of the South Coast 2007 AQMP. TCMs are genera lly measures designed to reduce emissions from on

- road motor vehicles through reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or traffic congestion.

For the South Coast 2007 AQMP, the RACM demonstration for TCMs is included in Appendix IV

- C, The TCMs in the South Coast 2007 AQMP are derived from TCM projects in the 2006 SCAG Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). This evaluation, described beginning on page 49 of Appendix IV

- C of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, resulted in extensive local government c ommitments to implement programs to reduce auto travel and improve traffic flow. South Coast 2007 AQMP page 6

- 6 and Appendix IV

- C. SCAG also provided reasoned justifications for any measures that it did not adopt. Attachment A to Appendix IV

- C contains an extensive list of TCMs in process and newly programmed TCMs.

c . CARB’ s RACM Demonstration and Control Strategy

CARB describes its proposed strategy to reduce emissions from sources within its jurisdiction

– on

- and off

- road engines and vehicles, fuels, and consumer products

- in Chapter 3 of the 2007 State Strategy. CARB has unique authority under the CAA to adopt standards for most categories of on

- and off

- road engines and vehicles, subject in most instances to a waiver by EPA under CAA section 209.

CARB developed its proposed statewide strategy after an extensive public consultation
process to identify potential SIP measures. It included a SIP Symposium in October 2006 and a workshop in November 2006 to discuss development of potential control concep ts for meeting the federal 8

- hour ozone and PM 2.5 standards. 82 CARB made a draft of the 2007 State Strategy available for public review in April 2007 and conducted a series of public workshops on the draft . On April 26, 2007, CARB staff released a revised draft of the Proposed State Strategy that incorporated changes based on further staff analysis and public comments. CARB Resolution 07

- 28, p. 3.

From this process, CARB identified and committed to propose 15 new defined

measures to address California‘s ozone and PM 2.5 nonattainment problem

. 2009 State Strategy Update, p. 23 and CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B, p. 8. These measures focus on cleaning up the in

- use (legacy) mobile source fleet as well as increasing the stringen cy of emission standards for a number of engine categories and further reductions from motor vehicle fuels and consumer products. M any if not most of these measures have been adopted for the first time anywhere in the nation. They build on CARB‘s already comprehensive program to address emissions of NOx and VOC from all types of mobile sources through both regulations and

82 More information on this public process including presentations from the workshops and symposium that preceded the adoption of the 2007 State Strategy can be found at www.arb.ca.gov/planning/si p/2007sip/2007sip.htm

.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 74 incentive programs, as well as from fuels and consumer products . See 2007 State Strategy , p. 38. Table C

- 3 lists these 15 CARB measures and includes one additional measure each from the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). Table C

- 4 provides the list of these measures and their adoption and implementation schedul e s as updated in CARB‘s 2011 Ozone SIP Revision

.



### T able C

- 3 . 2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for Consideration

Defined State Measure Expected Adoption Expected Implementation

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 2007

- 2008 by 2010

Expanded Vehicle Retirement (with BAR) 2008

- 2014 2008

- 2014

Modification to Reformulated Gasoline Program 2007 Phase in starting 2010

Cleaner In

- Use Heavy Duty Trucks 2008 2010

- 2015 Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Clean Technologies 2007

- 2008 Phase in starting 2010

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels Fuel: 2007 Engines: 2009 Fuel: 2007

- 2010 Engines: Phase in starting 2010

Port Truck Modernization 2007

- 2008 2008

- 2020

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Line

Haul Locomotives (enforceable agreement) 2007

- 2008 Starting in 2012

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts 2007 2009

- 2018

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment 2007 Phase in starting 2008

Clean er In

- Use Agricultural Equipment 2009 Phase in starting 2014

New Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats 2009

- 2010 2012

- 2013 Expanded Off

- Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions Standards By 2010 2012

- 2015 Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above Ground Storage Tanks 2007 Phase in starting 2008

Additional Evaporative Emissions Standards By 2010 2010

- 2012

Consumer Products Program (I & II) 2007

- 2008 & 2010

- 2012 By 2010 By 2012

- 2014 Pesticide Regulation (DPR) 2008 2008 Source: 2009 State Strategy Update, p. 23TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 75 

### Tabl e C

- 4

. 2007 State Strategy Measures Schedule for Consideration,

as updated in July 2011

State Measure Expected Adoptio n Year Implementation Year

Smog Check Improvements 1 2007

- 2009 2008

- 2010; 2013 Expanded Vehicle Retirement (AB 118) 2007 2009 Modification to Reformulated Gasoline Program 2007 2010

Cleaner In

- use Heavy Duty Trucks 2007, 2008, 2010 2011

- 2015 Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Clean Technologies 2007

- 2008 2010 Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels 2 Fuel : 2008

- 2011 Engines: 2008 Fuel: 2009

- 2015 Engines: 2011

Port Truck Modernization 2007

- 2008 , 2010 2008

- 2020 Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Line

- Haul Locomotives 3 2 008 2012 Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft 2007 , 2010 2009

- 2018 Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment 4 2007 , 2010 2009

New Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats 5 See notes See notes

Expanded Off

- Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions Standards 5 See notes See notes Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above Ground Storage Tanks 2008 2009

- 2016

Additional Evaporative Emissions Standards 5 2009 2010

- 2012

See notes S ee notes

Consumer Products Program (I & II) 200 8 2010 2009 2013

- 2014 2011 2014 Department of Pesticide Regulation rules 2008 , 2009 2009

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revision , Appendix D, Table B

- 1.
1 In 2010, the State Legislature improved the effectiveness of the Smog Check program (AB 2289), requiring the Bureau of Automotive Repair to direct older vehicles to high performing auto technicians and test stations for inspection and certification. This new program will be effective in 2013.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 76 2 I n July 2008, ARB adopted a regulation that applies to ships operating within 24 nautical miles (nm) of the California coastline and visiting California ports. These vessels must use less polluting marine distillate fuel for their main engines, auxiliary engines, and boilers instead of heavy fuel o il. The first phase of cleaner fuel for ship main engines took effect in 2009, with a second phase currently scheduled for 2012. By 2015, the International Maritime Organization‘s fuel sulfur requirements for the North American Emissions Control Area will match CARB‘s phase 2 standards and extend out to 200 miles from the California coastline.
3 In 2008, ARB awarded Prop 1B funds to upgrade line

- haul locomotive engines not already accounted for by enforceable agreements with the railroads. Those cleaner lin e

- hauls will being operation in 2012.
4 R eductions begin in 2014.
5 E xpected action in 2013, with implementation schedules to be determined in rulemaking process.

Table C

- 5 provides CARB‘s estimate of the emissions reductions associated with each measure. Table C

- 6 provides EPA‘s estimate of the creditable emissions reductions associated with State and District measures.



### Table C

- 5. Expected Emissions Reductions from Defined Measures in the Revised 2007 State Strategy for the South Coast 8

- Hour Ozo ne

Nonattainment Area (tons per summer day, 2023)

Measure NO x VOC
Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 1.2 5.3

Cleaner In

- Use Heav y

- Duty Trucks 27.4 1.3

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment (> 25 hp) 3.2 0.3
Ship Auxiliary Engine Cold Ironing & Clean Tech. 28.4 0.7
Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuel

- Main Engines 44.5 0.8

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line

- Haul Locomotives 0 0 Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft 10.0 0.4 Cargo Handling Equipment 0 0

New Emission Standards for Recreational Boats 0 0
Expanded Off

- Road Rec. Vehicle Emissions Standards 0
Consumer products n/a 7.1
All other local, state, and federal measures 10.4 15.3

Totals: 125 31.3

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revision Supplement, Attachment 1. Only defined measures with VOC and/or NO x reductions in the South Coast are shown here. n/a = not applicableTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 77 Table C

- 6. Creditable Reductions from Defined Measures in the Revised 2007 State

Strategy for the South Coast 8

- Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

(tons per summer day, 2023)

S tate Measure NO x VOC Status

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) a 1.2 5.3 Elements a pproved , see 75 FR 38023, 7/1/ 2010

Cleaner In

- Use Heav y

- Duty Trucks 27.4 1.3 Proposed for Approval ; see 76 FR 40562, 7/ 1 1/ 2011

Modifications to Reformulated Gasoline
program 0 0 Approved, see 75 FR 26653, 5/ 1 2/2010

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment (> 25 hp) 3.2 0.3 Waiver measure

Ship Auxiliary Engine Cold Ironing & Clean Tech. 28.4 0.7 Waiver granted; 76 FR 77515, December 13, 2011.

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuel

- Main Engines 44.5 0.8 Proposed for approval 76 FR 40652

, 7/11/2011

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line

- Haul Locomotives 0 0 Prop 1B 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. Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft 10.0 0.4 Waiver authorized, 76 FR 77521, December 13, 2011.

Consumer Products 0 7.1 74 FR 57074

, 11/4/09; 76 FR 27613 , 5/12/11 ; signed approval 12/7/11.

All other local, state, and federal measures 7.7 15.3 See Table C

- 2 in this TSD

Totals: 122.4 31.3

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revision Addendum, and CARB. Only defined measures with VOC and/or NO x, reductions in the South Coast are shown here.

c See Footnote 1 to Table C

- 4.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 78 d . CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technologies Provision

1. Requirements of the CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technologies Provision

For ozone nonattainment areas classified as extreme, the CAA recognizes that these areas may have to rely to a certain extent on new or evolving technologies to achieve the emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment, given t he relatively long time between developing the initial plan and the degree of emissions reductions neede d to attain the standards . These measures would include those that may anticipate future technological developments or future improvements in existing technology as well as those that may require complex analyses and decision making and coordination among a number of government agencies.

CAA s ection 182(e)(5) allows EPA to approve provisions in an extreme area nonattainment area plan which anticipate development of new control technologies, or improvement of existing control technologies and to approve an attainment demonstration based on these provisions. However, before EPA can approve these provisions and the attainment demonstration, the state must demonstrate to the ―satisfaction of the Administrator‖ that

1. the provisions are not nec essary to achieve the incremental reductions required during the first 10 years after November 15, 1990; 83 and

2. the State has submitted enforceable commitments to develop and adopt contingency

measures to be implemented if the anticipated technologies do no t achieve the planned reductions. Under section 182(e)(5), t he S tate must submit its contingency measures no later than 3 years before the original long

- term measure was to have been implemented , and they must be adequate to produce emissions reductions su fficient, in conjunction with other approved plan provisions, to achieve the periodic emissions reductions and to attain the ozone standards by the applicable dates. If the EPA determines that the extreme area has failed to achieve an emissions reductions requirement set forth in section 182 (b)(1) or (c)(2) and that such failure is due in whole or part to an inability to fully implement provisions (related to new technologies) described in section 182(e) (1 through 4) and approved pursuant to section 182(e )(5), the Administrator will require the State to implement the contingency measures to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with the emissions reduction requirements of section 182 (b)(1) and (c)(2). E PA will set a schedule for implementing contingen cy measures upon making a finding of failure to meet a milestone. 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

mea sures. Id. The General Preamble also provides that EPA will set a schedule for implementing

83 Consistent with provisions in our implementation regulations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X, we interpret this 10

- year timeframe to run from the effective date of designation for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 79 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.

2. CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technologies Provision in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan

The State Strategy and South Coast AQMP rely on commitments to achieve additional reductions of 241 tpd NOx and 40 tpd VOC by 2023 from new and improved technologies consistent with the requirements of section 182(e)(5). See 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 20. The new technology provisions (also called ―long

- term measures‖) described in the revised 2007 State Strategy and South Coast 8

- Hour Ozone SIP are not relied on to demonstrate RFP; they are relied on solely for attainment by June 15, 2024. They are accompanied by an enforceable commitment by the State to adopt and submit contingency measures no later tha n 3 years before implementation, as required by CAA section 182(e)(5). See CARB Board Resolution 11

- 22, July 21, 2011, p. 4. We provide our analysis of these new technology provisions below.

To determine if existing technologies could provide sufficien t emissions reductions for attainment, CARB analyzed whether current and foreseeable mobile source NOx controls, if fully deployed, would provide sufficient emissions reductions for attainment in the South Coast by 2020

. C ARB included in this analysis the phasing in of the cleanest new technology standards from 2007

- 2017 that C ARB and U.S. EPA have already adopted for diesel engines: 0.2 g/bhp

- hr

on

- road truck standards in 2010, full offroad Tier 4 standards in 2014, and the recent U.S. EPA

proposed low

- NOx standards for locomo tive engines starting in 2017. The results are summarized on page 54 of the 2007 State Strategy. For the South Coast, the totals of remaining emissions after full clean

- up of the legacy diesel fleets we re still greater than the NOx car rying capacity for the area

. This fiscally

- unconstrained scenario shows that in 2020, the South Coast would still be approximately 133 tpd above its attainment target of 114 tpd of NOx. 2007 State Strategy, p. 54.

CARB and the California districts have a longstanding history of successfully adopting and implementing technology

- advancing regulations and innovative control measures. They have worked closely with research scientists and the regulated industry to craft 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.

CARB has also provided updates to its list of potential long

- term me asures in both the 2009 State Strategy update and the 2011 ozone SIP revision. See 2009 State Strategy Status Report, pp. 25

- 27 and 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix A, pp. A

- 8 to A

- 12. In the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, CARB reasserts its commitment to ensur e that measures are identified no later than 2020 and the emissions reductions are achieved by 2023. 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix A, p. A

- 8.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 80 To implement the long

- term strategy, CARB has committed to a process that will help ensure that the long

- ter m measures are adopted and that reductions are achieved by the beginning of the last full ozone season before the attainment date. CARB is coordinating a government, private and public effort to establish emission goals for critical mobile and stationary e mission 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 the results of its efforts to identify emerging emissions reduction opportunities, promising technologies, and the progress made in developing long

- term emission reduction mea sures with the public through periodic briefings to the Board, workshops, conferences, symposia, website postings and other means, (b) working to secure resources in the future for continuing research and development of new technologies, and (c) developmen t of schedules for moving from control technology 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 Distric ts to commit to developing and deployment of new sustainable technologies to accelerate progress in meeting air quality goals. The goal of the MOA is to improve air quality by align ing agency research resources , where possible and appropriate, to ev aluate innovative technologies that have the potential to reduce emissions, and to develop and assess new monitoring equipment to better measure mobile and stationary source emissions. These agencies also intend to coordinate research efforts with other pu blic and private stakeholders, including other federal departments and agencies and other local and state entities with the goal of using the resources and capacities of a wide sector of government and the business community in projects to develop, demonst rate, and assess new technologies for clean air.

The agencies involved in the MOA have also established a Clean Air Technology Working Group to help bring together the necessary participants (e.g., scientists, engineers, analysts and agency specialists) t o achieve the goals of the MOA. 2009 State Strategy Status Report, pp. 25

- 27. For the South Coast, the focus has been on demonstrating new technologies for goods movement activities at a large intermodal rail yard in the City of San Bernardino, and on the more than 1000 stationary and area emission sources in the City of San Bernardino (e.g., auto repair shops, transportation facilities, concrete and aggregate operations, military installations, printing and coating operations, and manufacturing facilities)

. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix A, p. A

- 9.

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 g as es (GHG) in 2020 to 1990 levels or by about 30%. Reducing emissions from combustion sources is at the core of California‘s AB32 Scoping Plan and is also central to meeting the federal ozone standards

.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 81 Regulations adopted as part of AB32 will provide emissions reductions that will be incorporated into future air quality plans fo r ozone and fine particles.

California‘s Air Qual ity Improvement Program (AQIP) is an incentive program administered by CARB to fund clean vehicle and equipment projects, research on biofuels production, and the air quality impact of alternative fuels, as well as workforce training. The program supports the deployment of hybrid and zero

emission vehicles and other advanced technologies today in order to achieve the large

- scale reductions needed in the future . California‘s large funding commitment for hyb rid truck technology provides emissions benefits today as well as likely enabling heavy

- duty hybrid trucks to become commonplace in the near future through encouraging production economies of scale. AQIP is also providing vehicle purchaser incentives for z ero emission passenger vehicles, plug

in hybrid cars, electric lawnmowers, and demonstration projects for cleaner marine and locomotive engines.

California‘s annual research program, which identifies projects and provides funding to help provide timely sc ientific and technical information needed for State and local air quality control programs. Specifically, this program supports CARB‘s mission to understand air pollution health effects and exposures, develop and implement strategies to reduce GHG emission s and energy consumption, and support the development of technologies and non

- technological strategies that address multiple air quality priorities.

In addition to 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 the beginning of the 2023 ozone season. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, p. A

- 8.

CARB‘s 2011 Ozone SIP Revision updates and reaffirms 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. 84

The SCAQMD has also provided a list of potential advanced control technologies and innovative ap proaches that could achieve the long

- term reductions (See South Coast 2007 AQMP, pp. 4

- 54 to 4

- 71). SCAQMD also has an active Technology Advancement Office. The South Coast technology advancement efforts include, though are not limited to: Heavy

- Duty Class 8 Electric Trucks, Vehicle Maintenance, Commercial Green Cleaners, Fireplace Gas Log

84 See letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated August 29, 2011.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 82 Buy

- down, Residential Yard Equipment and Commercial Leaf Blower Exchange, Boiler and Process Heater Efficiency Upgrades, Architectural Coating Rebates, and zero

- emission electric delivery trucks.

The South Coast 2007 AQMP includes a discussion of CAA section 182(e)(5) new technologies in Chapter 4, ―AQMP Control Strategy‖, starting on page 4

- 54. Because the modeling in the South Coast 2007 AQMP projects an attainment date of 2023, and by 2023, emis sions will be dominated by mobile sources, the District has determined that a NOx

- heavy control strategy supplemented with additional VOC reductions will be the most effective ozone strategy for the region. Long

- term reductions are based on measures that a nticipate the development of new control techniques or improvement of existing control techniques for mobile

sources.

The amount of reductions needed from this provision of the CAA is determined by the difference between the final attainment target (114 tpd of NOx and 420 tpd of VOC) and the emissions remaining after the implementation of short

- term and mid

- term control measures. The difference is 241 tpd of NOx and 40 tpd of VOC in the South Coast 8

- hour ozone nonattainment

area.

Table C

- 7 provides som e of the approaches that the District is considering to meet the requirements of CAA Section 18 2(e)(5). The measures in Table C

- 7 fall into four broad categories:

Further reductions from on

- road mobile sources,

Further reductions from on

- road heavy

- duty v ehicles,
Further reductions from off

- road mobile sources, and
Further re ductions from consumer products



### Table C

- 7 . Possible Approaches for Long

- Term Control Measures in

the South Coast 2007 AQMP

Light Duty Vehicles Extensive retirement of high

- emitting vehicles and accelerated penetration of PZEVs and ZEVs

On

- Road Heavy Duty Vehicles Expanded modernization and retrofit of heavy

- duty trucks and buses Expanded inspection and maintenance program
Advanced near

- zero and zero

- emitting cargo transportation technologies

Off

- Road Vehicles Expanded modernization and retrofit of off

- road equipmentTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 83 

### Table C

- 7 . Possible Approaches for Long

- Term Control Measures in

the South Coast 2007 AQMP

Marine Vessels More stringent emissions standards and programs for new and existing ocean

- going vessels and harbor craft

Locomotives Advanced near

- zero and zero

- emitting cargo transportation technologies

Pleasure Craft Accelerated replacement and retrofit of high

- emitting engines

Aircraft More stringent emissions standards for jet aircraft (engine standards, clean fuels, retrofit controls); Airport Bubble

Consumer Products Ultra low

- VOC formulations; reactivity

- based controls

Renewable Energy Accelerated use of renewable energy and development of hydrogen technology and infrastructure

AB32 Implementation Concurrent criteria pollutant reduction technologies

Source: South Coast 2007 AQMP, Table 4

- 9, page 4

- 56

. Further reductions from on

- road mobile sources

The District would work to achieve further NOx reductions from on

- road mobile source categories through 1) accelerated turnover of high

- emitting vehicles and penetration of Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emission Vehicle ( ATPZEVs ) and zero emission vehic les (ZEVs), 2) expanded modernization of heavy

- duty vehicles through replacement or retrofits; 3) fuel reformulations and use of alternatives to diesel fuel, and 4) advanced near

- zero and zero

emitting goods movement technologies.

Further reductions from on

- road heavy

- duty vehicles

The District proposes to work on the development of expanded inspection and maintenance (I/M) program for heavy

- duty diesel trucks by 2015. The smoke inspection program already in existence would be expanded to include 1) vi sual inspection of the emissions control devices, 2) an electronic check of the engine‘s on

- board computer, and 3) the use of remote sensing technology to analyze in

- use heavy

- duty truck emissions.

Further reductions from off

- road mobile sources

This co ntrol measure would achieve further NOx reductions from various off

- road mobile source categories through 1) accelerated turnover of existing equipment and vehicles, replacing them with equipment meeting newer emissions standards, 2) retrofit of existing

v ehicles and equipment with add

- on controls such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR), and 3) new engine standards for source categories such as aircraft and ships.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 84 Further reductions from consumer products

After the implementation of the control strate gy in the South Coast 2007 AQMP, consumer products will be the largest source of VOC in the South Coast air basin. The District would therefore implement low

- VOC technologies developed for stationary sources into categories with similar uses in consumer pr oducts. Additionally, the use of lower reactive VOC compounds could offer the potential for achieving additional reductions.

Other Control Programs and Commitments

The State and District have a number of other programs which are not all directed at

ozon e attainment but may provide concurrent reductions. Under Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the State of California has established the goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Under AB32, CARB must establish a mandatory reporting and t racking system, update the emissions inventory, and develop appropriate regulations to achieve maximum technologically feasible

In addition, the South Coast AQMD has identified a ―clean energy‖ strategy that focuses agencies and business leaders on using the cleanest technologies, making efficient land

- use decisions, cleaner energy generation (solar and fuel cells), modernizing old inefficient power plants and improving building energy use. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, pp. A

- 10 to A

- 12.

3. Control Str

ategy

a . Control Strategy in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and Revised 2007 State Strategy

For the purposes of evaluating the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, we have divided the measures relied on in the attainment and RFP demonstrations and to meet the contingency measures requirement into two categories: baseline measures and control strategy

measures.

As the term is used here, baseline measures are federal, State, and District rules and regulations adopted prior to October 2006 (i.e., pr ior to the development of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy) that continue to generate emissions reductions through to the attainment year of 2023 and beyond. 85 2007 S tate Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1 , and South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, p. III

- 2

- 3. Reductions from these measures are incorporated into the baseline inventory and, for the most part, not individually quantified. These measures provide the majority of emissions reductions needed to attain the 8

- hour ozone standards in the So uth Coast nonattainment area. See Tabl e D

- 1 in this TSD.

C ontrol strategy measures are the new rules, rule revisions, commitments and other adjustments to the inventory that provide the additional increment of emission reductions needed

85 These measures are typically rules that have compliance dates that occur after the adoption date of a plan and mobile source measures that generate reductions through fleet turnover.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 85 beyond the basel ine measures to demonstrate RFP and attainment , meet RACM and/or RACT, and/or provide for contingency measures.

We evaluate the control strategy measures in this section. Baseline measures are listed in Appendices A and B to this TSD.

c. District Control Strategy Measures and Commitments

For the South Coast 2007 AQMP, the District identified and commi tted to updating and adopting 15 control measures to reduce emissions of NOx and/or VOC, as well as direct PM 2.5 and SOx since the South Coast 2007 AQMP add resses both 8

- hour ozone and PM 2.5 attainment. In Table C

- 1 above , we list the anticipated timing of the expected emissions reductions from these measures; however, we note that the District‘s commitment is only to aggregate emissions reductions. See Sou th Coast 2007 AQMP, p. 4

- 2 and 4

- 73 and SCAQMD Governing Board Resol u tion 07

- 9, p. 10. In Table C

- 1, we provide the current SIP submittal and approval status of the measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP . As can be seen from Table C

- 1 , the District has la rgely met its rulemaking schedule, and has only a few rule actions remaining. In Table C

- 2

, we show the emissions reductions, as given in the South Coast 2007 AQMP as revised in 2011, and in individual rule submittals, for the measures that have been appro ved by EPA and for the measures that have been adopted by the District and su bmitted to EPA, respectively. The reductions listed in Table C

- 2 are the ones anticipated to be achievable from each rule at the time the South Coast 2007 AQMP was adopted. Actua l reductions from each rule once adopted may be greater or less t han the anticipated reductions.

c

. CARB Measures and Commitments

The 2007 State Strategy includes a commitment by CARB to propose new defined measures. 2007 State Strategy, page 62, and CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B, page 8 and 2011 Progre ss Report, Appendix B. Table C

- 4 above lists these defined measures and their current adoption and approval status. These measures focus on cleaning up the in

- use fleet as well as increasing the s tringency of emissions standards for a number of engine categories, fuels, and consumer products. They build on CARB‘s existing program, which addresses emission from all types of mobile sources through both regulations and incentive programs. As can be

se en from this table, the State has already adopted and EPA has approved or proposed to approve, or is in the process of granting waivers under CAA section 209

, for most of these measures. These new measures build on the State‘s already extensive list of ado pted measures, which can be found in the 2007 State Strategy (page 38) and in Appendix A of this TSD.

California has adopted standards for many categories of on

- and off

- road vehicles and engines, gasoline and diesel fuels, and numerous categories of cons umer products. The State‘s measures fall within two categories: measures for which the State has obtained or has applied to obtain a waiver of federal pre

- emption under CAA section 209 (―section 209 waiver measure‖ or ―waiver measure‖) and those for which the State is not required to obtain a waiver (―non

- waiverTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 86 measure‖). See EPA‘s proposed approval and final approval of the SJV 1

- Hour Ozone Plan at 74 FR 33933, 33938, (July 14, 2009) and 75 FR 10420, 10424 (March 8, 2010). 86

i

. Section 209 Waiver Measures

A waiver under CAA section 209 is, in general, required for most of California‘s on

- and nonroad vehicle or engine standards

. Examples of State waiver measures are: low emission vehicle program, heavy duty bus standards, and small off

- road engine standard s

. A list of California‘s waiver measures can be found in Appendix A of this TSD

. California‘s motor vehicle emissions control program predates the first federal statute regulating motor vehicle emissions, the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control A ct of 1965 (which amended the CAA of 1963)

. In further CAA amendments, referred to as the Air Quality Act of 1967 (Pub. L. 90

- 148), Congress allowed the State of California, and only California, a waiver of the Air Quality Act‘s pre

- emption of state emissi ons standards for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines because of California‘s pioneering efforts and unique problems

. This was not changed when the statute was amended in 1970

. The 1977 amendments to the CAA expanded the flexibility granted to California in order ―to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare.‖ (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301

- 2 (1977)

. So long as California determines that its motor vehicle standards are ―in the aggregate‖ at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards, title II of the CAA requires EPA, unless it makes certain findings, to waive the Act‘s general prohibition on state adoption and enforcement of standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines

. See CAA section 209 , subsections (a) and (b). As part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress enacted subsection (e) of se ction 209. In nearly identical language to subsections (a) and (b) of section 209, subsection (e) sets forth the federal pre

- emption of state emissions standards for nonroad vehicles or engines but allows the State of California, and only California, a wai ver of pre

- emption (with certain exceptions) under criteria that mirror the section 2 09(b) waiver provisions for motor vehicles.

In EPA ‘s review of the California SIP and its many revisions, EPA has historically allowed emission s reduction credit for the motor vehicle emissions standards that are subject to a section 209(b) waiver without requiring California to submit the standards themselves to EPA for approval as part of the California SIP

. In this respect

, EPA treated these ru les similarly to the federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed states to credit in their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision

. Since 1990, EPA has treated California nonroad standards for which EPA has issued waivers in the same manner as California motor vehicle standards, i.e., allowing credit for standards subject to the waiver process without requiring submittal of the standards as part of the SIP . In so doing, EPA has treated the California nonroad standa rds similarly to the Federal nonroad standards, which are relied upon, but not included in, various SIPs.

86 EPA ‘s position is also discussed in Brief of Respondents, Sierra Club, et al., And Committee for a Better Arvin, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al

., United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case Nos. 10

- 71457 and 10

- 71458, May 5, 2011, pp. 33

- 44 , which may be found in the docket for today‘s rulemaking

.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 87 Credit for Federal measures, including those that establish on

- road and nonroad standards, notwithstanding their absence in the SIP, is justified by reference to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which establishes the following content requirements for SIPs: ―... enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), ... , as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.‖ (emphasis added). Federal measures are permanent, independently enforceable (by EPA and citizens), and quantifiable without regard to whether they are approved into a SIP, and thus EPA has never found such measures to be ―necessary or appropriate‖ for inclusion in SIPs to meet the applicable requirements of the Act. Section 209 of the CAA establishes a process under which EPA allows California‘s waiver measures to substitute for Federal measures, and like the Federal measures for which they substitute, EPA has historically found, and continues to find, based on considerations of permanence, enforceability, and quantifiability, that su ch measures are not ―necessary or appropriate‖ for California to include in its SIP to meet the applicable requirements of the Act.

First, with respect to permanence

, we note that, to maintain a waiver, CARB‘s on

- road waiver measures can be relaxed only to a level of aggregate equivalence to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) . See section 209(b)(1)

. In this respect, the FMVCP acts as a partial backstop to California‘s on

- road waiver measures (i.e., absent a waiver, the FMVCP would apply in California)

. Likewise, Federal nonroad vehicle and engine standards act as a partial backstop for corresponding California nonroad waiver measure s

. The constraints of the waiver process thus serve to limit the extent to which CARB can relax the waiver meas ures for which there are corresponding EPA standards, and thereby serve an anti

- backsliding function similar in substance to those established for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193

. Meanwhile, the growing convergence between California and EPA m obile source standards diminishes the difference in the emissions reductions reasonably attributed to the two programs and strengthens the role of the Federal program in serving as an effective backstop to the State
program

. In other words, with the harmon ization of EPA mobile source standards with the corresponding State standards, the Federal program is becoming essentially a full backstop to most parts of the California program. Second, as to enforceability, w e note that the waiver process itself bestows enforceability onto California to enforce the on

- road or nonroad standards for which EPA has issued the waiver. CARB has as long a history of enforcement of vehicle/engine emissions standards as EPA, and CARB‘s enforcement program is equally as rigorous as the corresponding EPA
program

. The history and rigor of CARB‘s enforcement program lends assurance to California SIP revisions that rely on the emissions reductions from CARB‘s rules in the same manner as EPA‘s mobile sou rce enforcement program lends assurance to other state ‘s SIPs in their reliance on emissions reductions from the FMVCP. While it is true that citizens and EPA are not authorized to enforce California waiver measures under the Clean Air Act (i.e., because t hey are not in the SIP), citizens and EPA are authorized to enforce EPA standards in the event that vehicles operate in California without either California or EPA certification.

As to quantifiability, EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motor

vehicle

- related waiver measures by allowing California to include motor vehicle emissionsTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 88 estimates made by using California‘s EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reductions from motor

- vehicle

related waiver measures through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updated from time to time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly

- es tablished e missions standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA‘s motor vehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as MOBILE.) The EMFAC model is based on the motor vehicle emissions standards for which California has received waivers from EPA but acco unts for vehicle deterioration and many other factors

. The motor vehicle emissions estimates themselves combine EMFAC results with vehicle activity estimates, among other considerations

. See the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, and the related EPA rulemakin gs approving the plan (see 48 FR 5074 (February 3

, 1983) for the proposed rule and 48 FR 57130 (December 28, 1983) for the final rule) as an example of how the waiver measures have been treated historically by EPA in California SIP actions. 87 T he South Coas t 2007 8

- hour ozone plan was developed using a version of the EMFAC model referred to as EMFAC200 7, which EPA has approved for use in SIP development in California. See 73 FR 3464 ( January 18, 2008 ). Thus, the emissions reductions that are from the Califor nia on

- road ―waiver measures‖ and that are estimated through use of EMFAC are as verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied upon by states other than California in developing their SIPs based on estimates of motor vehicle emissions made through the use of the MOBILE model.
Moreover, EPA‘s waiver review and approval process is analogous to the SIP approval
process

. First, CARB adopts its emissions standards following notice and comment procedures at the state level, and then submits the rules to EPA as part of its waiver request

. When EPA receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal Register following the public comment period

. Once again, in s ubstance, the process is similar to that for SIP approval and supports the argument that one hurdle (the waiver process) is all Congress intended for California standards, not two (waiver process plus SIP approval process)

. Second , just as SIP revisions ar e not effective until approved by EPA, changes to CARB‘s rules (for which a waiver has been granted) are not effective until EPA grants a new waiver, unless the changes are ―within the scope‖ of a prior waiver and no new waiver is needed. Third, both types of final actions by EPA

-- i.e., final actions on California requests for waivers and final actions on state submittals of

87 EPA‘s historical practice in allowing California credit for waiver measures notwithst anding the absence of the underlying rules in the SIP is further documented by reference to EPA‘s review and approval of a May 1979 revision to the California SIP entitled, ―Chapter 4, California Air Quality Control Strategies.‖ In our proposed approval of the 1979 revision (44 FR 60758, October 22, 1979), we describe the SIP revision as outlining California‘s overall control strategy, which the State had divided into vehicular sources and non

- vehicular (stationary source) controls. As to the former, the SI P revision discusses vehicular control measures as including technical control measures and transportation control measures. The former refers to the types of measures we refer to herein as waiver measures, as well as fuel content limitations, and a vehicl e inspection and maintenance program. The 1979 SIP revision included several appendices, including appendix 4

– E, which refers to ―ARB vehicle emission controls included in title 13, California Administrative Code, chapter 3 * * *,‖ including the types of v ehicle emission standards we refer to herein as waiver measures; however, California did not submit the related portions of the California Administrative Code (CAC) to EPA as part of the 1979 SIP revision submittal. With respect to the CAC, the 1979 SIP re vision states: ―The following appendices are portions of the California Administrative Code. Persons interested in these appendices should refer directly to the code.‖ Thus, the State was clearly signaling its intention to rely on the California motor ve hicle control program but not to submit the underlying rules to EPA as part of the SIP. In 1980, we finalized our approval as proposed. See 45 FR 63843 (September 28, 1980).TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 89 SIPs and SIP revisions

— may be challenged under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals.

Further statutory support for EPA‘s long

- standing practice is found in CAA section 193. CAA section 193, enacted as part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, is a general savings clause that provides for, among other things, EPA statutory interpretations that pred ate those amendments to remain in effect so long as not inconsistent with the Act

. At the time it enacted section 193, Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA‘s consistent prior treatment of California‘s motor vehicle standards inconsistent with the Act . Moreover, where Congress intends state control measures that are otherwise pre

- empted under title II of the Clean Air Act to be incorporated into SIPs, it has required that explicitly. See

, e.g ., section 211(c)(4)(C) (State fuels regulations), section 211(m) (oxygenated gasoline regulations)

, and section 246 (centrally fueled fleets). Thus, in section 193, Congress effectively ratified EPA‘s longstanding pre

- 1990 practice of allowing emission s reduction credit for California standa rds subject to the waiver process notwithstanding the absence of the standards in the SIP itself

.
As noted above, under the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress enacted subsection (e) of section 209. In nearly identical language to subsections (a) and (b) of section 209, subsection (e) sets forth the federal pre

- emption of state emissions standards for nonroad vehicles or engines but allows the State of California, and only California, a waiver of pre

- emption (with certain exceptions) under criteria that mirro r the section 2 09(b) waiver provisions for motor vehicles. Congress is presumed to be aware of agency interpretations and its subsequent revision of the statute to add subsection (e) without overruling EPA‘s interpretation with respect to motor vehicle sta ndards is further compelling evidence that the Agency correctly interpreted congressional intent with respect to crediting California requirements subject to a section 209 waiver without requiring California to submit the standards themselves to EPA for ap proval as part of the California SIP.

We believe that section 193 of the CAA, the general savings clause added by Congress in 1990, effectively ratified our long

- standing practice of granting credit for the California waiver rules because Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA‘s treatment of California‘s motor vehicle standards inconsistent with the Act

. Rather, Congress extended the California waiver provisions to most types of nonroad vehicles and engines, once again reflectin g Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare

. Requiring the waiver measures to undergo SIP review in addition to the statutory wa iver process is not consistent with providing California with the broadest possible discretion as to on

- road and nonroad vehicle and engine standards, but rather, would add to the regulatory burden California faces in establishing and modifying such standa rds, and thus would not be consistent with Congressional intent

. In short, we believe that Congress intended California‘s mobile source rules to undergo only one EPA review process (i.e., the waiver process), not two. Even if section 193 did not provide c ongressional acquiescence as to EPA‘s treatment of the standards, the Act‘s structure, evolution, and provision for the waiver of Federal pre

- emption for California mobile source emissions standards , as discussed above, support EPA‘s long

- standing interpre tation of the CAA to allow California to rely on emission reductions resulting from waiver measures in SIPs, notwithstanding the waiver measures‘ absence from the SIP itself.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 90 ii. Non

- waiver measures

These measures include improvements to California‘s i nspection and maintenance (I/M) program, SmogCheck, as well as cleaner burning gasoline and diesel regulations. A list of these

non

- waiver measures , many of which have been SIP approved, can be found Appendix A.

In addition to the State‘s commitment to propose specific measures , the 2007 State Strategy includes an enforceable commitment for emissions reductions sufficient in combination with existing measures and the District‘s commitments to attain the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS in the South Coast by the reques ted attainment date of June 15, 2024 . For the South Coast 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area , the 2007 State Strategy includes a State commitment to achieve 54 tpd of VOC and 1 41 tpd of NO x in the South Coast nonattainment area by 2023. See 2007 State Strateg y, p. 24 and CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B , p. 4. The nature of this commitment is described in the State Strategy as follows:

―T he total emission reductions from the new measures necessary to attain the federal standards are an enforceable State co mmitment 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 nec essary 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 aggreg ate 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 h ave 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 (Septembe r 27, 2007), Attachment B , p. 3. The 2011 Progress Report further discusses this commitment: ―When ARB adopted the 2007 State Strategy as a SIP revision, the State of California made a legal commitment, required by the Clean Air Act and enforceable in federal court, to reduce emissions to the levels necessary for attainment. ARB specifically ident ified several ways this emission reduction commitment could be achieved:

New measures as described in the SIP Other alternative measures that ARB had not considered at the time the SIP was adopted Incentive programs that support the replacement or retrofit of aging, higher polluting pieces of equipment Actual emission decreases‖ 2011 Progress Report, p. 4.

A s described in section II.A. of this TSD, CARB has adjusted baseline emissions estimates for source categories subject to its recently

- revised i n

- use rules. Table C

- 4 reflects theTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 91 revised implementation schedule CARB submitted in i ts 2011 Progress Report. Table C

- 8 shows original and adjusted baseline emissions inventories for the s ources affected by each measure

. The adjustments to the inventorie s show the effect of the resent economic recession and, for some source categories, changes to inventory methodologies

. These changes are reflected in Tables C

- 5 and C

- 6 above. Table C

- 5 lists the emissions reductions (from the adjusted baseline emissions inventories) that the State now estimates it will achieve from its measures as adopted or revised and which are currently creditable to wards CARB‘s commitment

. Table C

- 6 indicates the measures currently creditable in the attainment demonstration.



### Table C

- 8 . Ori g i nal an d Adjusted Baseline Emissions Invent ories for the Sources Affected by CARB Control Measures (tons per summer day)

State Measure NO x VOC

Original Adjusted Change Original Adjusted C hange
Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 74.3 74.3 0 97.4 97.4 0

Cleaner In

- Use Heavy

- Duty Trucks & Buses 69.7 76.8 +7.1 6.2 6.6 +0.4

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment (>25hp) 45.8 18.9 26.9 8.0 2.0 6.0

Ship Auxiliary Engine Cold Ironing and Clean Technology 56.7 40.3 16.4 0.9 1.5 +0.6

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuel

– Main Engines 46.6 65.8 +19.2 1.9 3.2 +1.3

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line

- Haul Locomotives 21.0 21.0 0 2.4 2.4 0

Clean up Existing Harbor Craft 12.8 18.4 +5.6 1.3 1.0 0.3

Cargo Handling Equipment 2.6 1.8 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.3

New Emission Standards for Recreational Boats 18.3 18.3 0 50.8 50.8 0

Expanded Off

- Road Rec. Vehicle Emissions Standards n/a n/a n/a 13.4 13.4 0

Consumer Products Program n/a n/a n/a 109.5 109.5 0TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 92 

### Table C

- 8 . Ori g i nal an d Adjusted Baseline Emissions Invent ories for the Sources Affected by CARB Control Measures (tons per summer day)

State Measure NO x VOC

Original Adjusted Change Original Adjusted C hange

All Other State, Local and Federal Emissions 157 157 0 241 241 0

Totals: 505 493 12.2 534 529 4.3
Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revision Supplement, Attachment 1.

4

. Proposed Action

In our September 2011 proposal, based on our review of the new technologies provisions in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP, we proposed to approve the CARB‘s and District‘s long

- term strategy provisions and related commitments in the South Coast 2007 8

- H our Ozone SIP under CAA section 182(e)(5). This proposed approval is based on our finding that these provisions satisfy the two criteria in CAA section 182(e)(5)(A) and (B).

Based on our review of the RACM analyses and the District‘s and California‘s adop ted rules, as well as their commitments to adopt and implement additional control measures, we
propose d to find that there are, at this time, no additional reasonably available control measures (including reasonably available control technology) that would advance attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard in the South Coast. Therefore, we propose d to find that the South Coast 2007 AQMP, together with the 2007 State Strategy, provide d for the implementation of all RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1)

.

W e propose d to approve the SCAQMD‘s commitments to achieve specific aggregate reductions of NO x and VOC emissions by specific years as given in Table 4

- 2A of the 2007 AQMP, as revised by Tables 2 and 3 of the 2007 Progress Report, App endix F, and as shown in Table C

- 2 above. We propose d to approve CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, as given in Table B

- 1 in Appendix B of the 2011 Progress Report, and Appendix B, Table B

- 1 in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision. We also prop ose d to approve CARB‘s commitment to achieve the total aggregate emissions reductions necessary to demonstrate RFP and to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the South Coast nonattainment area, as given in 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 20 and CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B, p. 4, and shown in Table 6 above. See CARB Resolution 07

- 28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 4.

Finally, we proposed to approve CARB‘s and the District‘s long

- term strategy commitments in the South Coast 2007 8

- H our Ozone Plan under the new technology provisions of CAA sec tion 182(e)(5). This proposal was based on our proposed findings that these commitments satisfy the two criteria in CAA section 182(e)(5)(A) and (B). First, the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan does not rely on any of these new technology reductions to demonstration RFP in any milestone year between 2008 and 2020. CARB has committed to achieve 241 tpd of NOx and 40 tpd of VOC reductions through new technology measures approved under section 182( e)(5) only in the attainment year (2023). We note d that the amount and relative proportion of reductions from measures scheduled for long

- term adoption underTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 93 182(e)(5), as compared to measures already adopted in regulatory form or scheduled for near

term a doption, 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 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 emissions reductions in the near

- term.

5. Evaluation and Conclusion on RACM and Control Strategy

CARB and the SCAQM D have dem onstrated a clear need for emissions reduction from new and improved control technologies to reduce air pollution in the South Coast 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area . The adopted control measu res and enforceable commitments provide the majority, but not all , of the balance of the emissions reductions needed to attain by June 15, 2024. See Table D

- 1 . For the balance of the reduction s nee ded for attainment, the South Co ast 2007 8

- Hour Ozo ne Plan relies on the State‘s and District‘s long

- term strategy to develop and deploy new technologies as is allowed under CAA section 182(e)( 5 ). Based on our review of the new technologies provisions in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hou r Ozone SIP, we are approvi ng the CARB‘s and District‘s long

- term strategy provisions and related commitments in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP under CAA section 182(e)(5). This approval is based on our finding that these provisions satisfy the two criteria in CAA section 182 (e)(5)(A) and (B).
First, the South Coast 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. Already adopted measures provide for the required RFP in each milestone y ear from 2008 until the attainment year of 2023. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, p. A

- 3 and section II. E . of this TSD. 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. The se 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 C AA 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.

Both CARB and the District have taken steps to research, demonstrate and deploy technologies for achieving the needed reductions. These steps include establishing a Technology Advancement Program and funding incentive programs. Both CARB and the District have made commitments to research , evaluate, adopt and implement long

- term measures as they are identified. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix A, pp. A

- 8

- A

- 12. The 2007 State Strategy includes commitments by CARB to develop and submit revisions to the Strategy by no later than 2020 tha t will: (1) reflect modifications to the 2023 emission s 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 Revision, p. A

- 8. The Dis trict also committed to make by the end of 2019 the necessary revisions

.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 94 CARB has also comm itted to achieve 241 tpd of NO x reductions and 40 tpd of VOC reductions in 2023 through new technology measures approved under section 182(e)(5 ) . We note that the a mount 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 up date, 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.

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 South Coast nonattainment area. The process and the criteria the District used to select certain measures and reject others were consistent with EPA‘s RACM guidance. The evaluation processes undertaken by SCAG and the State were also consistent with EPA‘s RACM guidance. See e.g., General Preamble a t 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 control measures, we find that there are, at this time, no additional reasonably available control measures (including reasonably available control technology) that would advance attainment of the 1997 8

- hour

ozone standards in the South Coast. Therefore, we find that the Sout h Coast 2007 AQMP, together with the 2007 State Strategy, provide for the implementation of all RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1).

W e are approving the SCAQMD‘s commitments to achieve specific aggregate reductions of NO x and VOC emissions by speci fic years as given in Table 4

- 2A of the 2007 AQMP, as revised by Tables 2 and 3 of the 2007 Progress Report, Appendix F, and as shown in Table 2 above.

We are approving CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, as given in Table B

- 1 in Appe ndix B of the 2011 Progress Report, and Appendix D , Table B

- 1 in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision. We also are ap proving CARB‘s commitment to achieve the total aggregate emissions reductions necessary to demonstrate RFP and to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone stand ards in the South Coast nonattainment area, as given in 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 20 and CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B, p. 4, and shown in Table C

- 5 above . See CARB Resolution 07

- 28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 4.

Finally, we are approving CARB‘s and the District‘s long

- term strategy commitments in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan under the new technology provisions of CAA section 182(e)(5). This approval is based on our findings that these commitments satisfy the two cri teria in CAA section 182(e)(5)(A) and (B). First, the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan does not rely on any of these new technology reductions to demonstration RFP in any milestone year between 2008 and 2020. CARB has committed to achieve 241 tpd of NOx and 40 tpd of VOC 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 fromTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 95 measures scheduled for long

- term adoption under 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 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 emissions reductions in the

near

- term. CARB has submitted an enforceable commitment to submit adopted contingency measures to EPA by 2020 as required by CAA 182(e)(5) . See CARB Resolution 11

- 22, July 21, 2011; see also letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regi onal Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated November 18, 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 section 182(b)(1) or (c)(2) and attainment by the applicable attainment date. 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.

Based on the above discussio n and evaluations, we are determining that the long

- term strategy for the South Coast 8

- Hour Ozone SIP satisfies the requirements of CAA 182(e)(5).

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the RACM Demonstratio n and the Long

- Term Strategy

We received several comments on our proposed approval of the 182(e)(5) provisions and on our proposed approval of the RACM demonstration . We have reviewed these comments and provided respon ses to them. See section III of this TSD. No is sues raised in these comments ch anged our finding that the RACM demonstration and the CAA 182(e)(5) long

- term strategy commitment in the South Coast 2007 8

- hour ozone plan are consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 96 

### D

. A ttainment 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 applicable attainment date. Under the 8

- hour ozone implementation rule, this demonstration is due within three years of the area‘s designation and should include :

(1) t echnical analyses that locate, iden tify, and quantify sources of emissions that are contributing to 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 attain ment ; and (3) contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.

See 72 FR 71612, at 71615.

The requirements for parts 1 and 2 are described in the emissions inventory, air quality modeling, RACM and control strategy sections of this TS D. Requirements for part 3 are described in the contingency measures section of this TSD. In this section, we evaluate how these parts taken together provide for attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS in the South Coast as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the attainment date required by the CAA.

2. Attainment Demonstration in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan

The attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP is in Chapter 5, ―Future Air Quality,‖ with additional technical information in Appendix V of the AQMP. It is summarized in Table D

- 1 below. Table D

- 2 shows the contribution by the District and CARB to the control strategy as given in the South Coast 2007 AQMP as submitted in November 2007 and revised in 2009 and 2011

. Since adoption and submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and the South Coast 2007 AQMP, both CARB and the District have adopted most of the measures that they committed to adopt in their plans, and most have been approved, proposed for approval, or grant ed a CAA section 209 waiver by EPA. See Tables D

- 4 and C

- 2 . In the 2011 Progress Report and 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, CARB and the District have updated the emissions reductions expected from their adopted measures and resulting from changes to the inven tory and t he economic recession. Table D

- 3 shows the impact of these updates on the attainment demonstration, and Table s D

- 4 and D

- 5 show the effect of these updates and EPA‘s proposed and final approvals on the level of commitments remaining in the attain ment demonstration.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 97 Table D

- 1 

### Summary of the Attainment Demonstration

, South Coast 2007 AQMP, as Submitted in November 2007 (ton s per summer day in 2023 )

NO x VOC

A 2006 baseline emissions level 972 732

B 2023 a ttainment target level 114 420

C T otal reductions needed from 2006 b aseline levels to attain in 2023 (A

– B) 858 312

D 2023 baseline emissions level 505 533

Reductions from baseline measures (A

- D) 467 199
% of reductions needed for attainment from baseline

measures 54% 64%

Reductions needed f

rom control strategy measures (D

- B ) 391 113

% of reductions needed for attainment from control strategy measures 46% 36%

Table D

- 2 

### Summary of Control Strategy Reductions by Agency South Coast 2007 AQMP as Submitted November 2007

(to ns per summer day in 2023)

NO x VOC

Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy measures to attain 858 312 Total reductions from control strategy

measures /commitments (CARB+SC) 141+9 54+19

Reductions from long

- term measures 241 40

District commitments 9 19 Percent of total control strategy reductions from District commitments 1% 6%TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 98 State commitments 141 54 Percent of total control strategy reductions from State commitments 16% 17%

Table D

- 3 

### Summary of the Attainment Demonstration Updated July 2011 with Additional Adjustments (ton s per summer day in 2023 )

NO x VOC

A 2002 baseline emissions level a 1024 881

B 2023 a ttainment target level 114 420

C T otal reductions needed from 2002 b aseline levels to attain in 2023 (A

– B) 910 461

D Unadjusted 2023 baseline emissions level 505 534

E Adjustment to 2023 baseline emissions level 12 5

F Adjusted 2023 baseline emissions level (D

– E) 493 529

Reductions from baseline measures (A

- F ) 531 352
Percent of reductions needed for attainment from baseline measures 58% 76%

Reductions needed from control strategy measures (B

– F) 379 109

Percent of reductions needed for attainment from control strategy measures 42% 24%

a CARB changed the base year for the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision to 2002

.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 99 Table D

- 4 

### Summary of the Attainment Remaining as Commitments based on Approved Measures using Updated Emissions Reductions Estimates

(tons per summer day in 2023)

NO x VOC

A Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy measures to attain 910 461

B Reductions from baseline mea sures 531 352

C Total reductions from approved /proposed for approval measures 122.4 31.3

Long

- term control measures 241 40

D Total reductions remaining as commitments (A

- B

C) 15.8 37

Percent of total reductions needed remaining as commitments a 2% 8%

E Total District commitments 9.2 19.2

F Total reductions from approved/proposed for approval District measures 7.7 15.3

G Total reductions remaining as District commitments 1.5 3.9 Percent of District‘s commitments remaining as commitments <<1% <1%TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 100 Table D

- 5 

### Summary of Reductions Needed for South Coast‘s 8

- hour Ozone Attainment

Demonstration

, Updated July 2011 (ton s per summer day in 2023 )

NO x VOC

A 2002 base year emissions level 1024 881

B 2023 a ttainment target level 114 420

C Total reductions needed from 2002 b aseline levels to attain in 2023 (A

– B) 910 461

D Reductions from adopted measures, July 2011 Ozone SIP revision 531 352

E New State commitments 141 54

F New local/AQMD measures 9 19

G Long term measures (182(e)(5)) 241 40

G Total from adopted and long

- term measures (from Table D

- 8

– includes District reductions) 122.4 31.3

H Reductions from commitments 15.8 37

I Percent of reductions needed for attainment from commitments 2% 8%

3

. Enforceable Commitments in the Attainment Demonstration

a . Requirements for Control Strategies and Enforceable Commitments

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 8

- hour ozone imple mentation 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 precedin g a nonattainment area‘s applicable attainment date. 40 CFR § 51.900(g).

In most instances, a nonattainment plan should include the adopted measures it relies on to demonstrate attainment and RFP and/ or meet other CAA requirement or should identify the ad opted measures it relies on that are already SIP approved, federally promulgated, or otherwiseTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 101 SIP creditable

. EPA, however, recognizes that circumstances exist that warrant the initial use of enforceable state commitments in place of these adopted measur es. We believe that the CAA allows approval of such enforceable commitments as elements of a CAA control strategy requirement where they are limited in scope. The language in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) cited above is quite broad, allowing a S IP to contain any ―means or techniques‖ that EPA determines are ―necessary or appropriate‖ to meet CAA requirements, such that the area will attain as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the applicable attainment date. Furthermore, the express allowance for ―schedules and timetables‖ demonstrates that Congress understood that all required controls might not have to be in place before a SIP could be fully approved.

Commitments approved by EPA under CAA section 110(k)(3) are enforceable by EPA

a nd citizens under, respectively, CAA sections 113 and 304. In the past, EPA has approved enforceable commitments and courts have enforced actions against state s that failed to comply with them

. See, e.g., American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean , 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. Cons. , 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian , 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N .D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for Clean Air v. South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist. , No. CV 97

- 6916

- HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999). Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments, EPA could make a finding of failure to implement the SIP under CAA section 179 (a)(4), which starts an 18

- month period for the state to correct the non

implementation before mandatory sanctions are imposed.

Once EPA determines that circumstances warrant the use of an enforceable commitment, EPA considers three factors in determining whether to approve the enforceable commitment: (a) does the commitment address a limited portion of the statutorily

- required program; (b) is the
state capable of fulfilling its commi tment; and (c) is the commitment for a reasonable and appropriate period of time. 88

b. Enforceable Commitments in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan

As stated and shown in Table D

- 6 below

, reductions in the projected baseline inventory resulting from th e economic recession, changes to activity estimates and emission factors, and measures already adopted by the District and State (both prior to and pursuant to th e South Coast 2007 AQMP) and approved or proposed for approval by EPA provide the great major ity of emission reductions needed to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the South Coast nonattainment area . The balance of the needed reductions is in the form of enforceable commitments by CARB and the District.

We believe that , with respect to the South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised 2007 State Strategy, circumstances warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the attainment demonstration for the South Coast nonattainment area . As shown in Table D

- 1 and D

- 3 a bove, the majority of emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment and RFP in

88 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA's interpretation of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and the Agency's use and application of the three factor test in approving enforceable commitments in the Houston

- Galveston ozone SIP. BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et al. , 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003).TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 102 the South Coast nonattainment area come from rules and regulations that were adopted prior to 2007, i.e., they come from the baseline measures . As a result of these State and District efforts, most sources in the South Coast nonattainment area were already subject to stringent rules prior to the State Strategy‘s and the South Coast 2007 AQMP‘s development, leaving fewer and more technologically challenging opportuniti es to reduce emissions in the nonatt a inment area. In the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy, the District and CARB identified potential control measures that could achieve the additional emission reductions needed for attainment. See South C oast 2007 AQMP, Chapter 4, and 2007 State Strategy, Chapter 5. However, the timeline needed to develop, adopt, and implement these measu res went well beyond the November 200 7 89 deadline to submit the 8

- hour ozone attainment plan. As discussed above, the Dis trict and State have made progress meeting their commitments but have not completely filled them. G iven these circumstances, we consider the District‘s and CARB‘s reliance in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy on enforceable commitments to b e warranted. Having concluded that the use of enforceable commitments is warranted, w e now consider the three factors EPA uses to determine whether the use of enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted measures to meet a CAA plan ning requirements is appro vable: (a) does the commitment address a limited portion of the statutorily

- required program; (b) is the state capable of fulfilling its commitment; and (c) is the commitment for a reasonable and appropriate period of time

.

89 The 200 7 State Strategy was developed to address both the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The 8

- hour ozone SIPs were due in November 2007, and the development and adoption of the State Strategy was timed to coordinate with this submittal date. 2007 State Strategy, p. 1.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 103 Table D

- 6 

### Reductions Needed for Attai nment Remaining as Commitments B ased on Approved Measures Using Updated Emissions Reductions Estimates

(tons per summer day in 2023)

NO x VOC

A Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy measures to attain 910 461

B Reductions from baseline measures 531 352

C Total reductions needed from new measures

, commitments 141 (CARB) +9 (SC) = 150 54 (CARB)+19 (SC)

= 73

D Total reductions needed from new technology

measures , 241 40

E

F Total reductions from approved/proposed for approval/waived measures and adjustments to baseline 122.4 (includes 7.7 from SC and 114.7 from CARB) 31 (includes 15.3 tpd

SC and 15.9 tpd CARB) Total reductions remaining as commitments (A

B

- C) a 15.8 37

% of total reductions needed remaining as commitments a , b 2% 8%

Total District commitments 9.2 19.3 Total reductions from approved/proposed for approval District measures 7.7 15.3 Total reductions remaining as District commitments 1.5 3.9

Percent of District‘s commitments remaining as commitments compared to overall reductions needed <1% <1%

a Includes local reductions. (see 2011 Ozone SIP Revision).TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 104 Table D

- 7 

### Reductions Needed for Attai nment Remaining as Commitments B ased on SIP

Creditable Measures (ton s per summer day in 2023 )
NO x VOC

Total CARB commitments 141 54
Reductions from approved/proposed for approval/waived measures and adjustments to baseline 114.7 15.9

Changes to 2023 baseline from EI improvements 12 5

Total reductions remaining as CARB commitments 14.3 33.1
% of CARB commitments r emaining as commitments compared to overall reductions needed 1.6% 7.2%

i. The C ommitments 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 for attainment in a nonattainment area.

As shown in Table D

- 6 , the remaining portion of the enforceable commitments after accounting for approved and proposed for approval measures, as well as adjustments to the baseline that resulted from the recent economic recession are 16 tpd NOx and 37 tpd VOC

. When compared to the total reductions needed by 2023 for 8

- hour ozone attainment in the South Coast nonattainment area on a per

- pollutant basis , the remaining portion of the enforceable commi tments represents approximately 2 percent of the NOx reductions and 8 percent of the VOC reductions needed to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the South Coast

.

We believe that the reductions remaining as enf orceable commitments in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and updated 2007 State Strategy represent a limited portion of the total emissions reductions need ed to meet the statutory requi rement for attainment in the South Coast and therefore satisfy the first factor. The level of reductions remaining as commitments is approximately within the 10 percent range or less that EPA has h is torically accepted in
appro ving attainment demonstrations. 90

90 See , for example, our approval of the SJV PM 10 Plan at 69 FR 3 0005 (May 26, 2004), the SJV 1

- hour ozone plan at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010), and the Houston

- Galveston 1

- hour ozone plan at 66 FR 57160 (November 14, 2001).TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 105 ii. The State is Capable of Fulfilling Its Commitment

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 a 2009 State Strategy Status Report and a 2011 Ozone SIP Revision which update and revise the 2007 State Strategy. These SIP revisions show that CARB has made significant progress in meeting its enforceable commitments for the South Coast and several other nonattainment areas in California. Additional ongoing programs that addresses locomotives and revisions to the SmogCheck program have yet to be quantified but are expected to reduce NOx and VOC emissions in the South Coast by 2023. See CARB 2011 Progress Report Supplement, Attachment 5. The 2009 State Strategy Status Report includes a table with estimates of the reductions that may fulfill the CARB‘s full commitment. See 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 17.

The District has als o made good progress in meeting its enforceable commitments. The District‘s continued efforts in committing to and adopting measures for sources under its jurisdiction will help the District fully meet its commitments. The District has also already adopted rules that are projected to achieve NOx reductions of 9.2 tpd in 2023. See Table C

- 2 above. The District is continuing to work to identify and adopt additional control measures to reduce emissions.

Beyond the rules discussed above, both CARB and the Dis trict 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.

Given the evidence of the State's and District‘s efforts to date and their continuing efforts to reduce emissions, we believe that the State and District are capable of meeting their enforceable commitments to reduce emissions of NOx and VOC to the levels needed to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the South Coast nonattainment area by 2023

.

iii. The Commitment is for a Reasonable and Appropriate Timeframe

F or the third and last factor, we consider whether the commitment is for a reasonable and

a ppropriate period of time.

In or der to meet the commitments to reduc e emiss ions to the levels needed to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the South Coast by 2023

, the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy as revised include ambitious rule development, adoption, and implementation schedule s, which both the District and CARB have substantially met . EPA considers these schedule s to provide sufficient time to achieve the c ommitted reductions by 2023 as needed to attain by the proposed attainment date of June 15, 2024. See Tables D

- 3 and D

- 5 above

. W e therefore conclude that the third factor is satisfied.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 106 4

. Proposed Action

a. Baseline and Control Strategy Measures

As shown in Table D

- 9

, the majority of the emission reductions needed to d emonstrate attainment come from baseline measures. These reductions come from a combination of District and State measures as well as adjust m e n ts to t he baseli n e that ref lect revisions to the economic forecasts that underlie the 2007 AQMP‘s estimate of future emissions levels

. 91

In the past two decades, the District has adopted or revised about 80 prohibitory rules that limit emissions of NOx, VOC, particulate matter and/or SO x including most of the rule

a doptions/revisions it committed to as part of the South Coast 2007 AQMP. See Appendix B and Table s C

- 1 and C

- 2 . These rules include controls for boilers, fugitive dust sources, internal combustion engines, wood burning, and open burning. The great majority of these District rules and rule revisions are currently SIP approved and as such their emissions reductions are fully creditable in attainment and RFP demonstrations and for meeting other CAA requirements, such as conting ency measures.

b. Enf orceable Commitments in the Attainment Demonstration in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan

EPA believe s circumstances warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and updated 2007 State Strategy

. As stated a bove , measures already adopted by the District and State and approved or proposed for approval pursuant to CAA section 110(k) or waived pursuant to CAA section 209 by EPA provide the great majority of emission s reductions needed to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the South Co ast by 2024 . We have found that the reductions that remain as enforceable commitments represent a l imited portion of the overall redu ctions needed for attainment. We have also found that the State and District are capable of fulfilling their remaining commitment s and that the commitment s are for a time period that is both reasonable and appropriate to assure that the remaining reduction s are in place prior to the attainment date of June 15, 2024

. As a result of our findings

, in September 2011, EPA proposed to accept enforceable commitments as part of California ‘s strategy to attain the 1997 8

- hour

ozone NAAQS in the South Coast.

c. Propo sed Action on Enforceable Commitments in the Attainment Demonstration to Reduce Emissions and Adopt Specific Measures In September 2011, w e propos e d to approve the D istrict ‘s commitments to adopt and implement specific control measures on the schedule identified in Table 7

- 3 (as amended March 4, 2011 and reflected in Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix F of the 2011 Progress Report ) in the South Coast 2007 AQMP , to the extent that these commitments have not yet been fulfilled, and to

91 Reductions in the baseline also come from f ederal measures. These federal measures include EPA‘s national emission standards for heavy duty diesel trucks ( 66 FR 5001 (January 18, 2001)) , certain new construction and farm equipment ( Tier 2 and 3 non

- road engines standards, 63 FR 56968 (October, 23, 1998) and Tier 4 diesel non

- road engine standar ds, 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004)), and locomotives ( 63 FR 18978 (May 16, 1998) and 73 FR 37045 (June 30, 2008)). States are allowed to rely on reductions from federal measures in attainment and RFP demonstrations and for other SIP purposes.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 107 achieve specific ag gregate emissions reductions of NO x and VOC by as given in Table s 2 and 3 of Appendix F of the 2011 Progress Report

. We also proposed to approve CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, as given in Table B

- 1 in the 2011 Progress Report, App endix B and to achieve the total aggregate emission s reductions necessary to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the South Coast nonattainment area , whether th ese reductions are realized from the new measures, alternative control measures, incentive programs, or other actual emissions decreases in the area

. See CARB Resolution 07

- 28 (September 27, 2007), A ttachment B , p. 4

. This commitment is estimated to be agg regate emissions reductions of 141 tpd NO x and 54 tpd of VOC in the South Coast nonattainment area by 2023 as given on page 20 of the 2009 State Strategy Status Report

. 5 . Overall Evaluation and Conclusion on the Attainment Demonstration

In order to approve a SIP‘s attainment demonstration, EPA must make several findings and approve the State‘ s requested attainment date.

First, we must find that the dem onstration‘s technical bases

- emissions invento ries and air quality modeling

- are adeq uate. As discussed above in section s II.A. and II. B ., we are proposing to find that the emissions inventories and the air quality modeling on which the South Coast 2007 AQMP‘s attainment demonstration is based meet applicable EPA regulations and guidance and are an acceptable basis for the demonstration

. Second, we must find that the SIP provides for expeditious attainment through the imp lementation of all RACM on ozone precursor emissions of VOC and NOx

. As discussed above in section II.B ., we are proposing to approve the RACM demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP .

Third, EPA must find that the emissions reductions that are relied on for attainment are creditable. As discussed in this section

, the Sou th Coast 2007 AQMP relies principally on adopted and approved/waived rules to achieve the emissions reductions needed to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the South Coast by June 1 5, 2024 . The balance of the reductions is currently in the form of e nforceable commitments that account for 2 percent of the NOx and 8 percent of the VOC emissions reductions needed from 2002 levels for attainment. See Table C

- 9

. EPA has previously accepted enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted control

measure s in attainment demonstrations when the circumstances warrant it and the commitments meet three criteria. As discussed above in section II.D .3

, w e believe that circumstances here warrant the considerat ion of enforceable commitments and tha t the three crit eria 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 commitment are for an appropriate timeframe. Ba sed on these conclusions, we are proposing to allow the State to rely on these limited enforceable commitments in its attainment demonstration.

For the foregoing reasons, we are approving the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone P lan

.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 108 Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the Attainment Demonstration We proposed to approve the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 8

- hour

o zone plan at 76 FR 57872, 578 87 . We received comments asserting that CARB‘s commitments to aggregate emissions reductions were not approvable, the new technology provision s were not approva ble , and the attainment demonstration relied on emissions reductions from measures (e.g., waiver measures) that were not SIP

- creditable. We hav e reviewed these comments and find that none cause us to revise our proposed approval of the attainment demonstration. A summary of these comment and our complete responses can be found in section III of this TSD.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 109 

### E . Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations

1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations

CAA Section 172(c)(2) requires that plans for nonattainment areas shall provide for reasonable further progress (RFP). RFP is defined in section 171(1) as ―such annual incre mental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by [Part D

– Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas] or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date.‖

CAA Section 182(b)(1) specifically requires that ozone nonattainment areas which are classified as moderate or above demonstrate a 15% reduction in ozone precursor emissions between the years of 1990 and 1996.

For ozone nonattainment a reas classified as serious or higher, CAA Section 182(c)(2)(B) also requires a 3% per year reduction until attainment of ozone precursor emissions in addition to the 15% reduction required under CAA 182(b)(1).

CAA Section 182(b)(1)(D) prohibits the state from including emissions reductions from
pre

- 1990 federal motor vehicle programs when demonstrating RFP. In other words, the reductions from these programs are not creditable when demonstrating RFP. There are some other specific emissions reductions that a re not creditable under this section of the Act, but those restrictions are of a historic nature and are not applicable to this action.

The ozone implementation rule ( 40 CFR § 51. 910 ( d) and 70 FR 71612) establishes requirements for RFP that depend on the area‘s classification as well as whether the area has an approved 15 percent reduction plan for the 1

- hour ozone standards that covers all of the 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area. Here, we will only describe the requirements applicable to the South Coast ozone nonattainment area which is classified as extreme and has a fully

- approved 182(b)(1) plan for the one

- hour ozone NAAQS that covers the current 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area (see 62 FR 1150, January 8, 1997 page 1181).

For the South Coast nonattainment area, the ozone implementation rule requires an RFP plan providing for an average of 3 percent per year of VOC and/or NO x emissions reductions for (1) the 6

- year period beginning January 1 of the year following the year us ed for the b aseline emissions inventory; and (2) all remaining 3

- year periods af ter the first 6

- year period out to the area's attainment date. Except as specifically provided in section 182(b)(1)(C) of the Act, all SIP

approved or federally promulgated emi ssions reductions that occur after the baseline emissions inventory year are creditable for purposes of the RFP requirements, provided the reductions meet the requirements for creditability, including the need to be enforceable, permanent, quantifiable and surplus, as described for purposes of State economic incentive programs in the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.493

. The implementation rule also sets the base year for RFP calculations as 2002

. 92

92 States have the option of using an alternative base year by providing a rationale why it is appropriate to use the alternative baseline year rather than 2002 to comply with the CAA‘s RFP provisions. 40 CFR 51.910(d).TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 110 The RFP demonstration must calculate and exclude the non

- credit able reductions described in CAA 182(b)(1)(D). The method for calculating the target emissions levels is found in Appendix A to the preamble of the ozone implementation rule (70 FR 71612 at 71696). This method adjusts the baseline target emission levels f or VOC and NOx by removing the benefits of the non

- creditable programs.

2. RFP Demonstration in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan

The RFP demonstration is in Appendix A

- 2 of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision submitted by C ARB on July 29, 2011.

Table E

- 1 provides the updated RFP demonstration from the 2011 Progress Report (ozone season tons per day)

.

Table E

- 1 Updated RFP D emonstration from the 2011 Progress Report ( tons per summer day)

Year 2002 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 Line ROG A Baseline 880.5 632.0 579.9 535.2 519.8 513.9 513.4

B MVCP/RVP Adjustment 0.0 56.1 73.0 86.6 93.7 98.3 101.6

C RACT Correction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

D Baseline ROG in milestone year 880.5 824.4 807.5 793.9 786.8 782.2 778.9

E RFP commitment for ROG reductions from new measures 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Future Year ROG with existing and proposed measures 632.0 579.9 535.2 519.8 513.9 513.4

G Required Percent change since previous milestone year compared to 2002 18% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%

H Required percent change since 2002 18% 27% 36% 45% 54% 63%

I Target level 676.0 599.8 533.4 479.0 431.7 389.8 J Apparent shortfall

- 44.0

- 19.9 1.7 40.8 82.2 123.6

K Apparent shortfall in ROG, percent - 5.3%

- 2.5% 0.2% 5.2% 10.5% 15.9%

L Shortfall previous provided by substitution 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 5.2% 10.5%

M Actual shortfall, percent - 5.3%

- 2.5% 0.2% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4%TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 111 Line N Baseline 1024.1 728.3 591.2 532.1 478.8 428.2 378.4

O MVCP/RVP Adjustment 0 64.7 80.6 93.0 98.3 102.4 105.9

P Adjusted NOx Baseline in milestone year 1024.1 959.4 943.5 931.1 925.8 921.7 918.2

Q RFP commitment for reductions from new

measures 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

R Change in NOx since 2002 231.1 352.3 399.0 447.0 493.5 539.8

S Change in NOx since 2002 percent 24.1% 37.3% 42.8% 48.3% 53.5% 58.8%

T NOx Reductions since 2002 already used for RFP substitution and contingency through last milestone, percent 0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.2% 8.2% 13.5%

U NOx Reductions since 2002 available for RFP substitution and contingency in milestone year, percentage 24.1% 34.3% 39.8% 45.1% 45.4% 45.3%

V Change in NOx since 2002 used for ROG substitution in this milestone year, percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4%

W Change in NOx since 2002 available for contingency in this milestone year, percentage 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

X Change since 2002 surplus after meeting substitution and contingency in this milestone year, percentage 21.1% 34.3% 39.6% 40.1% 40.0% 39.9%

RFP met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 112 3. Proposed Action

In September 2011 , we found that the revised RFP demonstration provided in Appendix A

- 2 of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision submitted by ARB on July 29, 2011 conformed to the requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance. CARB has correctly calculated the RFP target levels for the appropriate years following the method provided in the ozone implementation rule and preamble. As shown in Table E

- 2, the South Coast 2 007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP provides for RFP in each milestone year, consistent with applicable CAA requirements and EPA guidance. The calculations demonstrate that the South Coast nonattainment area has sufficient emissions reductions in each milestone year to s how RFP as required by CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1). We therefore proposed in September 2011 to approve the RFP demonstration in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP under sections 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2) of the CAA.

4. Evaluation and Conclusion

Th e information provided by C ARB ( reproduced in Table E

- 1) follows CARB‘s standards format and is consistent with the requirement s of the CAA and relevant EPA regulations and guidance

, as described in section 1 of this chapter.

EPA has modified ARB‘s tab le to make the calculations easier to follow. EPA has also changed the term ROG for Reactive Organic Gasses to Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) to be consistent with federal terminology. These two terms refer to the same chemical species. This table also m akes it clear that the pre

- 1990 motor vehicle control non

- creditable reductions get smaller over time. The C ARB table implies the opposite. The modified table is below and is followed by a description of the important components.

Table E

- 2 provides EPA‘s analysis of California‘s RFP demonstration for the South Coast 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area.



### Table E

- 2. EPA’s A nalysis of California’s RFP d emonstration for the South

Coast ( tons per summer day)
Year 2002 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 Line ROG A Baseline VOC 880.5 632.0 579.9 535.2 519.8 513.9 513.4

B MVCP/RVP Adjustment 0.0 56.1 16.9 13.6 7.1 4.6 3.3

C Adjusted baseline 824.4 807.5 793.9 786.8 782.2 778.9

D Basis for reductions 824.4 659.1 586.2 526.3 474.4 428.4

E Required Percent change since previous milestone year 18% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%

F Target VOC level 676.0 599.8 533.4 479.0 431.7 389.8TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 113 G Apparent shortfall - 44.0

- 19.9 1.8 40.8 82.2 123.6

H Apparent shortfall in VOC, percent - 5.3%

- 2.5% 0.2% 5.2% 10.5% 15.9%

I Shortfall previous provided by substitution 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 5.2% 10.5%

J Actual shortfall, percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4%

Line NOx K NOx Baseline 1024.1 728.3 591.2 532.1 478.8 428.2 378.4 L MVCP 0 64.7 15.9 12.4 5.3 4.1 3.5

M Adjusted NOx Baseline in milestone year 1024.1 959.4 943.5 931.1 925.8 921.7 918.2

N Change in NOx since 2002 231.1 352.3 399.0 447.0 493.5 539.8

O Change in NOx since 2002 percent 24.1% 37.3% 42.8% 48.3% 53.5% 58.8%

P NOx Reductions since 2002 already used for RFP substitution and contingency through last milestone, percent 0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.2% 8.2% 13.5%

Q NOx Reductions since 2002 available for RFP substitution and contingency in milestone year, percentage 24.1% 34.3% 39.8% 45.1% 45.4% 45.3%

R Change in NOx since 2002 used for ROG substitution in this milestone year, percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4%TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 114 S Change since 2002 surplus after meeting substitution and contingency in this milestone year, percentage 24.1% 34.3% 39.5% 40.1% 40.0% 39.9%

RFP met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Contingency met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

The table begins with 2002 as the milestone year. This is appropriate and consistent with the requirements of the ozone implementation rule. The table starts with a 6

- year 18% reduction requirement and then adds 3% per year evaluated with milestones every three years. This results in a 9% reduction required from milestone to milestone after the initi al 6

- year reduction. Table E

- 3 bel ow describes the rows in Table E

- 2.



### Table E

- 3: Description of the Rows in the RFP Demonstration Calculation

A Baseline VOC T he total ozone season daily VOC emissions in the South Coast nonattainment area. It includes benefits from control measures that were in place prior to the submittal of the 2007 air quality management plan (AQMP) . It does not include emission reductions from state o r district measures in the 2007 AQMP that are required for the attainment demonstration.

B MVCP/RVP Adjustment The pre

- 1990 motor vehicle control program must be excluded from consideration when demonstrating RFP. These numbers are calculated using the on

- road emissions model according to a method described in Appendix A of the preamble to the ozone implementation rule (70 FR 71696).

C Adjusted baseline The baseline emissions with the non

- creditable reductions removed. This number serves as the basis for calculating the target emission rate in 2008. In subsequent years, it is used to in the calculation of the percentage reduction shortfall.

D B asis for reductions This number is reduced by the required percentage to calculate the target emission rate. In the first milestone year, 2008, it is the same as the adjusted baseline. In subsequent milestone years it is equal to the previous milestone yea r‘s target VOC level minus that milestone year‘s non

- creditable MVCP/RVP adjustment.

E Required Percent change since previous milestone
year Self explanatory.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 115 F Target VOC level The basis for reductions reduced by the appropriate percentage. For example, in 2008 it is the 2008 basis for reductions (824.4 tons per day) reduced by 18%.

G Apparent shortfall The target VOC level minus the baseline VOC. In the 2008 and 2011 milestone years, the baseline VOC was lower than the target level. So, there is no shortfall in these
years.

H Apparent shortfall in VOC, percent The percentage shortfall calculated by dividing the apparent shortfall by the adjusted baseline for that milestone year.

I Shortfall previous provided by substitution This is the shortfall addressed by NOx substitution in previous milestone years. For example, in 2017, 0.2% of the VOC shortfall was eliminated by NOx substitution. This must be accounted for in subsequent years to prevent double

- counting.

J Actual shortfall, percent This is the percentage shortfall of VOC less the shortfall previously addressed by NOx substitution. This is the shortfall that must be addressed by NOx in the current milestone year in order to demonstrate RFP.

K NOx Baseline The total ozone season daily NOx emissions in the South Coast nonattainment area. It includes benefits from control measures that were in place prior to the submittal of the 2007 AQMP. It does not include emissions reductions from state or district measures in the 2007 AQ MP that are required for the attainment demonstration.

L MVCP The pre

- 1990 motor vehicle control program controls for

on

- road vehicles that must be excluded from consideration when demonstrating RFP. These numbers are calculated using the on

- road emissions model according to a method described in Appendix A of the preamble to the ozone implementation rule.

M Adjusted NOx Baseline in milestone year This is the baseline emissions with the non

- creditable reductions removed. This number serves as the basis for calculating percentage reductions since 2002.

N Change in NOx since 2002 This number is based on the adjusted baseline so that the

non

- creditable reductions are excluded.

O Change in NOx since 2002 percent This is the percentage change calculated as the change since 2002 divided by the adjusted NOx baseline.

P NOx Reductions since 2002 already used for RFP substitution and contingency through last milestone, percent ARB reserves 3% (one year of RFP) for contingency. This first appears in this row of the table in the 2011 milestone year. No contingency is needed for 2008, since they had already demonstrated compliance with the 2008 milestone when they submitted this analysis in 2011. ARB reservesTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 116 this 3% so it will be available for conti ngency purposes later in the plan. This row also includes NOx percentages previously used for VOC substitution. It is zero in 2008 because there is no VOC shortfall to address and there is no need for contingency either. In 2017, this number rises to 3.2% to address the 0.2% of NOx reductions used to show RFP in the 2014 milestone year as well as the 3% reserved for contingency.

Q NOx Reductions since 2002 available for RFP substitution and contingency in milestone year, percentage If a NOx reduction has been used for substitution or reserved for contingency, it is not available for substitution. This number is the raw percentage reduction minus the NOx reductions already consumed as reflected in the row immediately above.

R Change in NOx since 2002 used for ROG substitution in this milestone year, percent Self explanatory.

S Change since 2002 surplus after meeting substitution and contingency in this milestone year, percentage This is the surplus NOx reduction available this milestone year once the contingency reservation and all substitutions are subtracted out. If this number is greater than zero, RFP and c ontingency requirements have been met for this milestone year.

The revised RF P demonstration provided in Appendix A

- 2 of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision submitted by C ARB on July 29 , 2011 conforms to the r equirements of the CAA and EPA guidance. CARB has correctly calculated the RFP target levels for the appropriate years following the method provided in the ozone implementation r ule and preamble. As shown in Table E

- 2, the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP provides for RFP in each milestone year, consistent with applicable CAA requirements and EPA guidance. The calculations demonstrate that the South Coast nonattainment area has sufficient emissions reductions i n each milestone year to show RFP as required by CA A se ct ions 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1)

. We therefore approve the RFP demonstration in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP under sections 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2) of the CAA.

P ublic Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the RFP Demonstration

We received no comments on our proposed approval of the RFP demonstration. No issues were raised that changed our finding that the RFP demonstration in the South Coast 2007 8

- hour ozone plan is consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 117 

### F

. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions Increases from Vehicle Miles Travelled Increases, to Provide for RFP and Attainment

1. Requirements for Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions Increases from Vehicle Miles Travelled Increases, to Provide for RFP and Attainment

CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A) requires that areas classified as severe or extreme submit transportation control strategies (TCS) and measures (TCMs) sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips, and to provide (along with other measures) the reductions needed to meet applicable RFP requirements. CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) also requires tha t s tates 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 ― sh ould ensure adequate access to d owntown, other commercial, and resid ential 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 NAAQS) 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. 93

2 . Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions Inc reases from Vehicle Miles Travelled Increases, to Provide for RFP and Attainme nt in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

Information in Chapter 6, Table 6

- 12 from the South Coast 2007 AQMP, reproduced in Table F

- 1 below

, shows that on

- road mobile source emissions of VOC and NO x decline steadily from 20 02 to 20 23 . 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 C ARB‘s in

- use truck and bus rule . As discussed above in Section II.C

. , these programs are fully creditable for SIP planning purposes in attainment and RF P demonstrations, including demonstrating complian ce with CAA section 182(d)(1). The on

- road emissions in Table F

- 1 are derived from the inventory used in the modeling analysis for the South Coast 2007 AQMP and are calculated using EMFAC2007 (the most recent EPA

- approved mobile source emissions model in California) , and

93 See 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 Jersey

- Connectic ut 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 offse t plan for the Houston

- Galveston ozone nonattainment area; 70 FR 25688 (May 13, 2005), approval of the Washington, D.C. area‘s 1

- hour attainment demonstration and related provisions; and 70 FR 34358 (June 14, 2005), approval of Atlanta‘s VMT plan.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 118 the same transportation activity projections used to develop the RFP and attainment demon stration and transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets in the South Coast 2007 AQMP. South Coast 2007 AQMP, p. 6

- 23 and 6

- 27.

As desc ribed above in Section II.C

, the South Coast 2007 AQMP includes TCMs developed by SCAG, the local MPO , w hich are described in Appendix IV

- C

– Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures. TCMs included in the South Coast 2007 AQMP were developed to meet the requirements of CAA Sections 182(d)(1)(A) and 108(f) and include the capital

- based and non

- c apital

- based facilities, projects, and programs contained in the area‘s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and programmed through the Regional Transportation Implementation Program (RTIP) process. SCAG determined that there was no combination of reasonable measures that would expedite attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the South Coast. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix IV

- C

. Table F

- 1. On

- Road Motor Vehicle Emissions in the South Coast, 2002

-

2023 (tons per summer day) 1,2
Year Baseline Remaining

VOC NOx VOC NOx 2002 360 611 360 611 2003 341 595 341 595 2004 321 579 321 579 2005 302 563 302 563 2006 273 518 273 518 2007 243 472 243 472 2008 214 441 210 438 2009 199 419 195 413 2010 186 379 164 330 2011 176 355 154 291 2012 166 331 144 252 2013 157 309 135 219
2014 148 287 126 191 2015 142 269 119 174 2016 135 250 113 162 2017 129 232 109 160 2018 124 216 101 135 2019 119 200 96 120 2020 114 184 93 112 2021 110 176 91* 78 2022 107 169 88* 52 2023 103 161 86 27 2024 95 146 76 24

1 These values were incorrectly listed as 88 for 2021 and 85 for 2022 in the 2007 South Coast AQMP. See Letter, Elaine Chang, DrPH, Deputy Executive Officer, SCAMQD , to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, dated August 12 , 2011 in the docket for today‘s action.
2 ‖Baseline‖ emissions account for controls adopted prior to the 2007 AQMP. ―Remaining‖ emissions include the impacts of economic growth and implementation of the plan‘s control strategy. Source: South Coast 2007 AQMP, Chapter 6, Table 6

- 12.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 119 3. Proposed Action

In September 2011, we proposed to find that the South Coast 2007 AQMP, as corrected on August 12, 2011, meets the requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to include transportation control strategies and TCMs sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips

. We also proposed to find that the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP provides for expeditious attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards

. Therefore, we propose d to find that the SIP meets the requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to include strategies and measures to the extent needed to demonstrate attainment. Finally, we proposed to find that the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP provide s for RFP consistent with all applicable CAA and EPA regulatory requirements. Therefore, we also propose d to find that the SIP meets requirement in CAA s ection 182(d)(1)(A) to include transportation control strategies and TCMs as necessary to provide (along with other measures) the reductions needed to meet the applicable RFP requirement.

At the time of our September proposal, the Ninth Circuit had yet to issue its mandate in the Association of Irritated Residents case, and EPA had not adopted the co urt‘s interpretation for the reasons set forth in the Agency‘s petition for rehearing, pending a final decision b y the court. If the court denied the Agency‘s p etition for rehearing and issued its mandate before EPA issued a final rule on the South Coast 2 007 Ozone SIP, then we anticipate d that we would not be able to finalize approval of the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP with respect to the first element (i.e., offsetting emissions growth) of section 1 82(d)(1)(A). Therefore, in our proposed action, and in the alternative to the proposed approval, we simultaneously proposed to disapprove the South Coast 2007 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 t ransportation control strategies and TCMs to offset the emissions from growth in VMT.

4. Evaluation and Conclusion

Because both VOC and NOx emissions from on

- road motor vehicles decline steadily over the entire time period covered by the South Coast 2007 AQMP

, b ased on the emissions data presented in Appendix III of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the supplemental information in Table 6

- 12 on page 6

- 27 of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, as amended by the information we received on August 12, 2011, the plan need not include additional transportation control strategies and TCMs to offset growth in motor vehicle emissions from growth in VMT ; therefore, we propose to find that the South Coast 2007 AQMP , as corrected on August 12, 2011, meets the requirement in CAA se ction 182(d)(1)(A ) to include transportation control strategies and TCMs sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips

. 94

, 95

94 CAA Se ction 182(d)(1)(A) only requires that VOC emissions decline year to year over the period covered by the SIP. See General Pre a mble at 13521. 95 In Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA , 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Nint h Circuit held that section 182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA unambiguously 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 increas ed, 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 No. 35, Petition for Panel Rehearing

.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 120 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 f or 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. Therefore, we find that the 2007 South Coast 8

- Hour Ozone plan , as corrected on August 12, 20 11, meets the requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to include transportation control strategies and TCMs sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips

.

A s discussed in section II.C. and II.D . above, we f ind that the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP provides for expeditious attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards . Therefore,

we find that the SIP meets the requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to include strategies and

measures to the extent needed to demonstrate attainment.

As discussed above in section II.E ., we find that the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP provides for RFP consistent with all applicable CAA and EPA regulatory requirement s. Therefore, we also find that the SIP meets requirement in CAA s ection 182(d)(1)(A) to include transportation control strategies and TCMs as necessary to provide (along with other measures) the reductions needed to meet the applicable RFP requirement.

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions Increases from Vehicle Miles Travelled Increases, to Provide for RFP and Attainment in the South Coast 2007 AQMP We proposed to approve the South Coast 2007 8

- hour ozone plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) at 76 FR 57872, 57890. We also proposed in the alternative to disapprove the SIP with respect to eh first element (i.e., offsetting emissions growth) of section 182(d)(1)(A) based on the SIP‘s failure to include sufficient transportation control strategies and measures to offset the emissions from growth in VMT should the 9 th Circuit Court deny the Agency‘s petition for rehearing and issue its mandate in AIR before we finalized our action. As noted above, the Court has not yet issued its mandate. 96

We received comments objecting to our proposed finding that the South Coast 2007 8

- hour ozone plan meets all three elements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)

. We ha ve carefully considered the issues raised by the commenters and responded to the comment in Section III, Response to Comments. No issues were raised that changed our finding that the transportation

96 We also stated in the proposal that if EPA were t o finalize the proposed disapproval, the area would be eligible for a protective finding under the transportation conformity rule because the submitted SIP contains adop t ed control

m e a su res and enforceable commitments that fully satisfy the emissions reduction requirements for RFP and attainment. 40 CFR § 93.120(a)(3). See 76 FR 57872, 57890, fn. 32.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 121 control strategies and transportation control measures dem onstration in the South Coast 2007 8

- hour ozone plan is consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 122 

### G

. Contingency Measures

1. Requirement s 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 mil estone or fai ls to attain by the applicable attainment date. These contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or measures that are ready to be implemented quickly upon failure to meet the milestones or attai nment. 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 by EPA

. See 68 FR 32802, at 32837 and 70 FR 71612, at 71650 (proposed and final ozone imple mentation rule) . Contingency measures should be submitted along with the a ttainment demonstration which is due by June 15, 2007 for areas designated in 2004

. See 70 FR 71612, at 71651.

Additional guidance concerning the CAA contingency measure provisions is found in the General Preamble , 57 FR 13498, at 13510

– 13512 and 13520

. The guidance indicates that s tates should adopt and submit contingency measures sufficient to provide a three percent emission s redu ction from the adjusted RFP base year

. EPA concludes this level of reduction 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 req uirement. States may use reductions in either of the two precursors to ozone formation

— VO C or NOx

— to meet the contingency measure requirement s . General Preamble at 13520. States m ay also use a combination of NOx and VOC reductions to meet the requirement. See General Preamble at 13520, footnote 6.

EPA has also provided guidance that contingency measures may be implemented early, i.e., prior to the milestone or attainment date

. 97 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) conti ngency measure requirement. This is because the purpose of contingency measures is to provide extra reductions that are not relied on for RFP or attainment, and that will provi de a cushion while the plan is being revised to fully address the failure to meet the required milestone or attainment . Nothing in the CAA precludes a State from implementing such measures before they are triggered. This approach has been approved by EPA i n numerous SIPs. See 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001); 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001). 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.
Furthermore, states can also use f ederal measures that result in additional emission reductions beyond those needed for attainment or ROP in an area as contingency measures for a failure to attain or to meet the ROP re quirements. EPA has approved the use of f ederal measures

97 Memorandum , G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch to Air Directors, ― Early Implementatio n of Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas ,‖ August 13, 1993.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 123 as part of contingency measures in several EPA actions approving 1

- hour ozone SIPs (62 FR 15844, April 3, 1997), (62 FR 66279, December 18, 1997), and (66 FR 30811, June 8, 2001), (66 FR 586 and 66 F R 634, January 3, 2001).
In addition, CAA section 182(e)(5) authorizes EPA to ―approve provisions of an implementation plan for an Extreme area which anticipate development of new control techniques or improvement of existing control techniques, and an att ainment demonstration based on such provisions,‖ if the State meets certain criteria. CAA section 182(e)(5). Such pan provisions may include enforceable commitments to submit, at a later date, contingency measures for failure to attain under CAA section 17 2(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 the propose d implementation of the plan provisions and approved or disapproved by EPA in accordance with CAA section 110. Id. States that rely on the new technology provisions of CAA section 182(e)(5) to demonstrate attainment in an extreme ozone nonattainment area m ust submit enforceable commitments to develop and adopt contingency measures to be implemented should the anticipated technologies not achieve the planned reductions. These contingency measures sha ll be submitted no later than three years before the redu ctions are needed from the new technologies to demonstrate RFP or attainment. We discuss the section 182(e)(5) cont ingency measures in section II.C . of this TSD.

2. Contingency Measures in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan

The contingency measures for the South Coast nonattainment area are described in Chapter 9 of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, discussed in more detail in Appendix IV

- A, section 2, of the AQMP, and also discussed in Appendix D of the 2007 State Strategy as updated on February 1, 2008. The p rovisions were again updated in t he 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix A, Table A

- 1.

To provide for contingency measures for failure to make RFP, t he SIP relies on surplus NOx reductions in the RFP demonstration See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Attachment A, p. A

- 1. See also Table G

- 1 below and Table E

- 2 in this TSD. Table G

- 1

. Excess NOx Reduction in RFP Demonstration Available for Use as Contingency Measures, South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan, as Revised July 21, 2011 (tons per summer day)
Year 2011 201 4 2017 2020 202 3 NOx adjusted base year 1024 1024 1024 1024 1024 Contingency requirement 9 % 9 % 9 % 9 % 9 % Excess NOx reductions available for contingency measures in the milestone year, after RFP and contingency met (%) (line S in Table E

- 2) 34.3% 39.5% 40.1% 40.0% 39.9%TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 124 To provide in part for contingency measures for failure to attain, the SIP relies in part on the additional incremental reductions resulting from fleet turnover in the year 2024. For the South Coast, these reductions are estimated by CARB to be 2 tpd of NOx and 1 tpd of VOC. See CARB 2011 Ozone SIP Revision Supplement, Attachment 2. CARB has submitted an enforceable commitment to submit, no lat er 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 a pproved pursuant to section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions. CARB Resolution 11

- 22, July 21, 2011, p. 4.

3. Proposed Action

In September 2011, we proposed to approve the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan‘s RFP demonstration. As seen from the RF P demonstration in Table E

- 2, and in Table G

- 2, there are sufficient excess reductions of NOx in each milestone year beyond those needed to meet the next RFP percentage reduction requirement to provide the three percent of adjusted baseline emissions reduc tions needed to meet the RFP contingency measure requirement for 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020.

B ased on our determination 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 South Coast 8

- Hour Ozone SIP, we also propose d to approve CARB‘s enforceable commitment to submit no later than 2020, additional contingency measures under CAA section 182(e)(5) which meet the requirements for attainment contingency measures in CAA section 172(c)(9), in addition to contingency measure s to be implemented if the anticipated long

- term measures approved pursuant to section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions

.

4. Evaluation and Conclusion

Contingency Measures for Failure to Make RFP

. As discussed in s ection II.E, we are approving the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan‘s RFP demonstration. As seen from the RFP demonstration in Table E

- 2, and in Table G

- 2, there are sufficient excess reductions of NOx in each milestone year beyond those needed to meet the next RFP percentage reduction re quirement to provide the three 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 Revision dem onstrates that the South Coast has already met its 2008 milestone. See Table E

- 2 above. As a result, contingency measures for failure to meet the 2008 RFP benchmark would never be triggered and thus are not needed.

Contingency Measures for Failure to Att ain

. T he additional incremental 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 t o attain . For the South Coast, these reductions are estimated by CARB to be 2 tpd of NOx and 1 tpd of VOC. See Table G

- 2 and CARB 2011 Ozone SIP Supplement, Attachment 2.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 125 B ased on our determination 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 South Coast 8

- Hour Ozone SIP, we are approving CARB‘s enforceable commitment to submit no later than 2020, additional contingency measures under CAA section 182(e)(5) which meet the requirements for attainment contingency measures in CAA section 172(c)(9), in addition to contingency measures to be imp lemented if the anticipated long

- term measures approved pursuant to section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions. 98

Accordingly, we are approving the RFP and attainment contingency measures in the South Coast 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 ap prove or disapprove the provisions in accordance with CAA section 110.

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of th e Contingency Measure Provisions

We received no comments on our proposed approval of the RFP and attainment contingency measure s

. No issues were raised that changed our finding that the RFP and attainment contingency measures in the South Coast 2007 8

- hour ozone plan are consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.

98 These contingency measures should, at a minimum, ensure that an appropriate level of emissions reduction progress continues to be made if attainment is no t achieved and additional planning by the State is needed. See General Preamble at 13524.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 126 

### 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 involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) fundin g or approval are subject to EPA‘s transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93, s ubpart 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 p lans (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 vehic le emissions budgets (budgets) contained in all control strategy SIP s. An attainment, maintenance, or RFP SIP should e stablish budgets for the attainment year

, each required RFP year or the last year of the maintenance plan, as appropriate. Budgets are est ablished for specific years and specific pollutants or precursors

. 8

- hour ozone a ttainment and RFP plans identify budgets for the ozone precursors VOC and NOx. See 4 0 CFR § 93.102(b) (2)(i)

. Before an MPO may use budgets in a submitted but not

- yet approved SIP, EPA must first determine that the budgets are adequate or approve the budgets . Submitted budgets that have not been found to be adequate or approved may not be used in conformity determinations. In order for us to find the budgets adequate and to app rov e them , the submittal must meet the conformity adequacy requirements of 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and be approvable under all releva nt SIP requirements . To meet these requirements, t he budgets must reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures c ontained in the RFP and attainment demonstrations

. See 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4)(v).

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan

a. Budgets Submitted in South Coast 2007 AQMP (submitted November 2007)

As submitted i n November 2 007, the 2007 South Coast AQMP included a set of ozone precursor budgets for VOC and NOx for RFP years 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017 and 2020 and attainment year budget s for 2023. See CARB Resolution 07

- 05, which revised the budgets in the 2007 South Coast AQMP a s adopted by the SCAQMD, and which was included in the November 2007 submittal. We refer to these budgets as the ―original‖ budgets.

b. Budgets Submitted in Revised South Coast 2007 AQMP (submitted April 2008)

On April 30, 2008, CARB submit ted a SIP revision that replaced the original set of 8

- hour ozone budgets with two new sets of budgets (―replacement‖ budgets). One set of theTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 127 replacement budgets is referred to as ―SIP

- based‖ budgets, and the other set is referred to as ―baseline‖ budgets. In its A pril 30, 2008 submittal, CARB requests that EPA give primary consideration to the ―SIP

- based‖ budgets and only find the ―baseline‖ budg ets to be adequate if EPA could find the ―SIP

- based‖ budgets adequate in their entirety.

The replacement budgets submitt ed on April 30, 2008 differed from the original budgets in that they reflected the EPA

- approved EMFAC2007 motor vehicle emission factor model (see 73 FR 3464, January 18, 2008) rather than the District‘s CEPA emission factor model, which had been used for the original budgets. The ―SIP

- based‖ budgets reflect ed emissions reductions from rules adopted by October 2006 and also from control measures CARB expected to adopt in regulatory form in the future. The ―baseline‖ budgets differ ed from the ―SIP

- based‖ bud gets by excluding emission reductions from control measures in the 2007 State Strategy that had not been adopted in regulatory form by October 2006. Mo reover, the ―baseline‖ budgets we re established for RFP years 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017 , and 2020, whereas t he ―SIP

- based‖ budgets

we re established for the RFP years, the attainment year 2023, and the year 2030.

c. Updated Budgets Submitted in 2011 Ozone SIP Revision CARB submitted updated budgets for the South Coast and their documentation in its 2011 Ozone SIP Revision. See 2011Ozone SIP Revision, Appendices A and C . The updated budgets are for VOC and NOx for the RFP years of 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020, and the attainment year of 2023. No budgets were included for the RFP year of 2008 because there are

no a pplicable conformity analysis years prior to 2011. Also no budgets were included for 2030. Attainment SIPs are not required to include budgets for years after the attainment year. Additional information associated with the motor vehicle emission budget cal culations was provided in Attachment 1 of the CARB 2011 Ozone SIP Revision Supplement

. 99 Additional documentation on how these budgets were calculated is provided in electronic mails dated August 9 th and August 11 th , 2011 from Douglas Ito, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, EPA Region 9. 100 These budgets were updated to account for revisions to the emissions inventories for the truck and bus category, and to reflect CARB‘s current rulemaking calendar. These revised updated budgets are shown in T able H

- 1 below.

Table H

- 1 . Summary of Revised Ozone Precursor Budgets for the South Coast 8

- hour Ozone Nonattainment Area (tons per summer day) , July 2011 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx South Coast Air Basin 172 328 136 277 119 224 108 185 99 140

Source: ― 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins,‖ Appendix C, adopted July 21 , 2011, posted at www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm.

99 See Letter from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, EPA Region 9, dated July 10, 2011

. 100 See Electronic Mails from Douglas Ito, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, dated August 9, 2011, and August 11, 2011

.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 128 Tabl e H

- 2 shows how the revised updated budg ets were calculated. This calculation is described in Appendix C of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision. The baseline inventories are the initial SIP on

- road m otor vehicle emissions inventories in Appendix III of the 2 007 South Coast AQMP as submitted in November 2007. The budgets continue to be based on the same planning assumptions that were used in the original South Coast 2007 AQMP.

The conformity budgets are calculated by taking these baseline inventories, subtracting reductions from certain pre

- 2007 AQMP me asures (―existing measures‖) and reductions from measures adopted after the South Coast 2007 AQMP was adopted as well as measures and other inventory adjustments included in CARB‘s new heavy duty diesel truck model (collectively, ―new measures‖). The fina l budget is the resulting total rounded to the next highest ton.

Existing measures are:

AB 1493 Greenhouse Gas standards On

- road portion of the Carl Moyer program

New measures are:

Smog Check improvements (low pressure evap, cutpoints, light and medium duty diesels, smoke test) (NOx and VOC) Reformulated gasoline (VOC only) Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Model (NOx and VOC)

o New HDDT inventory

o HDDT Recession Impacts

o I n

- Use HDDT Rule

o HDDT Chip Reflash

o HDDT Public Fleet and Solid Waste Rules

o HDDT Idling Rule s

Table H

- 2. Calculation of the Revised Updated Ozone Precursor B udgets for the South Coast 8

- Hour Ozone Nonattainmen t Area (tons per summer day) , July 2011

South Coast Air Basin 201 1 2014 2017 2020 2023

VOC Baseline Emissions (EMFAC2007 Default) 176.0 150.1 131.1 117.0 106.1 Adjustments for Adopted State and Local On

- Road Measures - 0.3

- 0.6

- 0.9

- 1.1

- 1.5

State Strategy

- On

- road Reductions

- 4.5

- 14.2

- 11.5

- 8.5

- 6.2

Sum 171.2 135.2 118.8 107.4 98.4

Budgets 172 136 119 108 99TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 129 NOx Baseline Emissions (EMFAC2007 Default) 367.7 299.9 243.5 200.2 171.8 Adjustments for Adopted State and Local On

- Road Measures - 1.4

- 1.4

- 1.0

- 0.1

- 0.1

State Strategy

- On

- road Reductions

- 38.9

- 22.3

- 18.8

- 15.6

- 31.9 Sum 327.5 276.3 223.6 184.5 139.8

Budgets 328 277 224 185 140 Note: Budgets are rounded up to the nearest ton.

3. May 6, 2008 Adequacy/Inadequacy Finding on the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

On May 6, 2008, we notified CARB that we had found the ― SIP

- based‖ ozone budgets for the 2007 South Coast AQMP, as submitted on April 30, 2008, did not meet certain adequacy requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and concluded that they were inadequate fo r transportation conformity purposes. See letter and enclosures, dated May 6, 2008 from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, a copy of which has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. T he finding is available on EPA‘s transportation conformity website, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm In our May 2008 adequacy determination, we found the ―baseline‖ ozone budgets for the RFP years 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017 and 2020 to be adequate. Generally, we found the ―SIP

based‖ budgets to be inadequate because they reflected control measures not yet adopted in regulatory form and thus not adequately quantified or supported by the plan. In contrast, we found the ―baseline‖ o zone budgets to be consistent with the plan‘s RFP demonstration and to be based on adopted mobile source regulations that have already been implemented. Our notice of adequacy/inadequacy was published on May 15, 2008 at 73 FR 28110 (corrected on June 18, 2 008 at 73 FR 34837) and was effective on May 30, 2008. These budgets are currently being used by the MPOs and DOT in transportation conformity determinations.

4. September 2011 Proposed Action on the Budgets Submitted in 2011

As part of its review of the appro vability of the budgets, EPA evaluated the revised budgets submitted in 2011 using our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR § 93.318(e)(4) an d (5). As documented in Table H

- 3 below, we found that they meet each of the adequacy criteria. As documented in this TSD , we have completed our detailed review of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour ozone plan and supple mental submittals including CARB‘s 2011 Ozone SIP Revision and are proposing to approve the RFP and attainment demonstrati ons in the South Coast 2007 8

- hour

ozo ne p lan

. We have also reviewed the budgets submitted with the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision and have found that they are consistent with the RFP and attainment demonstrations

, were based on control measures that have already been adopted and implemented

, and me et all other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements including meeting the adequacy criteria in 40TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 130 CFR § 93.118(e)(4) and(5) . Therefore, in September 2011, we proposed to approve the 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020 a nd 2023 budgets shown in Table H

- 1.

EPA is not required under its Transportation Conformity rule to find budgets adequate prior to proposing approval of them. We did , however, complete the adequac y review of these budgets prior to our final action on the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan. We p osted the budgets on September 19, 2011, and the comment period on the adequacy finding closed on October 19, 2011. We received no comments on our adequacy posting.

5. Evaluation, Conclusion , and Final Action on the Revised 2011 Budgets
As part of our review of the approvability of the budgets, EPA has evaluated the revised budgets submitted in 2011 using our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR § 93.318(e)(4) and (5). In addition, we posted the revised budgets on EPA‘s adequacy review web page on September 19, 2011 an d held a public comment period until October 19,2011. No comments were received on the adequacy posting. As documented in Table H

- 3 below, we found that the revised budgets meet each of the adequacy criteria.

As documented in this TSD , we have completed our detailed review of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour ozone plan and supple mental submittals including CARB‘s 2011 Ozone SIP Revision and are approving the RFP and attainment demonstrati ons in the South Coast 2007 Ozone Plan

. We have also reviewed the budget s submitted with the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision and have found that they are consistent with the RFP a nd attainment demonstrations, were based on control measures that have already been adopted and implemented

, and meet all other applicable statutory and regu latory requirements including meeting the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4) and(5) . Therefore, we are approving the 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020 and 2023 budgets shown in Table H

- 1.

On the effective date of the final approval of these budgets

, SCAG and the U.S. Depar tment of Transportation are required to use the revised budgets in transportation conformity determinations. F or these conformity determinations, t he motor vehicle emissions from implementation of the transportation plan should be projected and compared to the budgets at the same level of accuracy as the budgets in the plan, for example emissions should be rounded to the rounded to the next highest ton (e.g. 11 tpd)

. Also, due to the nature of these budgets (combining reductions from control measures related to the in

- use truck and bus rule, some of which are included in EMFAC2011), the MPOs will need to show the off

- model emission reductions associated with the individual control measures incorporated into the budgets, from CARB, for the app ropriate analysis years in future conformity determinations so that they can include these reductions in regional emissions analyses per 40 CFR § 93.122.

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of th e Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets and EPA Response

We received one comment on our proposed approval of the motor vehicle emissions bud gets in the South Coast 2007 8

- h our ozone plan. CARB has requested that we limit the duration of our approval of the revised motor vehicle emission budgets submitte d on July 29,TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 131 2011 for the South Coast Basin and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin until the effective date of a future adequacy finding on budgets that replace these budgets. 101

T he transportation conformity rule allows EPA to limit the approval of the budg ets. See 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(1). However, we can only consider a state‘s request to limit our approval if a state adequately addresses three factors. First, the state must acknowledge and explain why the budgets under consideration have become outdated or d eficient; second, the state must make a commitment to update the budgets as part of a comprehensive SIP update. Finally, the state must request that EPA limit the duration of its approval to the point in time when the new budgets have been found to be adeq uate for transportation conformity purposes.

See 67 FR 69141 ( November 15, 2002 ) ( limiting our prior approval of budgets in certain California SIPs )

The comment letter submitted by CARB does not address all of these factors; therefore, we cannot addres s CARB‘s request at this time. When the State has addressed these factors, EPA intends to propos e to limit the duration of our approval of the revised budgets in the 2011 Ozone SIP revision and prove the public an opportunity to comment. The duration of t he approval of the budgets would not be limited until we completed the rulemaking initiated by that proposal

No issues were raised that changed our finding that the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the South Coast 2007 8

- hour ozone plan are consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.

101 See letter, Douglas Ito, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch, CARB, October 17, 2011. In the same comment letter, CARB also requested that we limit the duration of our recent approval of the PM 2.5 motor vehicle budgets for both areas, consistent with EPA‘s prior actions on California‘s SIPs.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ __________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 132

Ta ble H

- 3 Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report August 2011
Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/CommentsTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ __________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 133

Ta ble H

- 3 Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report August 2011
Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93 .118(e)(4)(i) The plan was endorsed by the

Governor (or designee) and was subject to a public hearing. The District conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan on June 1, 2007. Documentation accompanying the AQMP describes a public and agency outreach effort. See, e.g., the SCAQMD‘s Response to Comments on the Draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (February 2007), submitted by CARB on November 28, 2007 as enclosure I

- E, describi ng nine regional workshops held from October 24 through December 6, 2006 to discuss the draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) released on October 10, 2006. The November 28, 2007 transmittal submitting the South Coast 2007 AQMP was sent by CARB‘s Ex ecutive Officer, James Goldstene, the Governor‘s designee. The transmittal letter indicates that CARB formally adopted the plan on September 27, 2007 through a Board Resolution (07

- 28). CARB released the plan on April 26, 2007 (appendices on May 7, 2007) a nd requested public comments by June 21, 2007 or at a public hearing held on June 22, 2007 and again on September 27, 2007.

The sequence of public meetings held to discuss the elements of the draft State Strategy for California‘s 2007 SIP (State Strategy) is described in the CARB staff report developed for the CARB Board‘s consideration prior to adoption of the State Strategy. CARB also provide the required public notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its September 27, 2007 public hearing on th e South Coast 2007 AQMP. See CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan for Attaining the Federal 8

- hour Ozone and PM 2.5 Standards in the South Coast Air Basin and the Coachella Valley. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/ma/2007/ma092707.htm and http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/nonreg/scsip07.pdf

. CARB also provide the required public notice , opportunity for public comment, and public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009 adoption of revisions to the Strategy. See CARB, Notice of Public Hearing to Consider a Status Report on the State Strategy for California‘s 2007 State Implementation Plan an d Consider Approval of a Proposed Revision to the State Implementation Plan Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy, March 24, 2009.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ __________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 134

Ta ble H

- 3 Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report August 2011
Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

The 2009 State Strategy update, which updates the 2007 State Strategy, was submitted on August 12, 2011 via transmittal letter from CARB‘s Executive Officer, James Goldstene, the Governor‘s designee.

CARB also provided a public comment period and held a public hearing prior to its adoption of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision on July 21 , 2011. The SIP was ma de available for public review on June 20 , 2011. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/planarea/2011_ozone_sip_revision_notice.pdf for the public hearing document ation. The 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, which updates the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy, was submitted on July 29, 2011 via transmittal letter from CARB‘s Executive Officer, James Goldstene, the Governor‘s designee.

Each of the five SIP su bmittals that comprise the South Coast 8

- hour ozone attainment plan incl ude proof of publication for notices of SCAQMD and CARB public hearings as evidence that all hearings were properly noticed.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ __________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 135

Ta ble H

- 3 Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report August 2011
Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii) The plan was developed through

consultation with federal, state and local agencies; full implementation plan documentation was provided and EPA‘s stated concerns, if any, were addressed. Y Consultation with federal, state and local agencies was undertaken; this consultation took place w ith the SCAG interagency consultation working group Members of the consultation group include: EPA, FHW A, FTA, CARB, C altrans, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and the area‘s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) , SCAG and coun ty transportation agencies. EPA received a copy of the draft 2011 Progress Report, the South Coast 2007 AQMP and draft State Strategy but provided no written comments. However, in response to EPA‘s requests for additional information, CARB did provide Att achment A included in a May 18, 2011 letter from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, EPA Region 9. The revised budgets are posted at the following URL: http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm

. Furthermore, in response to EPA questions, ARB provided additional information via an August 10, 2011 letter sent by Lynn Terry to Deborah Jordan and emails from Doug Ito to Elizabeth Adams on August 9 th and August 11 th , EPA questions were addressed by the additional technical clarifications on the budgets provided in documents attached with these communications.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iii) The motor vehicle emission budgets

are clearly identified a nd precisely quantified. Y The motor ve hicle emissions budgets for 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020 and 2023 are clearly identified and precisely quantified in Appendix A (Table A

- 2 ) of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision and further described in Attachment2 of the August 10 , 2011 letter and the additional technical information provided by CARB

. . These budgets reflect control measures that were already adopted at the time the CARB adopted the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision on July 21 , 2011 . 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix A, p. 3. CARB di d not update the budget for 2008 because the 2008 budgets are longer needed for any conformity determination in the South Coast nonattainment area. 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix C

.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ __________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 136

Ta ble H

- 3 Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report August 2011
Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv) The motor vehicle emis sions

budget(s), when considered together with all other emission sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further progress and attainment. Y EPA has preliminarily concluded th at the budgets for the year 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020 and 2023 when considered together with all other emission sources and controls , are consistent with the requirement to demonst rate RFP for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards . This finding is based on a thorough review of the revised RFP demonstrations in Appendi x A (Table A

- 1 ) of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, July 21, 2011. As documented in Section II.G. of this TSD, EPA is proposing to approve the revised RFP demonstration

. EPA has preliminarily concluded t hat the budgets for the year 2023 when considered togethe r with all other emission sources and controls , are consistent with the requirement to demonstrate expeditious attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards . This finding is based on review of the updated attainment demonstration in the 2011Ozone SIP Revis ion, dated July 21, 2011. As documented in Section II. C . of this TSD, EPA is proposing to approve the revised attainment demonstration.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ __________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 137

Ta ble H

- 3 Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report August 2011
Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(v) The plan shows a clear relationship

among the emissions budget(s), control measures and the total emissions inventory. Y The emission inventories for all poin t, area, and mobile sources are contained in Chapter 3 of SCAQMD‘s Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The control strategy that is relied up on for the ―SIP

- based‖ budgets i s set out in Chapter 4 of SCAQMD‘s Final 2007 AQMP and Appendix IV

- A, and in Attachment A of CARB‘s Resolution 07

- 28 dated September 27, 2007 adopting the 2007 State Strategy. See also (http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/southcoast/scstaffreport.pdf) and
ap pendices. The ―offmodel‖ adjustments to the baseline inventory, as referenced in the footnote to the motor vehicle emissions budgets, for the motor vehicle emission budgets, are available on pages 73 (NOx), 76 (ROG) and 79 (PM2.5) of Appendix A, the Emissi on Inventory Output Tables, of the May 7, 2007 update to the Revised Statewide Strategy for California's 2007 SIP. The submittal dated April 30, 2008 made changes to the budgets to reflect the use of EMFAC2007, but the changes (relative to those calculate d using SCAQMD‘s CEPA model ) were minor and the emissions estimates remain ed consistent with the RFP demonstrations for 8

- hour ozone in the 2007 South Coast SIP, as supplemented for 8

- hour ozone RFP on February 1, 2008.
The reductions from individual exist ing measures used in the budgets are also described in more detail in Tables B

- 1 and B

- 2 in Appendix B

, as well as in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions S upplement , and additional technical information transmitted from ARB in their August 10 letter and emails on August 9th and 11 th

.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ __________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 138

Ta ble H

- 3 Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report August 2011
Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(vi) Revisions to previously submitted

control strategy or maintenance plans explain and document any changes to any previous submitted budgets and control measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; any changes to established safety margins (see §93.101 for definition), and reasons for the changes (including the basis for any changes to emission factors or estimates of vehicle miles traveled). Y Prior to submittal of the 2007 Ozone Plan, t he m ost recent ozone SIP for the South Coast nonattainment area was the South Coast 2007 AQMP, which addressed 1

- hour

o zone and other pollutants . EPA found the budgets from the 2003 South Coast AQMP adequate in 2004 (see 69 FR 15325 )

. The motor vehicle emissi on inventories in the 2003 AQMP are based on the EMFAC2002 motor vehicle emissions model, and motor vehicle emission inventories in the South Coast 2007 Ozone Plan and subsequent updates were prepared using the most recent version of the model, EMFAC2007. EMFAC2007 was approved by EPA for use in SIPs and conformity determinations o n January 18, 2008 (73 FR 3464) . This notice approving EMFAC2007 details the basis for the changes to the emission factors.
The MVEB being reviewed here are for the 8

- hour ozone standards and do not constitute a revision to the MVEB previously submitted in the 2003 AQMP because that Plan addressed different ozone standard s

. CARB submitted revisions to the motor vehicle emission budgets in the South Coast 2007 Ozone Plan as part o f the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions . The revisions removed some control measures that were included in the prior RFP and attainment budgets (e.g. South Coast AB923 measures), included revisions to the Heavy Duty Diesel Truck inventory using ARB‘s Heavy Duty Tr uck Model and adjusted the reductions associated with smog check and reformulated gasoline.

Sec. 93.118(e)(5) EPA has reviewed the State‘s

compilation of public comments and response to comments that are required to be submitted with any implementation pl an. Y SCAQMD compiled public comments submitted during the June 1, 2007 public hearing and during the public comment periods. These comments and the responses are included in the February 2007 ―Response to Comments‖ ( http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07/aqmp/modified/Response_to_Comments.pdf ). ARB compiled public comments submitted during the September 2 7, 2007, November 15, 2007, April 24, 2008 , and July 21, 2011 public hearings and during the public comment periods. These comments (if any) and the responses are included in adoption hearing transcripts ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/meetings.htm ). We hav e reviewed the compilation of comments and responses and find the responses to be acceptable. No issues that might have affected our adequacy finding remain unanswered.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 139 

### I. Other CAA Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone Nonattainment Areas

Title I, subpart D of the CAA includes a number of planning and control requirements applicable to extreme ozone nonattainment areas, such as the South Coast . Below, we discuss the current status of each of these requirements for infor mational purposes only. We are not proposing any action related to these provisions.

1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program

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 51.351. CAA section 182(a)(2)(B) directs EPA to publish updated guidance for state I/M programs, taking into consideration the findings of EPA's audits and investigations of these programs. The Act further directs that each area required to have an I/M program incorporate this guidance into its SIP. Based on these CAA requirements, EPA promulgated I/M regulations on November 5, 1992 (57 FR 51950), as corrected at 58 FR 59366 (November 9, 1993) and at 59 FR 32343 (June 23, 1994). EPA's I/M regulations are codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart S (―Inspection/ Main tenance Program Require ments‖), sections 51.350 through 51.373.

The I/M regulations establish minimum performance standards for ―basic‖ and ―enhanced‖ I/M programs as well as requirements for the following: network type and program evaluation; adequate tools and resources; te st frequency and convenience; vehicle coverage; test procedures and standards; test equipment; quality control; waivers and compliance via diagnostic inspection; motorist compliance enforcement program oversight; quality assurance; enforcement against cont ractors, stations and inspectors; data collection; data analysis and reporting; inspector training and licensing or certification; public information and consumer protection; improving repair effectiveness; compliance with recall notices; on

- road testing; SIP revisions; and implementation deadlines.

The performance standard for basic I/M programs remains the same as it has been since EPA's initial I/M policy was established in 1978, pursuant to the 1977 CAA amendments. The performance standard for enhanc ed I/M programs was established in 1992 pursuant to the 1990 CAA amendments and is based on a high

- technology transient test, known as IM240, for 1986 and later model year vehicles, including a transient loaded exhaust short test incorporating hydrocarbons (HC), NO X , and carbon monoxide (CO) cutpoints, an evaporative system integrity (pressure) test and an evaporative system performance (purge) test.

The South Coast area has been subject to the enhanced I/M requirements of section 182(c)(3) since the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (C AAA). Under California law, the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) is responsible for developing and implementing the smog check program. CARB submitted a SIP revision for the State‘s basic and enhanced I/M program on January 22, 1996, and we approved this SIP revision on January 8, 1997 (see 62 FR 1150)

.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 140 CARB submitted a SIP revision on February 24, 2006 (supplemented on August 11, 2006 with additional technical information) showing the enhanced I/M program, as it applies in Sout h Coast, meets EPA‘s performance standard for ―low‖ enhanced I/M programs for CO. We approved this SIP revision on May 11, 2007 (see 72 FR 26718) as part of our redesignation of the South Coast area to attainment for CO.

CARB submitted additional SIP rev isions on June 5, 2009 relating to the State‘s basic and enhanced I/M program. On July 1, 2010 at 75 FR 38023, EPA approved California‘s inspection and maintenance program 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 standards , the South Coast nonattainment area was covered under the federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) program. See CAA section 211(k)(10)(D). As an 8

- ho ur ozone nonattainment area, South Coast continues to be covered under the federal RFP 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 South Coast nonattainment area.

On June 15, 2004, the State submitted a series of amendments to the reformulated gasoline rules as approved by EPA in 1995. Specifically, on August 3, 2000, the State adopted amendments that established the CaRFG3 standards and program, including revisions leading to the phase out of methyl tertiary

- butyl ether (MTBE) as a gasoline oxygenate. Starting March 21, 2001, the State adopted a series of rulemakings to amend the CA RFG rules regarding certain limits for denatured ethanol used in California gasoline and the model for ―California reformulated blendstock for oxygenate blending‖ or ―CARBOB.‖ These amendments also allowed certain small refiners to offset excess emissions from CaRFG3 with additional emission reductions from low ering the aromatic hydrocarbon content of diesel fuel. On May 1, 2003, the State adopted amendments to the CA RFG rules that updated test methods used to comply with CaRFG3 regulations and also delayed the phase out of MTBE by one year to avoid disrupting the supply of gasoline in California.

On February 3, 2009, the State submitted revisions to the reformulated gasoline rules. These revisions were adopted by the State on November 18, 2004. Among other things, the revisions updated the procedure for evaluating alternative specifications for CaR FG3 using the California Predictive Model. Additional new rules and revisions were adopted by the State on August 7, 2008. Among other things these rules updated the California Predictive Model in the CaRFG3 regulations to mitigate permeation emissions ass ociated with the use of ethanol as a fuel additive. EPA approved the June 15, 2004 and February 3, 2009 SIP revisions in a final rulemaking dated May 12, 2010 (see 75 FR 26653).TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 141 3. New Source Review Rule

CAA section 182(a)(2)(C) required states to d evelop SIP revisions containing permit programs within two years after the enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990 for each of its ozone nonattainment areas. The SIP revisions a re to include requirements for permits in accordance with CAA sections 172(c)(5 ) and 173 for the construction and operation of each new or modified major stationary source for ozone in the area. See also CAA section 182(e). EPA‘s implementing regulations for nonattainment new source review (NSR) are in 40 CFR 51.165

, and guidance spe cific to ozone nonattainment areas was provided in the preamble to the 8

- hour ozone implementation rule. S ee 70 FR 71612, at 71671

- 71684

. New Source Review (NSR) for point sources of ozone precursors is addressed through the SCAQMD‘s NSR and RECLAIM progr ams (Regulations XIII and XX , respectively ). We approved the District‘s NSR program in a direct final rule on December 4, 1996 ( see 61 FR 64291 , 64 FR 13514 (March 19,1999), and 71 FR 35157 (June 19, 206) ) as satisfying the NSR requirements in title I, part D of the CAA for extreme ozone nonattainment areas , and the RECLAIM program most recently on August 12 , 2011 (see 76 FR 50128 ). Table I

- 1 shows the adoption, submittal, and SIP approval status of SCAQMD‘ s NSR rules.



### Table I

- 1 Adoption, Submittal, and SIP Approval Status of SCAQMD’s NSR Rules

( REGULATION 13

- New Source Review )

Rule Adoption Submittal to EPA Approval

Date Federal Register

Citation

1301 General 12/07/95 08/28/96 12/04/96 61 FR 64291

1302 Definitions 12/07/95 03/10/98 03/19/99 64 FR 13514

1303 Requirements 05/10/96 08/28/96 12/04/96 61 FR 64291

1304 Exemptions from Regulation XIII 06/14/96 08/28/96 12/04/96 61 FR 64291

1305 Special Permit Provisions 07/10/84 01/29/85 50 FR 3906

1306 Emission Calculations 06/14/96 08/28/96 12/04/96 61 FR 64291

1309 Emission Reduction Credits 12/07/95 08/28/96 12/04/96 61 FR 64291

1309.1 Priority Reserve 05/03/2002 12/23/2002 06/19/ 06 71 FR 35157

1310 Analysis, Notice, and Reporting 12/07/95 08/28/96 12/04/96 61 FR 64291

1313 Permits to Operate 12/07/95 08/28/96 12/04/96 61 FR 64291TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 142 4. Clean

- Fuel Vehicle Program

CAA sectio ns 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 require st a tes to submit for EPA approval a SIP revision that includes measures to implement the Clean Fuel Vehicle Program in serious and above nonattainment areas

. In particular, SIPs for these areas with 1980 populations of 250,000 or more must establish a clean

- fuel vehicle pro g ram for centrally

- fuelled fleets (referred to as a Clea n

- Fuel Fleet (CFF) program). Under the CFF program, a specified percentage of vehicles purchased by fleet operators for covered fleets shall be clean

- fuel vehicles and shall use clean alternative fuels when operating in the covered area. Section 182(c)(4) (B) of the Act allows states to  ̳ ̳opt

- out‘‘ of the clean

- fuel vehicle fleet program by submitting for EPA approval a SIP revision consisting of a program or programs not otherwise required by the Act that will result in at least equivalent long term reduct ions in ozone

producing and toxic air emissions.

California submitted a commitment to submit a replacement in order to opt out of the federal Clean Fuel Fleets program, using the state‘s Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program as a substitute measure, for the six serious and above 1

- hour ozone nonattainment areas in the state. EPA granted a conditional approval of California‘s opt

- out request on November 29, 1993. (See 58 FR 62532). The approval was conditioned upon California‘s submittal of an additional SIP

r evision that would fulfill its LEV program commitment by May 15, 1994. CARB submitted its LEV program with enhancements as part of its 1994 ozone SIP on November 15, 1994. We approved the substitution of the LEV program for a Clean Fuel Fleet program into the California SIP on August 27, 1999. See 64 FR 46849.

5. Gasoline Vapor Recovery

CAA section 182(b)(3) mandates that States sub mit 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. See General Preamble at 13514. California‘s ozone nonattainment areas had implemented Stage II vapor recovery well before the passage of the CAA Amendments of 1990. Under California State law (Health and Safety Code Sections 41954), C ARB is required to ado pt procedures and performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from ga soline marketing operations, including tr ansfer and storage operations. State law also authorizes C ARB, in cooperation with districts, to certify vapor recovery systems, iden tify defective equipment, and develop test methods. C ARB has adopted numerous revisions to its vapor recovery program regulations. See Table A

- 7 in Appendix A to this TSD. See also C ARB‘s website, http://www.evrhome.org/

. In the South Coast , t he install ation and operation of C ARB

- certified vapor recovery equipment is required and enforced by SCAQMD Rules 461 and 46 2

. Both rules were first adopted on January 9, 1976. The latest version of Rule 461 was approved into the SIP on April 11, 2006 ( see 7 1 FR 182 16)

, and the latest version of Rule 462 was approved into the SIP on July 21, 1999 (see 64 FR 39037 )

.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 143 6. Enhanced Ambient Air Quality Monitoring

CAA section 182(c) (1) req uires that all ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or above implement measures to enhance and improve both ambient air quality monitoring of ambient concentrations of ozone, NOx, and VOCs, and to improve emissions monitoring of NOx and VOCs

. CAA Section 182(c)(1) requires EPA to promulgate regulations for the enhanced monit oring of ozone and its precursors and for the affected States to incorporate the requirements as a part of their SIP s. In addition , section 184(d) requires that the best available air quality monitoring and modeling techniques be used in makin g determinati ons concerning the contribution of sources in one area to concentrations of ozone in another area which is a nonattainment area for ozone.

The intent of these enhanced ozone and ozone precursor monitoring regulations is to require air pollution control a gencies to obtain an air quality database that will assist in evaluating, tracking the progress of, and, if necessary, refining control strategies for attaining the

ozone NAAQS . Photochemical assessment monitoring stations (PAMS) were to be established to collect ambient concentrations of ozone

, NOx , nitrogen dioxide NO 2 , nitrogen oxide (NO), and speciated VOC, including carbonyls, and meteorological data to better characterize the nature and extent of the ozone problem, aid in tracking V OC and NOx emission inventory reductions, assess air quality trends, and make attainment/nonattainment decisions. In addition, the PAMS was designed to provide a more definitive database for evaluating photochemical model performance, especially for futur e control strategy mid

- course corrections as part of the continuing air quality management process.

O nce EPA promulgated rules for enhanced monitoring of ozone, nitrogen oxides, and VOCs, serious and above ozone nonattainment areas were required to imple ment a program based on these rules. The measures the State t akes to implement the rules were to be put into the SIP for that area. The enhanced monitoring requirement requires states to implement a program to improve monitoring for ambient concentrations of ozone, NOx, and VOCs, and to improve monitoring of emissions of NOx and VOCs.

The SCAQMD‘s 2010 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan ( dated July 2011 ) describes the steps the state has taken to address the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1). Pages 5 through 7 and 21 of the monitoring network plan describe the South Coas t Air Basin‘s PAMS network. 102

, 103 The South Coast PAMS network was initiated in 1994 at two monitoring sites in the Basin and subsequently expanded through 2001. More detail is provided in the following section.

102 Starting in 20 07, EPA‘s monitoring rules (see 71 FR 61236), October 17, 2006) required the submittal and EPA action on annual monitoring network plans.
103 SCAQMD‘s July 2011 monitoring network plan can be found in the docket for today‘s action. We approved the 2011 moni toring network plan on November 1, 2011 . See letter, Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region 9, to Dr. Chung S. Liu, Deputy Executive Officer, Science and Technology Advancement, SCAQMD, dated November 1, 2011.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 144 The PAMS network was initiated in June 1994 at Pico Rivera and Upland, and in 1995 at Banning and Azusa, to de termine speciated hydrocarbon ozone precursor compounds in ambient air. PAMS monitoring at Hawthorne commenced in June 1997 and the Burbank station became a PAMS site in July 1997. In May 2001, the Santa Clarita location was established as a PAMS site. In April 2004, the Hawthorne site was replaced by LAX Hastings, due to the end of a property lease. In August 2005, the Pico Rivera station moved to a new location one half mile south of the previous site, also due to the end of the property lease.

On October 17, 2006, the EPA issued final a mendments to PAMS monitoring requirements in 40 CFR § 58. The changes made to the rule were to implement recommendations made by the PAMS workgr oup . The workgroup recommended changes be made to site type and monitoring objectives. During September 2008, a report from the EPA PAMS network assessment project workgroup was issued. The objectives of the workgroup were to assess how well the current PAMS network was meeting monitoring objectives, determine which sites are most useful for meeting objectives, iden tify potentially redundant, ineffective, or unnecessary sites, and to assess other enhanced ozone monitoring activities that may prove useful. To address regulatory changes, site

- specific observations from the PAMS network assessment project, and potential synergie s between programs, SC AQMD made the following changes to the PAMS monitoring network in June 2009 :

Burbank was reclassified from Type 2/1 to Type 2. This change addressed the National PAMS Network Assessment observation that Burbank should be re classified to a Type 2 precursor site. The recommendation is consistent with the heavily urbanized/industrialized area, which is impacted by high levels of ozone precursor emissions. Santa Clarita was reclassified as Type 3 from Type 2. Although the Nation al PAMS Network Assessment observed that Santa Clarita was consistent with a Type 2 site, recent data was more cons istent with a Type 3 maximum ozone concentration site rather than a Type 2 ozone precursor site. Banning was relocated to Los Angeles (Main). The National PAMS Network Assessment observe d that Banning had the lowest ozone concentrations of all the Type 2 sites and should be reclassified to a Type 3 or 4 site. Instead, to create synergies between programs, SC AQMD relocated the Banning PAMS site to the Los Angeles (Main) site as Type 2. This satisfies the EPA recommendation for use of the same monitoring platform and equipment to meet the objectives of multiple programs. Los Angeles (Main) is also a National Air Toxics Trends Station (NATTS), a fu ture National Core

- Multi

- pollutant Monitoring Station (NCore), and an Speciation Trends Network (STN) site. Azusa was reclassified from Type 3 to Type 2. This proposed change addresses the National PAMS Network Assessment observation that Azusa has high VO C and NOx concentrations, with lower ozone concentrations. The site now mo re closely resembles a Type 2 ozone precursor site. Upland was relocated to the Rubidoux site. The National PAMS Network Assessment observed that Upland was no longer consistent with a Type 4 site and recommendedTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 145 reclassification to Type 3. South Coast AQMD relocated the Upland PAMS site to Rubidoux as a Type 3 location where synergies can be created among the NATTS, NCore, and STN programs. LAX Hastings and Pico Rivera remained uncha nged.

Currently, manual VOC canisters are in operation at the Azusa, LAX Hastings, Rubidoux, Los Angeles (Main) and Santa Clarita air monitoring stations. During the intensive season from July 1 until September 30, VOC canisters are run every three hours f or a period of twenty

- four hours every 3rd day and a twenty

- four hour sample is run every 6th day.

During the non

- intensive season from October 1 through June 30, twenty

- four hour VOC canister samples are run every 6th day. At Los Angeles (Main) and Santa Clarita air monitoring stations, during the intensive season from July 1 until September 30, carbonyl samples are run every three hours for a period of twenty

- four hours every 3rd day and a twenty

- four hour sample is run every 6 th day. During the non

- inte nsive season from October 1 through June 30, twenty

four hour carbonyl samples are run every 6th day.

Automated gas chromatograph y flame ionization detector (GC/ FID) VOC systems are in operation at the Pico Rivera and Burbank air monitoring stations. Duri ng the intensive sampling season from Ju ly 1 until September 30, the GC/ FID is run to collect 3

- hour samples and twenty

four hour VOC canisters are run every 6th day. Like the other PAMS sites, carbonyl samples are run every three hours with one additional twenty

- four hour sample run every 6th day. During the

non

- intensive season from October 1 through June 30, the GC/FID is idle and twenty

- four hour VOC canister samples are run every 6th day and twenty

- four hour carbonyl samples are run every 6th day. Rubi doux is a collocated site for VOC canister sampling and Pico Rivera is a collocated site for VOC canister and carbonyl sampling.

The first SC AQMD upper air meteorological monitoring station was established at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in 199 4. Subsequent upper air stations include Ontario International Airport (ONT) installed in 1996, Moreno Valley (MOV) installed in 2001 at the Moreno Valley Municipal Water Treatment Plant in Riverside County, Irvine installed at the University of California Research and Extension Center in 2006, and Pacoima at Whiteman Airport during May 2007. The upper air stations use a combination of remote sensing and surface meteorological instrumentation, such as an acoustic wind profiler, and tower

- mounted meteorologi cal measurements of wind, pressure, temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation and ultraviolet radiation.

We have determined that the SCAQMD‘s PAMS network meets EPA requirements for enhanced monitoring programs. See footnote 101.

7. Clean Fuels or Advanced Technology 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 tons per year (tpy) of NO X to either burn as its primary fuel natural gas, methanol, or ethanolTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 146 (or a comparably low polluting fuel), or use advanced control technology (such as catalytic control technology or other comparably effective control methods).

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 a waste heat recovery boiler that is used to recover sensible heat from the exhaust of process equipment such as a combustion turbine, or a recovery furnace that is used to recover process chemicals. It also does not in clude b oilers used primarily for residential space and/or water heating

. General Preamble at 13523. In addition, boilers with rated heat inputs less that 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 NO X emission limit. General Preamble at 13524.

Only boilers that actually emit more than 25 tons per year of NO x are affected. Emissions vary from year to year, however, making applicability difficult to determine. Boilers with rated heat inputs of greater than 10

- 20 million Btu generally have the potential to exceed the 25

- tons

per

- year limit depending on the fuel type. A source with these high rated heat inputs should th erefore be considered affected unless its federally enforceable permit specifically restricts NO, emissions below 25 tons per year from each boiler.

We believe the term "catalytic control technology" in CAA section 182(e)(3) was intended generally to refe r to selective catalytic reduction (S CR). SCR is a post

- combustion control technology that reduces NO x reductions by injecting ammonia into the flue gas, which then passes through layers of catalyst in a reactor.

Selective Non Catalytic Reduction ( SNCR ) is a method to lessen nitrogen oxide emissions in conventional power plants that burn biomass

, waste and coal . The process involves injecting either ammonia or urea into the firebox of the boiler at a location where the flue gas is between 760 and 1,093 degrees Celsius (1,400 and 2,000 °F ) to react with the NO x formed in the combustion process. The resulting product of the chemical redox reaction is elemental nitrogen

, carbon dioxide, and water

. To evaluate whether District rules require ―comparably low p olluting fuel‖ or ―comparably effective control methods

, ‖ we have estimated the NOx emissions from boilers that either burn clean fuels (natural gas) or use catalytic control technologies (SCR) to establish benchmarks for comparison . According to the 1994 Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) Document, ―NOx Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers ‖ (1994 ATC), uncontrolled natural gas

- fired boilers have NOx emissions ranging between 0.06 to 0.45 MMBtu/hour. 104 Thus, fuels that result in a similar or lower range of NOx emissions may be considered ―comparably low polluting‖ fuels under CAA section 182(e)(3) . Boilers burning fuels other than natural gas (e.g., coal or oil) but equipped with SCR controls generally emit NOx at levels 53 to 94% lower than uncontrolled levels

, i.e., NOx emission levels ranging from

104 See Alternative Co ntrol Techniques (ACT) Document

-- NOx Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers, US EPA 453/R

- 94

- 022 (March 1994).TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 147 0.028 to 0.53 MMBtu/hour (coal) and from 0.005 to 0.37 MMBtu/hour (oil)

. 105 Thus, control methods that result in a similar or lower range of NOx emissions may be considered ―comparabl y effective control methods‖ under CAA section 182(e)(3). Boilers burning fuels other than natural gas but equipped with SNCR controls generally emit NOx at levels 30 to 88% lower than uncontrolled levels, depending on fuel type and boiler type, i.e., NOx emission levels ranging from 0.06 to 0.78 MMBtu/hour (coal) and from 0.01 to 0.553 MMBtu/hour (oil). Thus, with the exception of coal

- fired boilers, we generally consider SNCR controls to be ―comparable‖ to SCR controls or to natural gas combustion

.

Provi sions for CAA Section 182(e)(3) in the South Coast SIP The South Coast 2007 AQMP does not directly address CAA section 182(e)(3) requirements for 8

- hour ozone. However, we have reviewed the provisions in the SIP which affect applicable boilers; our review and analysis is described below.

South Coast Rule 1146

. ― Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Industrial, Institutional and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters, ‖ as revised on November 17, 2000 and approved by EPA on April 8, 2002 (67 FR 16640), regulates emissions from boilers larger than 5 MMBtu/hour burning gaseous or non

- gaseous fuels. The limits in the rule range between 0.036 and 0.052 lb/MMBtu, depending on the size of the boiler and its capacity factor. This limit is lower than the level of emissions expected from uncontrolled natural gas

- fired boilers. Thus, the rule essentially requires all subject boilers to burn fuels that are comparably low polluting (compared to natural gas combustion) or to use control technologies to achi eve emissions levels that are similar to those obtained by burning natural gas, methanol, ethanol, or other comparably low polluting fuels.

South Coast Regulation XIII (New Source Review (NSR) Program)

. Regulation XIII (consisting of Rules 1301, 1302, 13 03, 1304, 1306, 1309, 1309.1, 1310, and 1313), which EPA has approved into the South Coast portion of the California SIP (see 61 FR 64291, December 4, 1996), applies to any new or modified boiler proposing to locate in the South Coast that emits or has the potential to emit at least 10 tons per year (tpy) of NOx or VOC, among other sources. See Rules 1301 and 1302. Under Rule 1303, any such boiler is required to employ Best Available Control Technology, which must be at least as stringent as the Lowest Ach ievable Emissions Rate (LAER) as defined in CAA section 171(3). See Rule 1302(f) and 1303(a). The LAER standard essentially requires, at a minimum, combustion of low

- polluting fuels and/or use of advanced control technologies consistent with the requiremen ts of CAA section 182(e)(3). See CAA 171(3). 106 Accordingly, the SCAQMD‘s SIP

- approved NSR program in Regulation XIII, which establishes LAER

- level control requirements for any new or modified boiler that emits more than 10 tpy of NO X , satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(3) for each new or modified electric utility and industrial and commercial boiler that emits more than 25 tpy of

105 The emissions from uncontrolled boilers burning fuels other than natural gas range between 0.46 to 1.12 lb/MMBtu ( coal ) and between 0.08 and 0.79 lb/MMBtu ( oil )

. 1994 ATC at p. 2

- 11

. 106 Section 171(3) of the CAA defines LAER, in relevant part, as ―that rate of emissions which reflects

– (A) the most stringent emission limitation which is contained in the implementatio n plan of any State for such class or category of source, unless the owner or operator of the proposed source demonstrates that such limitations are not achievable, or (B) the most stringent emission limitation which is achieved in practice by such class o r category of source, whichever is more stringent.‖TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 148 NO X . Table I

- 1 above summarizes the status of the rules in SCAQMD‘s NSR program.

As to existing boilers that emit more than 25 tpy of NOx, the District has demonstrated that each such boiler currently operating in the South Coast either burns as its primary fuel natural gas or a comparably low polluting fuel, or uses advanced control t echnology such as SCR or another comparably effective control method (e.g., SNCR), in accordance with SIP

- approved requirements such as Rule 1146. See letter, Elaine Chang, DrPH, Deputy Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air Di vision, EPA Region 9, dated August 23, 2011.

CARB has previously submitted SIP revisions for the South Coast Air Basin addressing the clean fuels for boilers requirement under section 182(e)(3) for the 1

- hour ozone standards

. See 61 FR 57775 (November 8 , 1996) for EPA‘s approval of the rule submitted to satisfy the CAA section 182(e)(3) requirement in the South Coast 1

- hour ozone nonattainment area

.

8 . CAA Section 185 Fee Program

CAA section 182(d)(3) requires that ozone nonattainment areas classifi ed severe and
extreme to submit a SIP revision that includes a CAA section 185 fee program. The fee program applies if an area fails to attain the ozone standards by its applicable attainment date. For each such area, section 185 requires each major stati onary source of VOC and NO x to pay an annual fee for emissions in excess of 80 percent of the emissions baseline. The fee is $5,000 (as adjusted for inflation) per ton of VOC and NO x emissions that are in excess of the baseline. The CAA states that the co mputation of a source‘s ― baseline amount ‖ must be the lower of the amount of actual or allowable emissions under the permit applicable to the source (or if no permit has been issued for the attainment year, the amount of VOC and NO x emissions allowed under the applicable implementation plan) during the attainment year. The fee is required for each calendar year beginning after the attainment date and continuing until the area is redesignated to attainment although no source is requi red to pay any fee for emissions during a year for which the area receives an extension of their attainme nt date under section 181(a)(5). While the requirements of section 185 apply to severe and extreme 8

- hour ozone nonattainment areas, states are not yet require to implement CAA section 185 fee programs for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards

.

Summary of Status of Other CAA Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone Nonattainment Areas

Table I

- 2 summarizes the status of the CAA requirements applicable to ext reme ozone nonattainment areas discussed in this section of the TSD.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 149 

### Table I

- 2

. Summary of Status of Other CAA Requirements Applicable to

Extreme Ozone Nonattainment Areas

CAA Requirement EPA Action Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Approved 75 FR 38023, July 1, 2010 Reformulated Gasoline Program Approved 75 FR 26633, May 12, 2010

New Source Review Rule Approved December 4 , 1996, 61 FR 64291

, March 19, 1999, 64 FR 13514

, and June 19, 2006, 71 FR 35157

Clean

- Fuel Vehicle Program Opt

- out approved, 64 FR 46849, August 27, 1999

Gasoline Vapor Recovery SCAQMD Rule 461

– approved April 11, 2006, see 71 FR 18216) ; SCAQMD Rule 462

– approved July 21, 1999, see 64 FR 39037 Enhanced Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Approved SCAQMD 2009 Network Plan on November 10, 2010

Clean Fuels for Boilers SC Rule 1146 approved April 8, 2002 (67 FR 16640 ) ; NSR program approvals

listed in Table I

- 1 CAA Section 185 Fee Program Not yet required to be submitted

Public Comments Received on Other CAA Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone Nonattainment Areas

We received no comments on these other CAA requirements.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 150 

### III. Response to Comments

List of Comment Letters Received

We received three comment letters in response to our September 16, 2011 proposal at 76 FR 57872. These letters are
1. [ NRDC ] Adrian Martinez

, Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, representing NRDC, Physicians for Social Responsibility

– Los Angeles, California Citizens Against Toxics, Desert Citi zens Against Pollution, Physicians for Social Responsibility

- LA, and C ommunities for a Better Environment, October 17, 2011; 2. [CARB] Douglas Ito, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch, California Air Re sources Board, October 17, 2011; a nd 3. Ian Scott, a private citizen, October 16, 2011. A. Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments

1. Enforceable Commitments

Comment: California Communities Against Toxics, Communities for a Better Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council , and Physicians for Social Responsibility

– Los Angeles (commenters) assert that the CARB and District commitments to achieve total tonnage reductions in the South Coast 8

- hour ozone p lan are not enforceable. Commenters assert that the commitments to achieve to tal tonnages (which they refer to as ―global commitments‖) could be interpreted as ―goals,‖ rather than ―strategies,‖ and are not enforceable because they are discretionary and open

- ended. Commenters cite Bayview Hunters Point Com munity Advocates

v. Metropolita n Transportation Commission , 366 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2004) and El Comite Para El Bienstar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam , 539 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9 th Cir. 2008)

. Commenters assert that enforcement of the ―global commitments‖ by citizens is not possible because neither citizens nor EPA can determine whether CARB has met the ―global commitments,‖ and because CARB and the District determine compliance with the ―global commitment‖ target, thus leaving them in a situation faced by plaintiffs in Warmerdam . Com menters assert that the ―global commitmentments‖ are also not enforceable because there are no measures submitted for inclusion into the SIP to satisfy the tonnage commitment and there are no reporting requirements for C ARB and the District, and they cite to EPA‘s General Preamble at 57 FR 13568 which states, ―[a] regulatory limit is not enforceable if, for example, it is impractical to determine compliance with the published limit.‖ Finally, commenters assert that in order to enf orce the ―global commitment s,‖ which depend on how CARB and the District calculate emissio ns reductions, the methodology that determines how emissions reductions are calculated must also be enforceable. Commenters state that in Warmerdam

, the court found neither the baseline nor

me tho do logy enforceable and thus, the plaintiffs were not able to enforce.

Response: U nder CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of th e Act, as well as timetables for compliance. Similarly, section 172(c)(6) provides that nonattainment area SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations and such other control measures, meansTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 151 or techniques "as may be necessary or appropriate to provi de for attainment‖ of the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.

Control measures, including commitments in SIPs, are enforced directly by EPA under CAA section 113 and also through CAA section 304(a) which provides for citizen suits to be brought again st any person who is alleged ―to be in violation of ... an emission standard or limitation....‖ ―Emission standard or limitation‖ is defined in subsection (f) of section 304. 107
As observed in Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. James Busey et al ., 79 F.3d 12 50, 1258 (1 st Cir. 1996):

C ourts interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction have largely focused on whether the particular standard or requirement plaintiffs sought to enforce was sufficiently specific. Thus, interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction as limited to claims "for violations of specific provisions of the act or specific provisions of an applicable implementation plan," the Second Circuit held that suits can be brought to enforce specific measures, strategies, or commitments designed to ensure complia nce with the NAAQS, but not to enforce the NAAQS directly. See, e.g., Wilder, 854 F.2d at 613

- 14 . Courts have repeatedly applied this test as the linchpin of citizen suit jurisdiction. See, e.g., Coalition Against Columbus Ctr. v. City of New York, 967 F.2d 764, 769

- 71 (2d Cir. 1992) ; Cate v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 904 F. Supp. 526, 530

- 32 (W.D. Va. 1995) ; Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, 1454

- 59 (N.D. Cal.), modified, 746 F. Supp. 976 (1990)

.

Thus courts have found that the citizen suit provision cannot be used to enforce the aspirational goal of attaining the NAAQS, but can be used to enforce specific strategies to achieve that goal including enforceable commitments to develop future emissions controls.

We describe CARB‘s and the District‘s commitments in the 2007 State Strategy (revised in 2009 and 2011) and the 2007 AQMP in detail in our proposal (76 FR 57872 ). 108 The 2007 State Strategy includes commitments to propose defined new measures and an enforceable commitment for emissions reductions sufficient, in combination with existing measures and the District‘s commitments, to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone N AAQS in the South Coast by June 15

, 2024. See CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B at p . 4 and 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 2 0

. For the South Coast, the State‘s emissions reductions commitments, as submitted in 2007 and revised by the 2009 State Strategy Upd ate, a re to achieve 152 tpd of NOx and 46 tpd of VOC by 2014 and 141 tpd NOx and 54 tpd VOC i n the South Coast area by 2023 . See 76 FR 57872, at 57881 ; 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 20.

107 EPA can also enforce SIP commitments pursuant to CAA section 113.
108 The 2011 Ozone SIP Revision revised the State's emissions estimates for certain source categories and projection years and provided a dditional information on the State and District's progress to date in achieving their total emission reduction commitments. In this action, we are approving CARB's and the SCAQMD's emission reduction commitments as submit ted in the 2007 State Strategy, as revised by the 2009 State Strategy Update, and the South Coast 2007 AQMP

, because we do not have sufficient information to determine how the 2011 SIP Revision alters the State's near

- term and long

- term emission reduction commitments. 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 or scheduled for near

- term adoption, should decrease in any future SIP update.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 152 The SCAQMD‘s commitments as submitted in 2007 (and revised in 2011) were to achieve 9.2 tpd NOx and 19.3 tpd VOC by 2023. See 76 FR 57872, Table 2, at 57 878; see also 2011 Progress Report, Appendix F, Tables 2 and 3, and SCAQMD Board Resolution 11

- 9, March 4, 2011. As discussed above, the State‘s total emissions reduction commitment is for 152 tpd of NOx and 46 tpd of VOC by 2014, and 141 tpd of NOx and 54 tpd of VOC, which the State remains obligated to achieve through the adoption of enforceable measures by 2023. See TSD, Table D

- 5; see also CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B at p. 4. The language used in the Board‘s resolution adopting the South Coas t 2007 AQMP to describe its commitment is mandatory and unequivocal in nature:
Be it further resolved, that the District will develop, adopt, submit and implement the short

- and mid

- term control measures as identified in Tables 4

- 2A and 4

- 2B of the 2007 A QMP (Main Document) as expeditiously as possible in order to meet or exceed the commitments identified in Table 4

- 10 of the 2007 AQMP (Main Document), and to substitute any other measures as necessary to make up any emission reduction shortfall. [emphasis added] SCAQMD Board Resolution No. 07

- 9, p.10. Thus, CARB‘s commitments here are to adopt and implement measures that will achieve specific amounts of NOx and VOC reductions by specific years . These are not mere aspirational goals to ultimately achieve the standards. Rather, the State and District have committed to adopt enforceable measures that will achieve these specific amounts of emission reductions by the RFP year of 2014 and the attainment year (2023). See 40 CFR 51.908(d) (requiring implementation o f all control measures needed for expeditious attainment no later than the beginning of the year prior to the attainment date) and 70 FR 71633, 71612 (November 29, 2005) . All of these control measures are subject to State and local rulemaking procedures an d public participation requirements, through which EPA and the public may track the State/District‘s progress in achieving the requisite emission reductions. EPA and citizens may enforce these commitments under CAA sections 113 and 304(a), respectively, sh ould the State/District fail to adopt measures that achieve the requisite amounts of emission reductions by the specified year . We conclude that these enforceable commitments to adopt and implement additional control measures to achieve aggregate emission reductions on a fixed schedule are appropriate means, techniques, or schedules for compliance under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) of the Act.

Commenters cite Bayview as support for their contention that the plan‘s commitments are unenforceable aspir ational goals. Bayview does not, however, provide any such support. That case involved a provision of the 1982 Bay Area 1

- hour ozone SIP, known as TCM 2, which states in pertinent part:

Support post

- 1983 improvements identified in transit operator‘s 5

- year plans, after consultation with the operators adopt ridership increase target for 1983

- 1987. EMISSION REDUCTION ESTIMATES: These emission reduction estimates are predicated on a 15% ridership increase. The actual target would be determined after

con sultation with the transit operators. Following a table listing these estimates, TCM 2 provided that ―[r]idership increases would come from productivity improvements....‖TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 153 Ultimately the 15% ridership estimate was adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the implementing agency, as the actual target. Plaintiffs subsequently attempted to enforce the 15% ridership increase. The court found that the 15% ridership increase was an unenforceable estimate or goal. In reaching that conclusion, the court considered multiple factors, including the plain language of TCM 2 (e.g., ―[a]greeing to establish a ridership  ̳target‘ is simply not the same as promising to attain that target,‖ Bayview at 698); the logic of TCM 2, i.e., the drafters of TCM 2 w ere careful not to characterize any given increase as an obligation because the TCM was contingent on a number of factors beyond MTC‘s control, id . at 699; and the fact that TCM 2 was an extension of TCM 1 that had as an enforceable strategy the improvemen t of transit services, specifically through productivity improvements in transit operators‘ five

- year plans, id . at 701. As a result of all of these factors, the Ninth Circuit found that TCM 2 clearly designated the productivity improvements as the only e nforceable strategy. Id . at 703.

The commitments in the 2007 State Strategy (revised in 2009 and 2011) and South Coast 2007 AQMP are in stark contrast to the ridership target that was deemed unenforceable in Bayview . The language in CARB‘s and the Distri ct‘s commitments, as stated multiple times in multiple documents, is specific; the intent of the commitments is clear; and the strategy of adopting measures to achieve the required reductions is completely within CARB‘s and the District‘s control. Further more, as stated previously, CARB and the District identify specific emission reductions that they will achieve, how they could be achieved and the time by which these reduction s will be achieved, i.e., by the 2023 attainment year

. See Tables 3 and 4 in the final rule

.

C ARB‘s and the District‘s commitments here are analogous to the terms of the contingency measures in Citizens for a Better Environment v. Deukmejian , 7 31 F.Supp.1448 (N.D. Cal. 1990) [ known as CBE I ]

, for the transportation sector in t he 1982 Bay Area 1

- hour ozone SIP. The provision states: ―If a determination is made that RFP is not being met for the transportation sector, MTC will adopt additional TCMs within 6 months of the determination. These TCMs will be designed to bring the reg ion back within the RFP line." The court found that ―[o]n its face, this language is both specific and mandatory.‖ Id . at 1458. In CBE I

, CA RB and MTC argued that TCM 2 could not constitute an enforceable strategy because the provision fails to specify exa ctly what TCMs must be adopted. The court rejected this argument, finding that ―[ w] e discern no principled basis, consistent with the Clean Air Act, for disregarding this unequivocal commitment simply because the particulars of the contingency measures are not provided. Thus we hold that t he basic commitment to adopt and implement additional measures, should the identified conditions occur, constitutes a specific strategy, fully enforceable in a citizen ‘ s action, although the exact contours of those measure s are not spelled out.‖ Id . at 1457. In concluding that the transportation and stationary source contingency provisions were enforceable, the court stated: ―Thus, while this Court is not empowered to enforce the Plan's overall objectives [footnote omitted; attainment of the NAAQS]

-- or NAAQS

-- directly, it can and indeed, must, enforce specific strategies committed to in the Plan.‖ Id . at 1454; see also Citizens for a Better Environment v. Metropolitan Tran s p. Comm’n, 746 F. Supp. 976, 980 (N.D.Cal. 1990) [known as CBE II] (rejecting defendants‘ argument that RFP and the NAAQS are coincident and stating that the court‘s enforcement of the contingency plan , an express strategy for attaining NAAQS, is distinct from simply ordering that NAAQS be achieved).TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 154 As in the CBE cases, C ARB and the District commit to propose or adopt measures, which are not specifically identified, to achieve specific tonnage s of emission reductions by specified year s

. Thus, the commitment to specific tonnage reduction s is comparable to a commitment to achieve RFP. Similarly, a commitment to achieve a specific amount of emission reductions through adoption and implementation of unidentified measures is comparable to the commitments to adopt unspecified TCMs and stationary source measures . The key is that the commitment must be clear in terms of what is required, e.g., a specified amount s of emission s reductions or the achievement of a specified amount of progress (i.e., RFP). C ARB‘s and the District‘s commitments are thus a specific enfor ceable strategy rather than an unenforceable aspirational goal.
Commenters‘ reliance on El Comite (referred to as Warmerdam) to argue that CARB‘s commitments are not enforceable is misplaced. In El Comite

, t he plaintiffs in the district court attempted to enforce a provision of the 1994 California 1

- hour ozone SIP known as the Pesticide Element. The Pesticide Element relied on an inventory of pesticide VOC emissions to provide the basis to determine whether additional regulatory measures would be needed to meet the SIP‘s pesticides emissions target. To this end, the Pesticide Element provided that ―ARB will develop a baseline inventory of estimated 1990 pesticidal VOC emissions based on 1991 pesticide use data....‖ El Comite Para El Bienestar de Earlimart v. H elliker, 416 F. Supp. 2d 912, 925 (E.D. Cal. 2006). CARB subsequently employed a different methodology that it deemed more accurate to calculate the baseline inventory. The plaintiffs sought to enforce the commitment to use the original methodology, claimi ng that the calculation of the baseline inventory constitutes an ―emission standard or limitation.‖ The district court disagreed: By its own terms, the baseline identifies emission sources and then quantifies the amount of emissions attributed to those sou rces. As defendants argue, once the sources of air pollution are identified, control strategies can then be formulated to control emissions entering the air from those sources. From all the above, I must conclude that the baseline is not an emission ―stand ard‖ or ―limitation‖ within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 7604 (f)(1)

- (4)

. Id . at 928. In its opinion, the court distinguished Bayview and CBE I , pointing out that in those cases ―the measures at issue were designed to reduce emissions.‖ Id

. On appeal, the p laintiffs shifted their argument to claim that the baseline inventory and the calculation methodology were necessary elements of the overall enforceable commitment to reduce emissions in nonattainment areas. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court ‘s conclusion that the baseline inventory was not an emission standard or limitation and rejected plaintiffs‘ arguments attempting ―to transform the baseline inventory into an enforceable emission standard or limitation by bootstrapping it to the commitmen t to decide to adopt regulations, if necessary.‖ Id . at 1073.

While commenters cite the Ninth Circuit‘s El Comite opinion, its utility in analyzing the CARB and District commitments here is limited to that court‘s agreement with the district court‘s conclusion that neither the baseline nor the methodology qualifies as an independently enforceable aspect of the SIP. Rather, it is the district court‘s opinion, in distinguishing the commitments in CBE and Bayview , that provides insight into the situation at issue in our action. As the court recognized, a baseline inventory or the methodology used to calculate it, is not aTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 155 measure to reduce emissions. It instead ―identifies emission sources and then quantifies the amount of emissions attributed to those sources.‖ In contrast, as stated previously, in the 2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011) and South Coast 2007 Ozo ne Pla n, CARB and the District commit to adopt and implement measures sufficient to achieve specified amounts of emission reductions by a date certain. As described above, a number of courts have found commitments substantially similar to CARB‘s here to be enforceable under CAA section 304(a).

2. Baseline Measures, Baseline Inventories, and Attainment Demonstration

Comment : NRDC assert s that EPA‘s approval of the inventory in the Plan would violate CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) because the baseline inventory include s emissions reduction credit for both ―waiver measures‖ and ―non

- waiver measures‖ adopted before 2007 (together referred to as ―baseline measures‖) that have not been approved into the SIP. NRDC argues that EPA has not evaluated e ach of these baseline measures to determine if they are creditable or quantified the emissions reductions attributed to each of these measures. Additionally, NRDC asserts that EPA should disapprove the attainment demonstration because EPA has not approved mobile source baseline measures as part of the SIP. NRDC asserts that ―[t]he total tonnage attributed to these unsubmitted and non

- SIP approved measures in the attainment demonstration is not clear, because EPA does not differentiate between reductions fr om SIP

- approved measures, waiver measures, and those that have not received EPA approval.‖ Thus, NRDC argues, ―a significant amount of emission reductions claimed in the attainment demonstration are not SIP creditable, a finding that EPA must make before a pproving the attainment demonstration.‖ NRDC references CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) in support of these assertions and argues that ―EPA has failed to find that the reductions from the unsubmitted rules have occurred, are enforceable, or are oth erwise consistent with the Act, EPA‘s implementing regulations, and the General Preamble.‖

NRDC identifies the following rules as examples of ―non

- waiver‖ baseline measures that have not been SIP

- approved:

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In

- Use Trucks (adopted October 20, 2005). Heavy Duty Diesel Chip Reflash (adopted March 27, 2004);

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Duty Diesel

Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities (adopted Dece mber 8, 2005); Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule (adopted September 24, 2003); Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment (adopted May 26, 2006); Response : We disagree with these assertions. We explained in our proposal TSD (section II.A.3.) our reasons for concluding both that the 200 2 base year inventory in the SIP is comprehensive, accurate, and current as required by CAA section 1 82 ( a )( 1) and that theTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 156 projected baseline inventories provide adequate bas e s and support for the RFP and attainment demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone plan. 109
Specifically, with respect to mobile source emissions, w e believe that credit for emissions reductions from implementation of California mobile source rules that are subject to CAA section 209 wai vers (―waiver measures‖) is appropriate in the attainment and RFP demonstrations and for other SIP purposes notwithstanding the fact that such rules are not approved as part of the California SIP. In the proposal TSD, we explained why we believe such credi t is appropriate. See proposal TSD at section II.D.3.c.i

. Historically, EPA has granted credit for the waiver measures because of special Congressional recognition, in establishing the waiver process in the first place, of the pioneering California motor v ehicle control program and because amendments to the CAA (in 1977) expanded the flexibility granted to California in order ― to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its c itizens and the publ ic welfare‖ (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301

- 2 (1977)). In allowing California to take credit for the waiver measures notwithstanding the fact that the underlying rules are not part of the California SIP, EPA treated the waiver measures simil arly to the Federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed States to credit in their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision. EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motor

- vehicle

- related waiver

me asures in attainment and RFP demonstrations and for other SIP purposes by allowing California to include motor vehicle emissions estimates made by using California‘s EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reductions from motor

- vehicle

- related waiver measures through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updated from time to time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly

- established emissions standards. (Emis sions reductions from EPA‘s motor vehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as M OVES

. 110 ) The South Coast 200 7 8

- hour ozone plan was developed using a version of the EMFAC model referred to as EMFAC2007, which EPA has approved for use in SI P development in California. See 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). Thus, the emissions reductions that are from the California on

- road ―waiver measures‖ and that are estimated through use of EMFAC are as verifiable as the emissions reductions relied upon by s tates other than California in developing their SIPs based on estimates of motor vehicle emissions made through the use of the MO VES model. All other states use the MOVES model (and prior to release of MOVES, the MOBILE model) in their baseline inventories without submitting the federal motor vehicle regulations for incorporation into their SIPs. Similarly, emissions reductions that are from California‘s waiver measures for non

- road engines and vehicles (e.g., agricultural, construction, lawn and garden and off

- road recreation equipment) are estimated through use of CARB‘s OFFROAD emissions factor model. 111

109 For ozone nonattai nment areas, a State that satisfies the specific inventory requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1) also satisfies the general inventory requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3). See 57 FR 13498, 13503 (April 16, 1992).

110 MOVES replaced the MOBILE model as EPA‘ s on

- road mobile source emission estimation model for use in SIPs a nd conformity in 2010.

111 In formation about CARB‘s emissions inventories for on

- road and non

- road mobile sources, and the EMFAC and OFFROAD models used to project changes in future invento ries, is available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 157 ( Emissions reductions from EPA‘s non

- road engine and vehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as NONROAD). Since 1990, EPA has treated California non

- road standards for which EPA has issued waivers in the same manner as California motor vehicle standards, i.e., allowing credit for standards subject to the waiver process without requiring submittal of the standards as part of the SIP. In so doing, EPA has treated the California non

road standards similarly to the Federal non

- road standards, which are relied upon, but not included in, various SIPs. See generally TSD at section II. D.3

. c .i.

CARB‘s EMFAC a nd OFFROAD models employ complex routines that predict vehicle fleet turnover by vehicle model years and include control algorithms that account for all adopted regulatory actions which, when combined with the fleet turnover algorithms, provide future base line projections. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 7

- 8. For stationary sources, the California Emission Forecasting System (CEFS) projects future emissions from stationary and area sources (in addition to aircraft and ships) using a forecasting algor ithm that applies growth factors and control profiles to the base year inventory. 112 See id. at 7. The CEFS model integrates the projected inventories for both stationary and mobile sources into a single database to provide a comprehensive statewide forecast inventory, from which nonattainment area inventories are extracted for use in establishing future baseline planning inventories. See id. In 2011, CARB updated the baseline emissions projections for several source categories to account for, among other thi ngs, more recent economic forecasts and improved methodologies for estimating emissions from th e heavy duty truck and construction source categories. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix B. These methodologies for projecting future emissions based on gro wth factors and existing Federal, State, and local controls were consistent with EPA guidance on developing projected baseline inventories. See TSD at section II.A; see also ―Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections,‖ EPA Office of Air Quality Planni ng and Standards, EPA

450/4

- 91

- 019, July 1991; ―Emission Projections,‖ STAPPA/ALAPCO/EPA Emission Inventory Improvement Project, Volume X, December 1999 (available at http://www.epa .gov/ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume10/x01.pdf ) . In sum, the 2002 base year and future projected baseline inventories in the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone plan were prepared using a complex set of CARB methodologies to estimate and project emissions from stationary sources, in addition to the most recent emissions factors and models and updated activity levels for emissions associated with mobile sources, including: (1) the latest EPA

- approved California motor vehicle emissions factor model (EMFAC2007) and the most recent motor vehicle activity data from each of the MPOs in the South Coast area; (2) improved methodolog ies for estimating emissions from specific source categories; and (3) CARB's non

- road mobile source model (the OFFROAD model)

. See TSD , s ection II.A . (referencing, inter alia

, 2007 State Strategy at Appendix F) and 2011 Ozone SIP Revision. EPA has approved numerous California SIPs that rely on base year and projected ba seline inventories including emissions estimates derived from the EMFAC

, OFFROAD , and CEFS models. See, e.g., 65 FR 6091 (February 8, 2000 ) (proposed rule to approve 1

- hour ozone plan for South Coast) and 65 FR 18903 (April 10, 2000) (final rule); 70 FR 43 663 (July 28, 2005) (proposed rule to approve PM

- 10 plan for South Coast and Coachella Valley) and 70 FR 69081 (November 14, 2005) (final rule); 74 FR 66916 (December 17, 2009) (direct final rule to approve ozone plan for Monterey Bay) ; 76 FR 41338 (July 1 3,

112 I nformation on base year emissions from stationary point sources is obtained primarily from the districts, while CARB and the districts share responsibility for developing and updating informati on on emissions from various area source categories. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 21.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 158 2011) (proposed rule to approve in part and disapprove in part the PM 2.5 plan for the San Joaquin Valley) and 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011) (final rule); and 76 FR 41562), (July 14, 2011) (proposed rule to approve in part and disapprove in part the PM 2.5 plan for the South Coast Air Basin) and 76 FR 69928 (November 9, 2011) (final rule). The commenter has provided no information to support a claim that these methodologies for developing base year inventories and projecting future emissions in the South Coast are inadequate to support the RFP and attainment demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone plan.

For all of these reasons and as discussed in our proposal (76 FR 57872, 57876 ), we concl ude that the 2002 base year inventory in the 2007 8

- ho ur Ozone plan is a ―comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants‖ in the South Coast area, consistent with the requirements for emissions inventories in CAA section 1 8 2( a )( 1 ), 40 CF R § 51. 915 , and 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. In addition, we conclude that the projected future year baseline inventories were prepared consistent with EPA‘s guidance on development of emissions inventories and attainment demonstrations and, therefore, provi de an adequate basis for the R FP and attainment demonstrations in the Plan under CAA sections 172(c)(2), 1 8 2( a )( 1), and 1 8 2( c )( 2)

. See TSD at section II.A. 4

. Finally, we disagree with NRDC‘s assertion that EPA has not identified the total amount of emissi on reductions attributed to baseline measures in the projected inventories . The total amounts of emission reductions attributed to baseline measures in the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP, as revised in 2011, are 352 tpd of VOC and 531 tpd of NO x . See 76 FR 578 72

, 578 85

, T able 8 at line E; see also TSD, Table D

- 6 at line B

. As to the five specific baseline measures that NRDC asserts should be SIP

- approved before crediting in the RFP and attainment demonstrations: Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In

- Use Trucks (effective November 15, 2006) 113 and Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment Rule (adopted May 26, 2006). Both of these mobile source measures are pending EPA waiver determinations under CAA section 209 (b) or section 209(e). 114 We expect that EPA will act on these requests for waivers of preemption or authorization under CAA section 209 in the near term, and that our final approval of the South Coast 200 7 8

- hour Ozone p lan based in part on its reliance on the emissions reductions as sociated with these rules is, therefore, reasonable and appropriate. If,

113 EPA is currently reviewing a request from CARB for a determination as to whether certain requirements of these anti

- idling rules are preempted by sections 209( a) of the CAA; certain provisions are conditions precedent pursuant to section 209(a) of the Act; certain provisions are within

- the

- scope of previous waivers and authorizations issued pursuant to sections 209(b) and 209(e) of the Act, respectively; and at least one provision requires and merits a full authorization pursuant to section 209(e) of the Act. See 75 FR 43975 (July 27, 2010). CARB estimates that the operational requirement of the anti

- idling rule, which is not subject to a CAA section 209 waiver, achieves 1.3 tpd of NO x in the S outh Coast

. See Memorandum , Doris Lo, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR

- 2)

, to San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2010

- 0516 ―South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Emissions Reductions from ARB‘s Operational Idling Requirements, ―September 28, 2011, in the docket for today‘s action.

114 See letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, EPA RE: Request for Authorization Determination Pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 209(e) for Amendments to California‘s Off

Road Emissions Standards Regulation for large Spark

- Ignition (LSI) Engines and Fleet Requirement for In

- Use LSI Forklifts and Other Indu strial Equipment and California State Motor Vehicle and Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Truck Idling Requirements; Opportunity for Public Hearing and Request for Public Comment; Notice Of Opportunity For Public Hearing And Comment. 75 FR 43975 (July 27, 2010)TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 159 however, EPA either denies or does not issue the State‘s requested waiver for any of these measures prior to the effective date of today‘s action, we will take appropriate remedial

ac tion to ensure that our action on the plan is fully supportable or to reconsider that action. Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Duty Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities (adopted December 8, 200 5). CARB‘s staff report on this measure indicates that the projected emissions reductions from this measures are 0.18 tpd NO x and 0.11 tpd VOC statewide in 2015 and 0.09 tpd NO x and 0.05 tpd VOC statewide in 2020. See Staff Report: Proposed Diesel Part iculate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Duty Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities, October 2005, at pp. 56

- 57. South Coast has approximately 35 percent of the statewide fleet ( id. ); therefore, the de minimis amounts of emission reductions attributed to this measure in the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone plan do not affect our evaluation of its attainment and RFP demonstrations. Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule (adopted September 24, 2003)

. CARB‘s staff repor t on this measure indicates that the projected emissions reductions from this measure are 2.3 tpd NO x and 0.72 tpd VOC statewide in 2015 and 0.6 tpd NO x and 0.34 tpd VOC statewide in 2020. See Supplemental Staff Report: Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Duty Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Collection Vehicles, August 8, 2003, at pg. 20. South Coast has approximately 35 percent of the statewide fleet ( id. ); therefore, the de minimis amounts of emission reductions at tributed to this measure in the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone plan do not affect our evaluation of its attainment and RFP demonstrations. Heavy Duty Diesel Engine

- Chip Reflash rule (adopted March 27, 2004) ( “ Chip Reflash” rule) . This rule w as intended to ensure expeditious compliance with CARB‘s NO x emission standard for heavy

- duty diesel (HDD) engines by requiring in stallation of ―Low

- NO x Software.‖ The Chip Reflash rule was invalidated in part by a California State C ourt , and CARB repealed the related regulations in June 2007. The emission reduction credit attributed
to Chip Reflash in CARB‘s baseline inventories is limited to vehicles that have been ―reflashed,‖ i.e., physically installed the Low

- NO x Software, 115 removal of which would constitute a viola tion of the CAA and/or California state law. See the statutory anti

- tampering laws in CAA section 203(a)(3) and California Vehicle Code section 27156. Thus, t he NO x emissions reductions attributed to ―reflashed‖ engines are enforceable under the CAA and/or California state laws.

115 The 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, ―Emission Inventory Output Tables‖ documents the adjustment in the baseline that CARB made to account for Chip Reflash (or Heavy

- Duty Diesel Engine Software Upgrade). As described in A ppendix A, CARB staff estimates that the overall benefits of the software upgrade regulation plus related actions provided approximately 38 tons per day of NO x emissions reductions statewide in year 2007. CARB also indicates that it took into account the fact that the so ftware upgrade regulation had been invalidated by including no additional emissions reductions from chip reflash other than those that had already occurred due to compliance with the regulation (prior to invalidation by the court), voluntary upgrade progra ms, ongoing engine rebuilds, engines upgrades by manufacturers exempt from the regulation, and interstate trucks. CARB staff recently confirmed that the baseline adjustment for chip reflash in the 2007 State Strategy reflects emission reduction credit only for engines that have been ―reflashed.‖ See Memorandum , Doris Lo, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR

- 2); to the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2010

- 0516, ―SIP Credit for Heavy

- Duty Diesel Engine Low

- NO x Software (―Chip Reflash‖);‖ Septemb er 28, 2011 in the docket for today‘s action

.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 160 Comment: NRDC asserts that EPA has not approved any CARB mobile source baseline measures as part of the SIP or reviewed those measures to consider whether they achieve the reductions claimed by CARB, and that EPA cannot approve the Plan when such a ―huge component of the control strategy‖ has not been SIP

- approved. NRDC also asserts that CARB has not submitted copies of its mobile source baseline measures to EPA as part of this plan. NRDC also assert s that waiver measures may not b e used in attainment demonstrations because EPA makes no finding during the waiver process that the rules achieve the reductions claimed or that the measures are SIP creditable. NRDC also notes that these issues are the subject of litigation in the 9 th Cir cuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Sierra Club v. EPA , Consolidated Case Nos. 10

- 71457 and 10

- 71458. Response : We continue to believe that credit for emissions reductions from implementation of California mobile source rules that are subject to CAA section 209 waivers (―waiver measures‖) is appropriate notwithstanding the fact that such rules are not approved as part of the California SIP. In our September 16, 2011 proposed rule and the technical support document (TSD) for that proposal, we explained why we bel ieve such credit is appropriate. See 76 FR 57872, at 57879

- 57880 and the proposal TSD, pp. 86

- 90. Historically, EPA has granted credit for the waiver measures because of special Congressional recognition, in establishing the waiver process in the first pla ce, of the pioneering California motor vehicle control program and because amendments to the CAA (in 1977) expanded the flexibility granted to California in order "to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare," (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301

- 2 (1977)). In allowing California to take credit for the waiver measures notwithstanding the fact that the underlying rules are not part of the California S IP, EPA treated the waiver measures similarly to the Federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed States to credit in their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision. As we explained in the Proposal TSD (p. 87), cred it for Federal measures, including those that establish on

- road and nonroad standards, notwithstanding their absence in the SIP, is justified by reference to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which establishes the following content requirements for SIPs: ―... enforc eable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), ... , as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.‖ (emphasis added). Federal measures are permanent, independently enforceable (by EPA and citizens), and quantifiable without regard to whether they are approved into a SIP, and thus EPA has never found such measures to be ―necessary or appropriate‖ for inclusion in SIPs to meet the applicable requirements of the Act. Section 209 of the CAA establishes a process under which EPA allows California‘s waiver measures to substitute for Federal measures, and li ke the Federal measures for which they substitute, EPA has historically found, and continues to find, based on considerations of permanence, enforceability, and quantifiability, that such measures are not ―necessary or appropriate‖ for California to includ e in its SIP to meet the applicable requirements of the Act. First, with respect to permanence

, we note that, to maintain a waiver, CARB‘s on

- road waiver measures can be relaxed only to a level of aggregate equivalence to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) . See section 209(b)(1)

. In this respect, the FMVCP acts as a partial backstop to California‘s on

- road waiver measures (i.e., absent a waiver, the FMVCP would apply in California)

. Likewise, Federal nonroad vehicle and engine standards act as a partial backstop for corresponding California nonroad waiver measure s

. The constraints of theTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 161 waiver process thus serve to limit the extent to which CARB can relax the waiver measures for which there are corresponding EPA standards, and thereby serve an anti

- backsliding function similar in substance to those established for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193

. Meanwhile, the growing convergence between California and EPA mobile source standards diminishes the difference in the emissions reduct ions reasonably attributed to the two programs and strengthens the role of the Federal program in serving as an effective backstop to the State
program

. In other words, with the harmonization of EPA mobile source standards with the corresponding State stan dards, the Federal program is becoming essentially a full backstop to most parts of the California program. Second, as to enforceability, w e note that the waiver process itself bestows enforceability onto California to enforce the on

- road or nonroad standa rds for which EPA has issued the waiver. CARB has as long a history of enforcement of vehicle/engine emissions standards as EPA, and CARB‘s enforcement program is equally as rigorous as the corresponding EPA
program

. The history and rigor of CARB‘s enforce ment program lends assurance to California SIP revisions that rely on the emissions reductions from CARB‘s rules in the same manner as EPA‘s mobile source enforcement program lends assurance to other state ‘s SIPs in their reliance on emissions reductions f rom the FMVCP. While it is true that citizens and EPA are not authorized to enforce California waiver measures under the Clean Air Act (i.e., because they are not in the SIP), citizens and EPA are authorized to enforce EPA standards in the event that vehic les operate in California without either California or EPA certification

. As to quantifiability, EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motor

vehicle

- related waiver measures by allowing California to include motor vehicle emissions estim ates made by using California‘s EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reductions from motor

- vehicle

related waiver measures through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updated fr om time to time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly

- es tablished emissions standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA‘s motor vehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as MO VES .) The EMFAC model is based on t he motor vehicle emissions standards for which California has received waivers from EPA but accounts for vehicle deterioration and many other factors

. The motor vehicle emissions estimates themselves combine EMFAC results with vehicle activity estimates, a mong other considerations

. See the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, and the related EPA rulemakings approving the plan (see 48 FR 5074 (February 3

, 1983) for the proposed rule and 48 FR 57130 (December 28, 1983) for the final rule) as an example of how the waiver measures have been treated historically by EPA in California SIP actions. 116 T he South Coast 8

- hour ozone plan was developed using a version

116 EPA‘s historical practice in allowing California credit for waiver measures notwithstanding the absence of the underlying rules in the SIP is further documented by reference to EPA‘s review and approval of a May 1979 revision to the California SIP entitl ed, ―Chapter 4, California Air Quality Control Strategies.‖ In our proposed approval of the 1979 revision (44 FR 60758, October 22, 1979), we describe the SIP revision as outlining California‘s overall control strategy, which the State had divided into veh icular sources and non

- vehicular (stationary source) controls. As to the former, the SIP revision discusses vehicular control measures as including technical control measures and transportation control measures. The former refers to the types of measures w e refer to herein as waiver measures, as well as fuel content limitations, and a vehicle inspection and maintenance program. The 1979 SIP revision included several appendices, including appendix 4

– E, which refers to ―ARB vehicle emission controls included in title 13, California Administrative Code, chapter 3 * * *,‖ including the types of vehicle emission standards we refer to herein as waiver measures; however, California did not submit the related portions of the California Administrative Code (CAC) to E PA as part of the 1979 SIP revision submittal. With respect to theTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 162 of the EMFAC model referred to as EMFAC200 7, which EPA has approved for use in SIP development in California. See 73 FR 3464 ( January 18, 2008 ). Thus, the emissions reductions that are from the California on

- road ―waiver measures‖ and that are estimated through use of EMFAC are as verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied upon by states other than Californ ia in developing their SIPs based on estimates of motor vehicle emissions made through the use of the MO VES model.
Moreover, EPA‘s waiver review and approval process is analogous to the SIP approval
process

. First, CARB adopts its emissions standards follo wing notice and comment procedures at the state level, and then submits the rules to EPA as part of its waiver request

. When EPA receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal Register following the public comment period

. Once again, in substance, the process is similar to that for SIP approval and supports the argument that one hurdle (the waiver process) is all Congress intended for California standa rds, not two (waiver process plus SIP approval process)

. Second , just as SIP revisions are not effective until approved by EPA, changes to CARB‘s rules (for which a waiver has been granted) are not effective until EPA grants a new waiver, unless the change s are ―within the scope‖ of a prior waiver and no new waiver is needed. Third, both types of final actions by EPA

-- i.e., final actions on California requests for waivers and final actions on state submittals of SIPs and SIP revisions may be challenged unde r section 307(b)(1) of the CAA in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals. NRDC correctly notes that EPA‘s treatment of California waiver measures in SIP actions is the subject of current litigation in Sierra Club v. EPA , Consolidated Case Nos. 10

- 71457 and 10

- 71458 (9 th Circuit).

Comment: NRDC argues that our reliance on the general savings clause in CAA section 193 for the proposal to grant emissions reduction credit to California‘s waiver measures without first having California submit and EP A approve them into the SIP is inappropriate for two reasons. First, NRDC argues that CAA section 193 only saves those ―formal rules, notices, or guidance documents‖ promulgated before the effective date of the 1990 amendment that are not inconsistent with the CAA. It asserts that the plain language of the CAA requires that California submit the control measures, rules and regulations used to meet CAA requirements as part of the SIP and that nothing in CAA title II or section 209 provide a basis for EPA‘s p osition. Second, NRDC argues that there is no automatic presumption that Congress is aware of an agency‘s interpretations and we have not provided any evidence that Congress was aware of our interpretation regarding the SIP treatment of California‘s mobile source control measures. NRDC also argues that our positions that Congress must expressly disapprove of EPA‘s long

- standing interpretation and Congressional silence equates to a ratification of EPA‘s interpretation are incorrect. Response : In the Proposa l TSD (pp. 89

- 90 ), we indicated that we believe that section 193 of the CAA, the general savings clause added by Congress in 1990, effectively ratified our long

-

CAC, the 1979 SIP revision states: ―The following appendices are portions of the California Administrative Code. Persons interested in these appendices should refer directly to the code.‖ T hus, the State was clearly signaling its intention to rely on the California motor vehicle control program but not to submit the underlying rules to EPA as part of the SIP. In 1980, we finalized our approval as proposed. See 45 FR 63843 (September 28, 1980 ).TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 163 standing pr actice of granting credit for the California waiver rules because Congress did not i nsert any language into the statute rendering EPA's treatment of California's motor vehicle standards inconsistent with the Act. Rather, Congress extended the California waiver provisions to most types of nonroad vehicles and engines, once again reflecting Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare. Requiring the waiver measures to undergo SIP review in addition to the statutory wai ver process is not consistent with providing California with the broadest possible discretion as to on

- road and nonroad vehicle and engine standards, but rather, would add to the regulatory burden California faces in establishing and modifying such standar ds, and thus would not be consistent with Congressional intent. In short, we believe that Congress intended California's mobile source rules to undergo only one EPA review process (i.e., the waiver process), not two. In summary, we disagree that our interp retation of CAA section 193 is fundamentally flawed. EPA has historically given SIP credit for waiver measures in our approval of attainment demonstrations and other planning requirements such as reasonable further progress and contingency measures submitt ed by California. We continue to believe that section 193 ratifies our long

- standing practice of allowing credit for California's waiver measures notwithstanding the fact they are not approved into the SIP, and correctly reflects Congressional intent to pr ovide California with the broadest possible discretion in the development and promulgation of on

- road and nonroad vehicle and engine standards. 117

B. Pre

- Baseline Emission Reduction Credits

Comment : NRDC comments that the 8

- hour Ozone Plan allows for the u se of emissions reduction credits (ERC) from sources that have shutdown prior to the Plan‘s baseline date of 2002. NRDC asserts that these pre

- baseline ERCs represent an allowance for unmitigated growth in emissions. It argues that allowing this growth is inconsistent with the Plan‘s claim that existing opportunities for controlling emissions do not exist and therefore it is necessary to rely on future technologies to attain the 8

- hour standard and undermines EPA‘s ability to demonstrate compliance with the CAA. It further argues that EPA cannot claim that the Plan provides for expeditious attainment if it allows this unmitigated emissions growth, and that EPA‘s RACM analysis is undermined because these avoided emissions coupled with reasonably available

con trols could be adequate to advance attainment by more than a year. Finally, NRDC argues that in order to comply with the RACM requirement of section 172(c)(1), EPA must evaluate what additional reductions would be needed i f the combined impact of these VOC and NO x emissions were avoided. Response : The District accounted for the existing pre

- base year ERCs in its RFP and attainment inventories in a manner consistent with the CAA requirements set forth in Part D and 40 CFR part 51. 118 This means that all emis sion reductions for which ERCs were granted were modeled

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

118 See the South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, Tables 2

- 8 and Appendix III, Attachment B, Table B

- 8.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 164 as being in the air. 119 The CAA requires this demonstration in anticipation of new sources that will utilize these ERCs as offsets in order to obtain NSR permits.

Under the NSR program, all new majo r sources (i.e., those with a potential to emit more than 10 tpy of VOC or NOx) and any increase of permitted emissions of these pollutants, must install control technologies in order to meet the most stringent emissions limitations that have been achieved in practice by comparable sources (that is, they must meet the lowest achievable emissions rate (LAER) as defined in CAA section 171(3 )). [South Coast Rule 1303

– Requirements (paragraph (a))] Thus, these future emissions already reflect the use of the most stringent technologies currently available to limit emissions. To further reduce these future emissions would require the development of new or improved technologies, as is the case with existing emission sources already subject to RACT. Accordingly, we do not agree with the NRDC‘s assertion that a llowing this emissions growth is in consistent with the Plan ‘ s determination that additional opportunities for controlling emissions do not currently exist and therefore the area must rely on development of n ew technologies to attain.

Finally, we disagree with NRDC‘s claims that the 8

- hour Ozone Plan cannot provide for expeditious attainment if it allow s this growth in emissions and that the RACM analy sis is undermined because these ― avoid ed emission s coupled with reasonably available controls could be adequate to advance attainment by more than a year. ‖ As stated above, the growth in ozone precursor emissions coming from sources emitting more than 10 tpy, will occur only after the source installs cont rols that achieve the lowest achievable emission rate, which is a higher control level than RACM. In addition, such sources with emission increases are required to provide emission offsets at a 1 to 1.2 ratio, meaning that for each new ton of emissions a source wishes to emit, it must provide a 1.2 ton reduction from the 8

- hr Ozone Plan emission inventory. [South Coast Rule 1303

– Requirements (paragraph (b)(2))] Thus overall, NSR provides a backstop mechanism to ensure attainment is provided as expeditiou sly as possible.

C. Rule Effectiveness in District Rules

Comment: NRDC asserts that the SCAQMD should not assume a 100 percent rule effectiveness rate for its control measures. Citing EPA‘s definition of ―rule effectiveness‖ in 40 CFR 51.50 and EPA guida nce on accounting for rule effectiveness in preparing emissions estimates, NRDC argues that ―EPA recommends an effectiveness factor of 80% for all stationary source and non

tailpipe mobile source control measures for future controlled scenarios‖ and that t he District‘s use of a 100 percent rule effectiveness factor is unsupported and inconsistent with EPA guidance. NRDC claims that ―EPA‘s approval of this plan in light of these unrealistic and unlawful rule effectiveness assumptions would be arbitrary and c apricious.‖

Specifically, NRDC asserts that the District‘s use of a 100% rule effectiveness factor amounts to an assertion that it can ―ensure complete and continual compliance at all sources covered by the regulation‖ and that the Plan does not meet this standard. NRDC quotes from the 2007 AQMP, in which the District describes enforcement, source monitoring, and compliance verification programs, to argue that the 2007 AQMP ―relies on anecdotal information to support this 100% assumption.‖ NRDC asserts tha t the SCAQMD‘s approach ignores the need for rule

119 See the South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, pg 2

- 28.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 165 effectiveness improvements when in fact a CARB audit showed lower reported compliance rates. NRDC also states that for the gasoline transfer and dispensing operations category (Rule 461), the SCAQMD had cor rectly identified an emission

- related non

- compliance rate of 37% and ―adjusted the base and future year emissions estimates by 75% in this category to reflect a 25% compliance rate.‖ In support of these assertions, NRDC references the following EPA guidan ce documents: ―Rule Effectiveness Guidance: Integration of Inventory, Compliance, and Assessment Applications‖ (EPA 452/R

- 94

- 001, January 1994) (―1994 RE Guidance‖); ―Guidelines for Estimating and Applying Rule Effectiveness for Ozone/CO State Implementati on Plan Base Year Inventories,‖ EPA

- 452

- R

- 92

- 010, November 1992 (―1992 RE Guidelines‖); and Memorandum from Sally Shaver, Director, Air Quality Strategies & Standards Division, EPA, to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I

- X, ―Ozone Nonattainment Planning: Decentralization of Rule Effectiveness Policy, April 27, 1995 (―1995 Shaver Memo‖).

Response: We note as a threshold matter that it is not clear which specific element of the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP the commenter‘s concerns apply to. Assuming that NR DC intended to argue that the SCAQMD‘s assumption of 100 percent rule

- effectiveness in its estimates of base year and/or projected year emissions led to defects in the emissions inventories and in the RACM, RFP or attainment demonstrations that rely on tho se inventories, we disagree for the reasons provided below.

CAA section 182(a)(1) requires each State having an ozone nonattainment area to submit a ―comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources‖ as described in CAA sec tion 172(c)(3) and ―in accordance with guidance provided by the Administrator.‖ See also 40 CFR 51.915 and part 51, subpart A. This ―base year‖ emissions inventory reflects the State‘s best estimates of actual emissions 120 from all sources of the relevant pollutant(s) in the

area in a recent calendar year 121 and provides the starting point for measuring the area‘s progress toward attainment. See, e.g., CAA sections 182(c)(2)(B) and 182(b)(1)(B) ; see also 70 FR 71612, 71677 (N ovember 29, 2005) (noting that several CAA ozone planning requirements, including milestones that measure progress toward attainment, are ―keyed to‖ the emissions inventory). After developing a base year emissions inventory, States use modeling and other analyses to calculate projection year (or future ―baseline‖) inventories and target emission levels, which then inform the State‘s development of progress milestones and control strategies for attaining the NAAQS. See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13507

- 13510.

Rule effectiveness (―RE‖) is a term that describes a method to account for the reality that not all facilities covered by a rule are in compliance with the rule 100% of the time. See ―Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and P articulate Matter National

120 Base year emissions inven tories should include both anthropogenic and biogenic sources of ozone precursor emissions from stationary, area, and mobile sources capable of affecting air quality within the nonattainment area. See ―General Preamble for Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,‖ 57 FR 13498, 13502 (April 16, 1992) (―General Preamble‖). Because most emission sources do not monitor and report emissions continuously, emissions inventories are by nature ―estimates of actual releases to the atmosphere .‖ 70 FR 71612, 71666 (November 29, 2005).
121 For areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard in 2004, EPA recommended that States use 2002 as the base year for SIP planning purposes. See Memorandum dated November 18, 2002, from Lydia Wegman, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, EPA, to Regional Air Division Directors, ―2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8

- hr Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs.‖TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 166 Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,‖ EPA

- 454/R

- 05

- 001, August 2005, Appendix B (―2005 RE Guidance‖) at B

- 3 ; see also 40 CFR 51.50 (defining ―rule effectiveness‖ for purposes of air emissions repor ting requirements). Additionally, RE accounts for the fact that control equipment does not always operate at its assumed control efficiency. See id. EPA recommends that States consider RE as part of the calculation of emission estimates for stationary poi nt and non

- point (or ―area‖) sources when developing base year and projection year emissions inventories. See 2 005 RE Guidance at B

- 1. Rule effectiveness adjustments are generally not applied to mobile sources because the effects of mobile source noncompli ance have been integrated into the inputs of EPA‘s mobile source emissions factor models. See ―Rule Effectiveness Guidance: Integration of Inventory, Compliance, and Assessment Applications‖ (EPA 452/R

- 94

- 001, January 1994) (―1994 RE Guidance‖) at 1

- 4 and 3

- 9.

EPA policy on RE applies only to emissions estimates involving the use of a control device or control technique and states that in some cases, even where control devices or techniques are used, RE adjustments may not be necessary. For example, when emissions can be calculated by means of a direct determination, an RE adjustment is not necessary because the emissions estimate is not contingent on the effectiveness of controls. See ―Rule Effectiveness Guidance: Integration of Inventory, Compliance, and Assessment Applications‖ (EPA 452/R

- 94

- 001, January 1994) (―1994 RE Guidance‖) See 1994 RE guidance at 3

- 5; see also 2005 RE Guidance at B

- 3. A direct determination is one in which emi ssions are calculated directly (e.g., based on explicit records for each type of coating and/or solvent used) rather than from estimates of uncontrolled emissions and level of control. See ―Guidelines for Estimating and Applying Rule Effectiveness for Ozon e/CO State Implementation Plan Base Year Inventories,‖ EPA

452/R

- 92

- 010, November 1992 (―1992 RE Guidelines‖), at 12. In addition, uncontrolled sources are not subject to an RE adjustment, and sources with directly determined emission estimates in the base year inventory should not have RE applied in a projected inventory. See 1994 RE Guidance at 3

- 19.

Earlier EPA guidance recommended that where a RE should apply, States should generally use a default value of 80 percent RE. See, e.g., ―Guidelines for Est imating and Applying Rule Effectiveness for Ozone/CO State Implementation Plan Base Year Inventories,‖ EPA

- 452/R

- 92

- 010, November 1992 (―1992 RE Guidelines‖) at 2. In 2005, EPA revised its policy in recognition that RE can vary widely between different ty pes of industry and in different
states o r areas. See generally 2005 RE Guidance; see also Memorandum from Sally Shaver, Director, Air Quality Strategies & Standards Division, EPA, to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I

- X, ―Ozone Nonattainment Planning: Decentralization of Rule Effectiveness Policy, April 27, 1995 (―1995 Shaver Memo‖) (providing alternatives to EPA‘s recommended 80 percent default value for RE)

. The 2005 RE Guidance provides that instead of assuming an across the board 80% default value for RE, States should consider a list of the factors that are most likely to affect RE in developing base year and projection year inventories.

The base year inventory in the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP is an inventory of actual emissions estimates for ye ar 2002. According to the Plan, information on base year emissions from stationary point sources in California is obtained primarily from the districts, while CARB and the districts share responsibility for developing and updating information on emissions from various non

- point ( i.e., area) source categories. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 21;TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 167 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III at pp. 1

- 9 through 1

- 15 (describing the SCAQMD‘s and CARB‘s methodologies for developing 2002 base year emissions estimat es for stationary point and area sources). The 2002 point source emission inventory was developed using emissions data reported by stationary point sources subject to the 2002/2003 Annual Emissions Reporting (AER) Program, which applies to facilities emitt ing at least 4 tons per year (tpy) of VOC or NOx, among other sources. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III at pp. 1

- 9. Because these emissions were based on direct emissions data, no RE adjustments were necessary for these emission estimates. The 2002 area source emission inventory was developed using source

specific methodologies based on activity data, emission factors, and other information. Id. at 1

- 10 through 1

- 15. The SCAQMD included emissions from smaller industrial point sources (emitting < 4 tp y) not subject to the AER Program in this area source emissions inventory. Id. at 1

- 9.

The projected year inventories in the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP were developed based on emissions projections calculated using a CARB model called the California Emiss ion Forecasting System (CEFS). The CEFS model projects future emissions from stationary point and area sources (in addition to aircraft and ships) using a forecasting algorithm that applies growth factors and control profiles to the base year inventory. S ee 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 7. Mobile source emission projections are estimated using CARB‘s EMFAC and OFFROAD emission factor models. 122 See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 7

- 8. The CEFS model then integrates the projected inventories for both stationary and mobile sources into a single database to provide a comprehensive statewide forecast inventory, from which nonattainment area inventories are extracted by the districts for use in establishing future baseline planning inventories. See id. a t 7, 8.

The South Coast 2007 AQMP describes how the District developed the future baseline inventories 123 in the Plan, based in part on the emissions data and baseline projections provided by CARB and other California agencies. See generally South Coast 2 007 AQMP, Appendix III. The District‘s projections took into account the controls implemented under SCAQMD rules adopted as of June 2006, most CARB regulations adopted by June 2005, and a specific set of growth rates from the Southern California Associati on of Governments (SCAG) for population, industry, and motor vehicle activity, among other factors. See id. at 2

- 3. In 2011, CARB updated the baseline emissions projections for several source categories to account for, among other things, more recent economic forecasts and improved methodologies for estimating emissions from the heavy duty truck and constructio n source categories. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision at Appendix B. These methodologies for projecting future emissions based on growth factors and existing Federal, State, and local controls were consistent with EPA guidance on developing projected baseline inventories. See TSD at section II.A; see also ―Procedures for

122 CARB‘s EMFAC and OFFROAD models for estimating emissions from on

- road and non

- road mobile sources employ complex routines that predict vehicle fleet turnover by vehicle model years and include control algorithms that account for all adopted regulatory act ions which, when combined with the fleet turnover algorithms, provide future baseline projections. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 7

- 8. Information about the EMFAC and OFFROAD models is available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm. The most rece nt EMFAC model that EPA has approved for use in SIP development in California is EMFAC2007. See 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008).
123 By ―future baseline inventories‖ or ―projected baseline inventories,‖ we mean projected emissions inventories for future years that account for, among other things, the effects of economic growth and adopted emissions control requirements.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 168 Preparing Emissions Projections,‖ EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA

450/4

- 91

- 019, July 1991; ―Emission Projections,‖ STAPPA/ALAPCO/EPA Emission Inventory Improvement Proje ct, Volume X, December 1999 (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume10/x01.pdf ) . NRDC correctly notes that the stationary point and the area source emissions projections that the SCAQMD developed as inputs to these projected future baseline inventories generally included an assumption of 100% RE. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix I V at A

- 7; see also Memorandum to File dated December 5, 2011, Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, RE: ―SCAQMD Emissions Estimation Methodology.‖ In response to the comment, we have further evaluated the projected baseline inventories in the Plan to determine whether an assumption of 100% RE was appropriate and to what extent it may have affected the control strategy. As explained below, we believe the SCAQMD‘s methodologies for projecting emissions were reasonable and that, even assuming that the District should not have used 100% RE for certain source categories, the impact on the overall emissions projections would have been insignificant.

With respect to both NOx and VOC emissions from stationary point sources, which account for roughly 80% of the total NOx projec tions for stationary sources and roughly 13 % of the total VOC projections for stationary sources, no RE adjustments were necessary because the base year emissions estimates were developed from reported emissions data (i.e., direct determinations). Moreover , the SCAQMD‘s compliance and enforcement programs generally meet the recommended criteria in EPA‘s 2005 RE Guidance for use of the highest range of RE factors for stationary sources. 124 For example, all stationary point sources in the South Coast that emit or have the potential to emit at least 10 tons per year of VOC or N Ox are subject to the District‘s EPA

- approved title V operating permits program in SCAQMD Regulation XXX 125 ( see SCAQMD Rule 3001), which requires subject facilities to regularly report compl iance information to the SCAQMD. See, e.g., SCAQMD Rule 3004(a)(4)(f) (requiring semi

- annual reports) and (a)(10) (requiring annual compliance certifications). In addition, the SCAQMD‘s Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program, which generall y applies to stationary point sources that emit 4 tons or more per year of NOx or SOx in the year 1990 or subsequent years ( see SCAQMD Rule 2001(b)), also contains stringent compliance monitoring and reporting requirements. See, e.g., SCAQMD Rule 2012(c)(2 ) (requiring NOx sources to install, maintain and operate a Continuous Emissions Monitoring System or other equivalent monitoring device) and SCAQMD Rule 2012(c)(3) (requiring NOx sources to install, maintain and operate a reporting device to electronicall y report daily NOx emissions to the District and to submit monthly emissions reports). Thus, even in the absence of direct determination, these compliance requirements and programs would adequately support the SCAQMD‘s use of the highest range of RE factor s (94 to 100%) in projecting emissions from stationary point sources of VOC and NOx emissions in the South Coast area.

124 For stationary point sources, the 2005 RE Guidance provides that the following factors, among others, may support the use of the highest RE range (94 to 100%) in developing emissions estimates: the regulatory agency requires source

- specific monitoring for compliance purposes and frequent submittal of monitoring records; the agency conducts inspections involving compliance test methods with a h igh degree of accuracy, such as stack testing or other types of precise emissions measurements; and/or the agency has authority to impose punitive measures, including monetary fines, towards violators such as in delegated title V operating permit programs. See 2005 RE Guidance at B

- 6.
125 See 68 FR 65637 (November 21, 2003) (final rule approving revisions to SCAQMD‘s title V operating permits program effective January 1, 2004).TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 169 The SCAQMD‘s regulations for VOC area sources that were accounted for in the projected baseline inventories ( i.e., rules adopted as of J une 2006) also contain stringent recordkeeping and reporting requirements which generally meet EPA‘s recommended criteria for use of the highest range of RE factors for area sources. 126 See, e.g., SCAQMD Rule 109 (as amended May 2, 2003) (requiring numerous types of VOC area sources to keep daily records of types of coatings and/or solvents used); see also Memorandum to File dated December 9, 2011, Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, RE: ―SCAQMD Compliance and Enforcement Programs.‖ The SCAQMD also administers numerous compliance assistance programs, including classroom instruction, web

- based tutorials, and mailings. See, e.g., http://www.aqmd.gov/comply/index.html

, http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmd/aqmd_training.htm , and http://www.aqmd.gov/pubinfo/Publications/Advisor/2011/Nov2011Advis or.pdf , page 8). These compliance requirements and programs generally support the SCAQMD‘s use of the highest range of RE factors (86 to 100%) in projecting emissions from area sources of VOC emissions in the South Coast area.

We expect that at least som e of these VOC area sources are uncontrolled and therefore do not require any RE adjustment. Additionally, of those VOC area sources that are subject to controls

, we understand many are subject to compliance requirements that enable the District to make di rect determinations of emissions estimates ( e.g., through ―mass balance‖ accounting of the types of coatings and/or solvents used) , which also would not require any RE adjustment

. See, e.g., SCAQMD Rule 109 (as amended May 2, 2003)

. Assuming conservativel y, however, that some RE adjustments may have been appropriate for area sources, we have evaluated the impact that such adjustments may have had on the overall NOx and VOC emissions projections for 2023. With respect to NOx emissions,

a rea sources account for about 20% of projected NOx emissions from stationary sources and less than 3% of the total NOx inventory for the 2023 projection year. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, Attachment B at Table B

- 9, and Memorandum to File, Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9 Air Planning Office, dated December 14, 2011. Thus, even assuming conservatively that a lower RE factor is appropriate for all area sources of NOx emissions, the impact of such an adjustment on the future baseline NOx emission inventory would affect less than 3% of the total projected NOx inventory (roughly 14 tpd). Assuming that application of an 8 6 % 127 rather than 100% factor would directly increase these NOx emissions estimates by 14 percent, then the projected 2023 NOx emissions inventory would increase by less than 3 tpd. This amount is adequately covered by CARB‘s enforceable commitment to achieve 141 tpd of NOx by 2023. 76 FR 57872, 57881 (Table 6). CARB‘s 2011 SIP Revision reduced the 2023 projected NOx inventory by 12 tpd compared to the Plan as sub mitted in 2007, indicating a surplus in NOx reductions of 12 tpd in the Plan as revised. See letter dated August 10, 2011, from Lynn Terry, CARB, to Deborah

126 For stationary area sources, the 2005 RE Guidance provides that the following fa ctors, among others, may support the use of the highest RE range (86 to 100%) in developing emissions estimates: over 90% of facilities inspected in the source category are in compliance; the regulatory agency requires sources to submit some type of compli ance certification; and/or a compliance assistance program exists and is adequately staffed. See 2005 RE Guidance at B

- 9.
127 We believe an RE factor of 86%, which is the lowest factor under ―Range 1‖ for non

- point (area) sources in EPA‘s 2005 RE Guidance , i s a reasonable assumption f or these calculations given the rigorous compliance requirements in SCAQMD‘s area source regulations and the District‘s compliance assistance programs

.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 170 Jordan, EPA Region 9, with attachment (transmitting emission inventory improvement information). B ecause the State‘s and District‘s enforceable commitments have not been revised, CARB remains obligated to achieve the total amount of emission reductions identified in its original commitment (141 tpd). The NOx surplus of 12 tpd included in this enforceab le commitment adequately covers the potential increase of 3 tpd due to RE adjustments.

With respect to VOC emissions, roughly half of the total projected VOC summer planning inventory for 2023 is attributed to stationary point and area sources. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, Attachment B at Table B

- 9. Of these stationary source VOC emissions, approximately 40% are attributed to consumer products ( see id. ), which prior to 2007 were not subject to any SCAQMD VOC regulations that the District would have accounted for in its emissions projections. 128 Most of the remaining VOC emissions (roughly 130 tpd) are attributed to area sources that are either uncontrolled or subject to SCAQMD regulations, such as cleaning and surface coating operations, arc hitectural coating operations, and farming operations ( e.g., fertilizer applications). See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, Attachment B at Table B

- 9

. As NRDC correctly notes (and does not take issue with), the SCAQMD made significant RE adjustments to the gasoline transfer and dispensing source category subject to SCAQMD Rule 461 (petroleum marketing), which accounts for roughly 15 % ( 20 tpd) of the se remaining VOC area source emissions. This leaves approximately 1 1 0 tpd of VOC emissions attributed to area sources under the SCAQMD‘s jurisdiction for which RE adj ustments may have been appropriate but for which California has not specifically provided data on whether they were made. All together, these area sources account for approximately 20% of the tot al projected VOC summer planning inventory for 2023. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, Attachment B at Table B

- 9.

A ssuming conservatively that all of these VOC emissions are from regulated area sources for which direct determinations of emission ca nnot be made, and that a lower RE factor is appropriate for the emissions projections for all of the se sources, the impact of such an adjustment on the future baseline VOC emission inventory for 2023 would affect only about 2 0% of the total p rojected VOC i nventory (roughly 110 tpd). Further a ssuming that application of an 8 6 % RE factor would directly increase these VOC emissions estimates by 14 percent, the projected 2023 VOC emissions inventory would increase by approximately 15.4 tpd. We note that CARB‘s 2011 SIP Revision reduced the 2023 projected VOC inventory by 5 tpd compared to the Plan as submitted in 2007, indicating a surplus in VOC reductions of 5 tpd in the Plan as revised. See letter dated August 10, 2011, from Lynn Terry, CARB, to Debora h Jordan, EPA Region 9, with attachment (transmitting emission inventory improvement information). Because the State‘s and District‘s enforceable commitments have not been revised, CARB remains obligated to achieve the total amount of VOC emission reducti ons identified in its original commitment (54 tpd). See 76 FR 57872, 57881 (Table 6)

. T aking into account this 5 tpd surplus in CARB‘s VOC emission reduction commitments, we assume the potential difference in the State‘s projected VOC inventory for 2023, h ad the State applied an 86% RE factor, would have been approximately 10.4 tpd or less than 2% of the total projected VOC inventory for 2023

.

128 Consumer products in California are generally subject to CARB‘s Consumer Products Regulations (CPR) in title 17, sections 94500

- 94575 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). In March 2009, the SCAQMD adopted VOC content requirements for certain consu mer products not subject to CARB‘s CPR, but these District regulations are not accounted for in the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP‘s emissions inventories. See SCAQMD Rule 1143.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 171 Given the multiple conservative assumptions leading to this small difference in the emissions estimates for VOC are a sources, we do not believe that an RE adjustment for VOC area sources would have altered our evaluation of the South Coast 2007 Ozone plan.

For all of these reasons and as discussed in our proposal (76 FR 57872), we have concluded that the 2002 base yea r inventory in the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP is a ―comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants‖ in the South Coast area, consistent with the requirements for emissions inventories in CAA section 182(a)(1), 40 CFR 51.915, and 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. In addition, we conclude that the projected baseline inventories for 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2023 were prepared consistent with EPA‘s guidance on development of emissions invento ries and attainment demonstrations and, therefore, provide an adequate basis for the RACM, RFP and attainment demonstrations in the Plan. See TSD at section II.A. Given the continuously

- evolving nature of estimating emissions, however, we will continue to work with CARB and the SCAQMD to ensure that their base year and projection year SIP emissions inventories accurately account for rule effectiveness and reflect the best available estimates of current and future emissions.

D. CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Te chnology Provisions

Comment: Commenters (NRDC, CCAT, DCAP, PSR

- LA and CBE) state that California‘s reliance on ―black box‖ measures in the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP fails to meet the requirements and intent of the Clean Air Act by allowing the State to d efer its responsibility to attain federal standards. Commenters state that there are three problems with how the State and District are using 182(e)(5).

First, commenters state that it is arbitrary for EPA to approve a ―black box‖ with 281 tons per day or 55% of the reductions needed, given its lack of definition. Another commenter (private citizen) also asserts that the SIP relies too heavily on unknown ―black box‖ solutions, which the commenter claims make up 49.6% of needed NOx reductions and 43% of combined VOC and NOx reductions.

Second, commenters assert that section 182(e)(5) is intended to address new technologies that will develop over time but that in California, ―new technologies alone will not sufficiently reduce pollution to attain federal air quality standards.‖ Citing a description in EPA‘s TSD (at pg. 79) of a potential measure described by CARB as ―prioritizing federal transportation funding to support air quality goals,‖ commenters argue that ―[t]his example clearly fails to meet all th e criteria required for Black Box use,‖ and that while ―tying air quality to transportation planning‖ is important for attainment, the black box cannot be used as a basis for not requiring implementation of ―existing‖ strategies such as increased public tr ansit that do not require the development of new technologies.

Finally, commenters state that the section 182(e)(5) commitments are vague and insufficient and that EPA cannot approve the attainment demonstration ―unless the Section 182(e)(5) measures comp ly with the CAA.‖ Citing both section 182(e)(5) of the Act and EPA‘s January 8, 1997 final rule approving the 1

- hour ozone plan for several California nonattainment areas (62 FR 1150, 1179), commenters assert that the new technology measures must: (1) cont ainTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 172 sufficient definition; (2) contain schedules for development of the new technologies; (3) contain commitments for funding; (4) depend on development of new technologies; and (5) include an enforceable commitment to develop and adopt necessary contingen cy measures. Commenters assert that the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP ―only attempts to comply with requirement number (5),‖ that the generalized discussion in the Plan provides little assurance of CARB‘s ability to develop these measures, and that approval of these measures is therefore arbitrary and capricious.

Response: First, we disagree with the commenters‘ contention that EPA‘s proposed approval of the Plan is arbitrary because of the amount of emission reductions attributed to the ―black box‖ (or ―lo ng

- term strategy‖), 129 or because they are undefined. As an initial matter, we note that the commenters‘ assertions about the percentages of the needed emission reductions attributed to the long

- term strategy are not correct. 130 The correct percentages of the needed NOx and VOC emission reductions attributed to the long

- term strategy in the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP are 26 and 9 percent, respectively, as explained further below.

The CAA does not provide a quantitative limit on the extent to which the attainme nt demonstration for an extreme ozone nonattainment area may rely on new technology provisions under CAA section 182(e)(5). As we explained in our proposed rule, section 182(e)(5) of the Act authorizes EPA to approve provisions in an extreme area plan whic h ―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 incre mental reductions required during the first 10 years after the effective date of designation for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and (2) the State has submitted enforceable commitments to submit adopted contingency measures meeting certain criteria no later than 3 y ears before proposed implementation of the new technology measures. See 76 FR 57872, 57881

- 57883

. EPA interprets this provision to mean that the measures approved under 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.

The majority of the emissions reductions in the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP are attributed to already ad opted and near

- term measures. See 76 FR 57872, 57876

- 89

. Our summary of South Coast‘s 8

- hour ozone attainment demonstration in the proposed rule shows that the South Coast area needs to reduce emissions from 2002 levels by a total of 910 tpd of NOx and 4 61 tpd of VOC to attain the 8

- hour ozone standards by June 15, 2024. See 76 FR 57872, 57885 at Table 8. Approximately 74% of these needed NOx reductions and 91% of the needed VOC reductions are attributed to already adopted or near

- term measures (i.e., me asures that will be adopted and implemented by 2014). See 76 FR 57872, 57886 (Table 9) and 57879

- 57880 (Tables 3 and 4) (identifying CARB and SCAQMD measures recently adopted or

129 Throughout this notice we use the terms ―long

- term strategy‖ or ―new technology provisions‖ interchangeably to refer to the plan provisions that anticipate development of new or improved control techniques under CAA section 182(e)(5), which the commenters refer to as the ―black box.‖
130 It appears that the commenters overestimated t he percentage of ―black box‖ emission reductions in the Plan by calculating the amount of needed NOx and VOC reductions without taking into account the reductions attributed to baseline measures and emissions inventory improvements.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 173 scheduled for near

- term consideration). These measures include all reasonably available control measures and generally represent the most stringent air pollution control requirements for stationary, area, and mobile sources nationwide. See 76 FR 57872, 57877

- 57881. This leaves about 26% of the needed NOx reductions and 9% of the ne eded VOC reductions to be met through the long

- term strategy under CAA section 182(e)(5). 131 See 76 FR 57872, 57885 at Table 9. Given the demonstrated need for emissions reductions from new and improved control techniques to reduce air pollution in the Sou th Coast area ( see TSD at 79), we believe it is reasonable for the State to attribute these amounts of emission reductions to the long

- term strategy. 132 As we stated in our proposed rule, however, we expect the amount and relative proportion of reductions fr om measures scheduled for long

- term adoption under section 182(e)(5) should decrease in any future SIP update, and EPA will not approve any future SIP revisions with an increase in the 182(e)(5) reductions for 2023 without a convincing showing that the tec hnologies relied upon in the near

- term rules are infeasible or ineffective in achieving emissions reductions in the near

- term. See 76 FR 57872, 57883. Moreover, to the extent new modeling performed in any subsequent SIP revision demonstrates that there is an increase in the year 2023 carrying capacity for VOC and NOx, this change may not be used to decrease the amount of emissions reductions scheduled to be achieved by any near

- term measure from the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP unless CARB or the SCAQMD make the convincing showing described above.

Second, we disagree with the commenters‘ suggestion that CAA section 182(e)(5) allows only for plan provisions that rely on ―new technologies‖ and that this necessarily means the District must adopt additional ―exis ting strategies‖ that do not rely on new technologies. Section 182(e)(5) of the Act allows for approval of extreme area plan provisions that ―anticipate development of new control techniques or improvement of existing control technologies,‖ which EPA inter prets to include ―those that may anticipate future technological developments as well as those that may require complex analyses and decision making and coordination among a number of government agencies.‖ See 57 FR 13498, 13524. Thus, in addition to plan provisions that rely on ―new technologies,‖ section 182(e)(5) contemplates provisions that are as of yet undefined because they require, for example, time for State and local agencies to evaluate complex technical information and to seek public participat ion in their regulatory processes.

The commenters correctly note that EPA‘s TSD identified ―prioritiz[ation of] federal transportation funding to support air quality goals‖ among a number of potential long

- term strategies that CARB had identified for fur ther consideration ( see TSD at 79, citing 2007 State

131 For NOx, the long

- t erm emission reductions are 241 tpd in 2023 or approximately 26 percent of 910 tons, the total reductions needed. For VOC, the long

- term emission reductions are 40 tpd in 2023 or approximately 9 percent of the 461 tons of VOC reductions needed. 132 During development of the 2007 State Strategy, CARB staff analyzed whether current NOx technologies for mobile sources are clean enough to provide all the emission reductions needed for ozone attainment in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley. ARB included in this analysis the phasing in of the cleanest new technology standards from 2007

- 2017 that ARB and U.S. EPA have already adopted for diesel engines: 0.2 g/bhp

- hr on

- road truck standards in 2010, full offroad Tier 4 standards in 2014, and the recent U.S. EPA

- proposed low

- NOx standards for locomotive engines starting in 2017. The totals of remaining emissions after full clean

- up of the legacy diesel fleets in the South Coast air basin still exceed the NOx carrying capacity by 133 tpd. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 54.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 1 74 Strategy, pp. 55

- 56), but they do not describe any specific control measure that such budgetary decisions could support and that is reasonably available for current implementation in the South Coast area . Likewise, although the commenters assert generally that ―increased transit‖ and other ―existing strategies‖ should be required as control measures because these do not require the development of new technologies, they have not identified any particular c ontrol measure that the State should be obligated to include in its plan for attaining the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS.

CARB and the SCAQMD have adopted all of the control measures for NOx and VOC that are reasonably available for current implementation in t he South Coast area and have submitted enforceable commitments to adopt additional measures achieving specific amounts of emission reductions by specific years. See 76 FR 57872, 57877

- 57881 and 57886. These measures are not sufficient, however, to achieve the significant amounts of NOx and VOC reductions necessary to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS in the South Coast by June 15, 2024. Absent new information about additional control measures that are cost

- effective and technically feasible for current imp lementation in the area, we believe it is reasonable to allow the State and District time to develop additional control measures based on new or improved control techniques under CAA section 182(e)(5).

Third, we disagree with commenters that the section 182(e)(5) commitments are vague and insufficient. As discussed in our proposed rule, CARB has submitted enforceable commitments to achieve specific amounts of NOx and VOC reductions by 2023 through the development of new or improved control techniques und er CAA section 182(e)(5). The total tonnage commitment in the South Coast is for 241 tpd NOx and 40 tpd VOC. See 76 FR 57872, 57881

- 57882 and 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 20. With respect to the requirement for contingency measures in CAA sectio n 182(e)(5)(B), we explained in our proposed rule that CARB‘s 2011 Ozone SIP Revision contains the State‘s enforceable commitment ―to develop, adopt, and submit contingency measures by 2020 if advanced technology measures do not achieve planned reductions‖ (76 FR 57872, 57882, referencing CARB Resolution 11

- 22, July 21, 2011), and in a letter dated November 18, 2011 to EPA Region 9, CARB confirmed that EPA‘s understanding of this enforceable commitment is correct. See letter dated November 18, 2011, from Ja mes N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9.

In addition, as explained in our proposed rule (76 FR at 57882), the South Coast 2007 Plan identifies numerous potential measures currently under consideration as part of the long

term strategy, and CARB has committed to submit a SIP revision by 2020 that will identify the additional strategies and implementing agencies needed to achieve the needed reductions by the beginnin g of the 2023 ozone season. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, p. A

- 8; see also letter dated August 29, 2011 from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 9 (describing C alifornia‘s climate change programs, clean car technologies, programs to accelerate hybrids and plug

- in technologies, greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles, and SCAQMD‘s efforts to transition to broad use of zero

- and near

- zero e mission technologies for freight transportation and passenger vehicles and to increase energy efficiency in buildings). We note also that CARB has stated its intent to convene annual strategy meetings with the Districts and EPA to discuss progress in the development of its new technology measures, and to secureTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 175 resources for continuing research and development of new technologies. See letter dated August 29, 2011, from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfe ld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9; see also 2009 State Strategy Status Report, pp. 25

- 27.

Finally, commenters reference CAA section 182(e)(5) and EPA‘s final rule approving an ozone SIP previously submitted by California (62 FR 1150, 1179) 133 in support of its assertion that the long

- term strategy must satisfy five ―requirements,‖ of which, commenters contend, the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP addresses only one. We disagree with this characterization of both the requirements of CAA section 182(e )(5) and the provisions in the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP.

As explained above and in our proposed rule, EPA interprets the Act to allow EPA to approve the State‘s conceptual new technology provisions and credit them toward the attainment demonstration if the state makes the required commitment to submit contingency measures, which then must be submitted to EPA no later than 3 years before proposed implementation and EPA concludes that the measures are not needed to achieve the first 10 years of required r ate of progress reductions. See 76 FR 57846, 57854

. The five ―requirements‖ for approval of new technology provisions that commenters reference are not statutory or regulatory requirements but recommended criteria. See General Preamble at 13524. 134

As also explained in the proposed rule, CARB and the District have demonstrated a clear need for additional time to fully develop and adopt the long

- term measures under consideration and have met the statutory requirements fo r approval of such conceptual measures under CAA section 182(e)(5). See 76 57872 57881

- 57883. The General Preamble at 13524 recommends that a SIP relying on new technology provisions under CAA section 182(e)(5) identify all of the specific long

- term measures the State intends to adopt, contain a schedule outlining the specific steps leading to final development and adoption, and contain commitments from the agencies that would be involved in developing and implementing these measures, in addition to satisfying the statutory criteria. However, a s discussed in our proposed rule and above, both the 2007 State Strategy and the South Coast 2007 AQMP provide lists of the types of technologies and

133 We note that although this final action included EPA‘s approval of new technology provisions under CAA section 182(e)(5) as part of California‘s SIP for the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS in the South Coast area, this prior rulemaking action is not germane t o today‘s action on the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP. We assume that the commenters intended to refer, instead, to the source of the five criteria that EPA has recommended for consideration in evaluating new technology provisions under CAA 182(e)(5), which i s the General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13524 (April 16, 1992)).
134 EPA‘s General Preamble states that in order to rely on ―new technology provisions‖ under CAA section 182(e)(5), a SIP must satisfy the following criteria: (1) identify all measures, including the long

- term measure(s) for which additional time would be needed for development and adoption; (2) show that the long

- term measure(s) cannot be fully developed and adopted by the submittal date for the attainment demonstration and contain a schedule
out lining the steps leading to final development and adoption of the measure(s); (3) contain commitments from those agencies that would be involved in developing and implementing the schedule for the measure; (4) contain a commitment to develop and submit con tingency measures (in addition to those otherwise required for the area) that could be implemented if the measure is not developed or if it fails to achieve the anticipated reductions; and (5) not rely on the new technology measures to meet any emissions r eductions requirements within the first 10 years after
enactment. See 57 FR 13498, 13524 (April 16, 1992). We note that this language is non

- binding guidance although it is phrased in mandatory terms.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 176 measures that they are pursuing to achieve the emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8

- hour ozo ne standard in the South Coast. See 76 FR 57872, 57882

- 57853 and TSD, section II.C.2.d ; see also, 2007 AQMP, Chapters 4 and 7; 2007 State Strategy, pp. 54

- 57; 2009 State Strategy Update, p. 25 ; and 2011 Ozone Plan Update, Appendix A. The State has also com mitted to share the results of its efforts with the public through Board meetings, workshops and other

means. See 2009 State Strategy Update , p. 25; see also

, letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EP A Region 9, August 29, 2011

. Finally, the State has committed to work to secure resources for continuing research and development and to develop schedules for moving from research to implementation. Id. We find that the State and District have adequately a ddressed the policy criteria in the General Preamble given the significant emissions reductions needed to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS in the South Coast and the type of sources (i.e., mobile sources) for which technology must be developed, tested, a nd deployed in order to achieve these reductions. EPA commits to do its share to support the needed research and development activities of CARB and the District.

Comment: Commenters state that the South Coast will exceed the 1

- hour ozone standards by 30% in 2010 and that this is relevant because the South Coast‘s 1

- hour ozone plan relied heavily on ―black box‖ measures. Commenters argue that the South Coast area failed to meet the 1

- hour standards ―because the commitments to develop and implement Black Box measures never fully came to fruition‖ (citing EPA‘s September 14, 2011 proposal to determine that the South Coast area failed to attain the 1

- hour ozone standards by the applicable attainment da te (76 FR 56694)) and that EPA cannot reasonably rely on the continued use of the ―black box‖ because the District and CARB‘s track record using this approach has not delivered the pollution reductions that were promised in prior plans. Commenters state t hat EPA must direct CARB to ―extract from the black box‖ needed reductions they know will not come from future technologies, reduce the overall size of the black box to a reasonable level and better define where the remaining black box reductions are expec ted to come from.

Response: EPA is acting today on the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP, which the State submitted to meet the requirements of part D, title I of the CAA for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards

. Neither the CAA‘s planning requirements related to a ttainment of the 1

- hour ozone standards nor the State‘s submittals to meet the Act‘s requirements for that prior standards are germane to our action on the South Coast 2007 SIP under CAA section 110(k). Additionally, nothing in section 182(e)(5) of the CAA or our implementing regulations requires EPA to take into account the success or failure of a prior plan for a different NAAQS in approving extreme area plan provisions that meet the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(5) for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s . EPA‘s proposed rule to determine that the South Coast area failed to attain the 1

- hour

ozone standards by its applicable attainment date (76 FR 56694, September 14, 2011), which commenters reference, likewise has no bearing on our action on the South Co ast 2007 Ozone SIP under CAA section 110(k).

Moreover, we disagree with commenters‘ contention that the South Coast area failed to meet the 1

- hour ozone standards ―because the commitments to develop and implement Black Box measures never fully came to fr uition.‖ The failure of an area to attain a NAAQS by the applicable attainment date does not mean that the State has failed to achieve the emissions reductions anticipated in the SIP, whether under CAA section 182(e)(5) or otherwise. The control strategy ( including the ―black box‖) that EPA previously approved for the South CoastTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 177 area (62 FR 1150) was developed long before the attainment date using the best scientific information available at the time, including estimates of the area‘s carrying capacity usi ng photochemical grid modeling and other technical tools and assumptions. This control strategy, however, has proven insufficient to attain the 1

- hour ozone standards by the applicable attainment date of November 15, 2010, due to imperfect estimates as to the carrying capacity of the South Coast air basin with respect to the 1

- hour ozone standards and other imperfections in the tools and assumptions upon which the prior plans were based. A State may fully implement all measures that are predicted as necessa ry to attain a particular NAAQS and still fail to attain that NAAQS.

Finally, we disagree with commenters‘ argument that EPA must direct CARB to ―extract from the black box needed reductions they know will not come from future technologies, reduce the ov erall size of the black box to a reasonable level and better define where the remaining black box reductions are expected to come from.‖ It is not possible at this point in time to know that certain emission reductions will not come from future technologie s, and we do not believe it is reasonable to require the State to reduce the amount of emission reductions attributed to the long

- term strategy by either implementing measures or incremental reductions beyond those otherwise mandated by the Act or developi ng measures based on control techniques not yet identified or commercially available for implementation in the area. As explained above, the State has met the statutory criteria for approval of its long

- term strategy under CAA section 182(e)(5).

Comment: Commenters state that the commitment by CARB to submit a revision to EPA by 2020 provides little assurance that the black box strategies will work. Citing Association of Irritated Residents (AIR) v. EPA , 632 F.3d 584, 592 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing the triennial review process in California law and the triennial inventory requirement under the federal Clean Air Act), commenters state that delaying a revision until 2020 and not requiring more frequent updates is arbitrary and capricious because both California law and the CAA contain requirements for updating clean air plans more frequently than every nine or ten years. Commenters also argue that delaying submittal of an update until 2020 is arbitrary and capricious because this is too late to allow time to remedy any problems that may need CARB regulations, transportation infrastructure and other technology developments that will require more than three years to develop.

Response: As discussed in our proposed approval, CARB has committed to achie ve all of the emission reductions attributed to the section 182(e)(5) conceptual new technology measures by the attainment year (2023) and has satisfied the section 182(e)(5) criteria for approval of its new technology provisions by demonstrating that the measures are not relied on for RFP and committing to submit adopted contingency measures by 2020 to be implemented should the anticipated reductions from new or improved technologies not occur. In addition, as discussed above, CARB has stated its intent t o continue the State‘s ambitious clean technology development programs and has committed to public outreach as well as annual meetings to update EPA on its progress. Although we recognize the commenters‘ concerns about the absence of any specific mileston es or updates prior to 2020, the Act does not mandate that the SIP include specific enforceable actions during this period.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 178 The triennial review process cited in AIR is a California state law requirement applicable to air quality plans developed pursuant to the California Clean Air Act to meet California‘s ambient air quality standards. See California Health and Safety Code Section 40924(b) and 40925(a). The CAA triennial inventory requirement cited in that decision is an emissions inventory requirement in CAA section 182(a)(3), which requires States with ozone nonattainment areas to submit revised inventories every three years until redesignation to attainment. See also 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. Neither the triennial review requirement under the Californi a CAA nor the periodic inventory requirement under the Federal CAA applies to our evaluation of new technology provisions under CAA section 182(e)(5).

E. CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A) Requirements

Comment : NRDC asserts that EPA‘s interpretation of CAA se ction 182(d)(1)(A) in the proposed rule, i.e., that compliance with this requirement is shown if an area demonstrates that emissions from motor vehicles decline each year through the attainment year, fails to comply with the decision by the U.S. Court of A ppeals for the Ninth Circuit in Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA , 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011) and is also inconsistent with EPA policy in the General Preamble (57 FR at 13523). According to NRDC, the General Preamble states that section 182(d)(1) (A) requires SIPs to contain ―specific, enforceable measures selected by the State... 1) adequate to hold vehicle emissions within the ceiling‖ sufficient to offset growth in emissions from VMT growth, and 2) ―sufficient to allow total area emissions to comply with the RF P and attainment requirements‖ and that EPA‘s review of a SIP revision will ―assess the adequacy of the growth

- offsetting measures against all three criteria specified by the [CAA].‖ Finally, citing the legislative history of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (H .R. No . 101

- 490, part 1, 101st Cong. 2d Sess., at 242 ), N R DC asserts that EPA has improperly construed section 182(d)(1)(A) to not require offsets for the emissions increases attributable to the increase in VMT since 1990 and claims that d espite this ― clear legi slative language contradicting EPA ‘ s position, EPA is allowing one of the most polluted air basins in nation with severe transportation issues to be exempt from important transportation control requirements .‖ Response : S ection 182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA requ ires that nonattainment areas classified as

severe or extreme submit transportation control strategies and trans portation control measures (TCMs ) sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or the number of vehi cle trips, and to provide (along with other measures) the reductions needed to meet the applicable RFP requirement. This CAA section also requires that states choose and implement such measures as are specified in section 108(f), to the extent needed to de monstrate attainment. As we explained in both the TSD and the proposed rule, EPA believes that it is appropriate to treat the three required elements of section 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting emissions growth (―VMT offset‖) , attainment of the RFP reduction , and attainment of the ozone standards ) as separable and we have interpret ed the first element of this CAA provision to allow areas to meet the requirement by demonstrating that emissions from motor vehicles decline each year through the attainment year. See TSD section II.F.1 and 76 FR 57872, 57890. See also Brief for the Respondents, Association of Irritated Residents, e t a l. v. EPA , and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA

, Nos. 09

- 71383 & 09

- 71404, 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals at pp. 47

- 61 , and EPA‘s responses to similar comments in our final actions on the South Coast 1

- hour ozone SIP, 74 FR 10176, 10179

- 10180 (March 10, 2009) and the SJV 1

- hour ozone SIP, 75 FRTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 179 10420,10433 (March 8, 2010) and TSD at section VI.H. 135 This interpretation is c onsistent with the language in EPA‘s General Preamble (at 13522, first column, 2 nd full paragraph ) : ― If projected total motor vehicle emissions during the ozone season in one year are not higher than dur ing the ozone season the year before, given the cont rol measures in the SIP, the VMT offset requirement is satisfied. ‖

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, CAA section 182(d )(1)(A) requires s tates 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 dec reasing. EPA has filed a petition for rehearing on this issue. See Association of Irritated Residents, e t a l. v. EPA

, Docket Nos. 09

- 71383 and 09

- 71404 (consolidated), Docket Entry 41

- 1

, Petition for Panel Rehearing

. At the time of our September proposal, the Ninth Circuit had not yet issued its mandate in the AIR case, and EPA had not adopted the court‘s interpretation for the reasons set forth in the Agency‘s petition for rehearing, pending a final decision by the co urt. We stated in our proposal that if the court denied the Agency‘s petition for rehearing and issued its mandate before EPA issued a final rule on the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone plan, then we anticipated that we would not be able to finalize approval of the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone plan with respect to the first element (i.e., offsetting emissions growth) of section 182(d)(1)(A). See 76 FR 57872, 57890. Therefore, we proposed in the alternative to disapprove the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone plan with respect to the first element 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. Id. Because the court has still not issued its mandate, for th e reasons provided in our proposed rule (76 FR 57846, 57862

- 57863), we are approving the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) consistent with our long

standing interpretation of this provision.

Comment : NRDC asserts that EPA has also failed to assess the adequacy of the SIP‘ s compliance with the requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) that the SIP provide adequate enforceable control measures ―to allow total area emissions to comply with RFP and attain ment requirements.‖ NRDC argues that, because the area has not adopted sufficient enforceable control measures to provide for attainment (citing to its comments that the attainment demonstration is not approvable because, inter alia , measures relied on in that demonstration were not in the SIP), this provision must be met and EPA m ust direct the State/District to adopt the additional measures needed for attainment, either as TCMs to reduce motor vehicle emissions, or as controls on other source categories s o that total emissions reductions provide for attainment.

135 See Final Technical Support Document for the Action on the San Joaquin Valley Extreme 1

- Hour Ozone Standard Plan and San Joaquin Portion of the 2003 State Strategy, Office of Air Planning, Air Division, Environmental Protection Agency

– Region 9, December 11, 2009.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 180 Response : CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires the State to ―submit a revision that identifies and adopts specific enforceable transportation control strategies and transportation control measures
...t o attain reductions in motor vehicle emissions as necessary, in combination with other emission reduction requirements of [title 1, part D, subpart 2], to comply with the requirements of [sections 182] (b)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(B)‖ and ―to consider measures spe cified in section 108(f)... and to choose from among and implement such measures as necessary to demonstrate attainment.‖

We have determined that the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone plan meets the RFP requirements in sections 182(b)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(B) and dem onstrates attainment consistent with the subpart 2 requirements and thus also meets the requirements of section 182(d)(1)(A) to adopt transportation control strategies and TCMs as necessary to demonstrate RFP and attainment. See 76 FR 57872, 57890 and TSD, section II.F.3; s ee also TSD, section III.A.2. (responding to comments on the approvability of the baseline emissions inventory and the attainment demonstration). The SIP also includes documentation that the state considered the transportation control mea sures listed in CAA section 108(f), evaluated their effectiveness in contributing to expeditious attainment, and concluded that they would not. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix IV

- C; 76 FR 57872, 57879 and 57890 and TSD, sections II.C.2.b. and II.F.2.

W e disagree with NRDC‘s summary of the CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requirements related to RFP and attainment. This specific section does not require that the SIP provide

― adequate enforceable control measures  ̳ to allow total area emissions to comply with RFP and attainment requirements ‘‖ but rather it requires that the state adopt enforceable transportation strategies and TCM as necessary in combination with other emissions reduction requirement of subpart 2 to demonstrate RFP and to implement TCMs as necessary to demonstrate attainment. Thus, if other SIP provisions provide for RFP and attainment consistent with applicable CAA requirements (including, in this case, the provisions of CAA section 182(e)(5)), then the state has no obligation under section 182(d)(1)(A) to adopt transportation control strategies and TCMs for RFP and attainment purposes.

F . Comments on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

Comment : CARB has requested that EPA limit the duration of approval of the motor vehicle emissions budgets fo r both PM2.5 and 8

- hour ozone that were submitted on July 29, 2011 to last only until the effective date of EPA‘s adequacy finding for any subsequent budgets as is allowed under EPA‘s May 14, 1999 guidance memorandum ―Conformity Guidance on Implementation of the March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decisions.‖

Response : The transportation conformity rule allows EPA to limit the approval of budgets. See 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(1). However, we can only consider a state‘s request to limit an approval if the request in cludes the following elements:
an acknowledgement and explanation as to why the budgets under consideration have become outdated or deficient; a commitment to update the budgets as part of a comprehensive SIP update; and a request that EPA limit the duration of its approval to the time when new budgets have been found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 181 See 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002) (limiting our prior approval of MVEB in certain California SIPs).

CARB‘s request does not i nclude all these elements; therefore, we cannot address it at this time. Once CARB has addressed these factors, we will consider proposing to limit the duration of ou r approval of the MVEB in the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP and 2007 PM 2.5 Plan. The duration of the approval of the budgets would not be limited until we completed this rulemaking.

G. General Comments

Comment : The commenter commends EPA and the SCAQMD for the hard work and extensive documentation prepared in developing the SIP and EPA‘s proposed action on the SIP. The commenter states that allowing the SCAQMD to place 49.6% NOx and 43% VOC reductions in the Section 182(e)(5) ―black box‖ is excessive and then t he commenter asserts that additional practical steps can be taken now to produce significant improvements in air quality, or that could more accurately quantify current emissions, or to reduce or elimina te emissions. The specific measures the commenter addresses include 1) standardizing existing air quality legislation in the S an J oaquin V alley , S outh C oast , and the Coachella Valley; the commenter cites California Code Section 65302.1, which applies to th e San Joaquin Valley County general plans; 2) strict enforcement of existing local and state air quality legislation , in which the commenter refers to aggregation under the New Source Review (NSR) process, citing specifically the Azusa Rock Quarry project in the commenter‘s city of residence; 3) introduction of legislation to require out of state heavy diesel vehicles to meet California emissions standards or pay reasonable fines; and 4) improved identification of heavy diesel vehicles (the commenter cites tractor/cab units) to help members of the public who wish to report smoking vehicles through the SCAQMD help line.

Response: The commenter‘s contention that the Section 182(e)(5) ―black box‖ has 49.6% NOx and 43% VOC reductions is incorrect. Please ref er to our Response on Section 182(e)(5) for a discussion of this issue. In addition, the specific measures that the commenter implies could reduce reliance on Section 182(e)(5) are unavailing . As discussed in our proposed rule (76 FR 57872, 57876

- 57881) , the South Coast has demonstrated that it has adopted all reasonably available control measures for NOx and VOC emission sources and the commenter has not demonstrated that any of the measures he recommends are otherwise reasonably available for current i mplementation in the area. On the commenter‘s first point, the example the commenter provides is related to California Code Section 65302.1, which requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend their general plans to include data and anal ysis, comprehensive goals, policies and feasible implementation strategies designed to improve air quality. California Code Section 65302.1 applies only to the San Joaquin Valley. It is not EPA‘s role to determine which measures, beyond those required by t he CAA for a particular nonattainment area such as inspection and maintenance (―SmogCheck‖) or fuels programs, a State adopts into its SIP. Nor is it EPA‘s role t o determine what must be included in an area‘s general plan. Furthermore, state legislation wo uld be needed to create a similar requirement for the areas under South Coast Air Quality Management jurisdiction (South Coast and Coachella Valley).TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 182 On the commenter‘s second point, regarding aggregation under the New Source Review (NSR) process, the com menter cites the Azusa Rock Quarry project in the commenter‘s city of residence. This comment is outside the scope of our action. EPA‘s action on California‘s plan for attaining the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the So uth Coast area does not address
aggr egation under the NSR program, nor is our action related to any Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act. The District has a public process for considering permitting issues under New Source Review. See Regulation XIII. Regarding the commenter‘s third point, the commenter asserts that out of state heavy

- duty diesel vehicles should have to meet California‘s emissions standards or should be subject to ―reasonable fines.‖ Since 2008, California and federal heavy

- duty t ruck emissions standards are equivalent. See Table III

- 1 below.

Table III

- 1 . EPA and California Heavy

- Duty Truck Emissions Standards , 2007 Model Year and Later (in grams per brake

– horsepower

- hour (g/bhp

- hr)) 136
Pollutant  Nitrogen Oxides

(NOx) Non

- methan e

HydroCarbons (NMHC) Particulate

matter (PM)

EPA 0.20 0.14 0.01 California a 0.20 0.14 0.01

a California standards are for 2008 MY and later vehicles.

Finally, the commenter‘s fourth comment suggests that heavy

- duty vehicles be required to display the license plate in a location clearly visible to other motorists from the rear of the vehicle, allowing motorists to report vehicles ―that are obviously emitting large quantities of diesel particles‖ to the SCAQMD 1

- (800) CUT SMOG hotline. This comment is be yond the scope of our action, which was to propose to approve the portions of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, as revised, as meeting the requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance. We note that the California Department of Motor Vehicles g enerally issues license plates and regulates their placement and usage.

136 Sources: 66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001, and http://www.d ieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.phpTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 183



### Appendix A

– CARB Rules and MeasuresTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 184

A

. Complete List of State Measures

Appendix Table A

- 1 is a list of all measures adopted by CARB from 1990 until the end of 2006. This period covers the 18 years prior to the development of the 2007 State Strategy and the South Coast 2007 AQMP. The table should include any substantive rules that would still be generating emissions reductions in the South Coast nonattainment area duri ng the 2002

- 2014 period covered by the Plan and thus reflected in the baseline for the Plan. This list does not include the limits on pesticide emissions adopted by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation nor the State‘s inspection and maintenanc e program adopted by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair. Measures that are categorized as Not Applicable are either solely administrative (e.g., permit fees, state ambient air quality standards), do not address particulate matter or a PM 2.5 attainm ent plan precursor in the South Coast nonattainment area (e.g ., asbestos air toxic control measure), or otherwise do not affect emissions in the South Coast nonattainment area (e.g., test methods).

Appendix Table A

- 1



### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Antiperspirant/Deodorants

. . T 17, CCR, 94500

- 94506 11/09/89 Consumer products

Transported Pollutants (Ozone)

. . T 17, CCR, 70500 12/04/89 Not applicable

Emission Control System Warranty

. . T 13, CCR, 2035

- 2041, 1977 12/14/89 On

- road

Non

- vehicular Test Methods . . T 17, CCR, 94002, 94003 17, &26, 94146

- 94149, 94132, 94135, 94139, 94140 01/11/90 Not applicable

Certification Procedure for Aftermarket Parts. VC 27156 & 38391 02/08/90 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in Surfacing Applications

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 Not applicable

Test Method for Asbestos in Serpentine Aggregate

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 94147, Method 435 04/12/90 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90704, 93300

- 93347 05/10/90 Not applicable

Airborne Air Toxic Measure for Ethylene Oxide from Sterilizers & Aerators

. . T 17, CCR, 93108 05/10/90 Not applicableTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 185 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. . T 17, CCR, 90800.1, 90800, 90802

- 90803 05/10/90 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Invento ry Criteria and Guidelines

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300

- 93347 06/14/90 Not applicable

Consumer Products Regulations for the BAAQMD

. . T 17, CCR, 94520

- 94526 06/14/90 Consumer products

Criteria for Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard

. . T 17, CCR, 70303 & 70304 06/14/90 Not applicable

Emission Standards for Medium Duty Vehicles

. . T 13, CCR, 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1968.1, 2061, 2112, 2139 06/14/90 On

- road

Wintertime Limits for Sulfur in Diesel Fuel

. . T 13, CCR, 2255 06/21/90 Fuels

Dioxins Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Medical Waste Incinerators

. . T 17, CCR, 93104 07/12/90 Not applicable

Emission s Reduction Accounting Procedures for California Clean Air Act

. . T 17, CCR, 70700

- 70704 07/12/90 Not applicable

Identification of Inorganic Arsenic as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/12/90 Not applicable

Evaporative Emission Standards

. . T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 On

- road

Transport Mitigation Regulations

. . T 17, CCR, 70600

- 70601 08/09/90 Not applicable

Air Toxic Fee Schedule & Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guidelines

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90704, 93300

- 93347 09/13/90 Not applicable

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), Phase I

. . T 13, CCR, 2251.5 09/27/90 Fuels

Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels

. . T 13, CCR, 1900, 1904, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1960.1.5, 1960.5 and 2111, 2112, 2125, and 2139, 2061. 09/28/90 On

- road

Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not applicable

Phase I

- Consumer Products

. . T 17, CCR, 94507

- 94517 10/11/90 Consumer productsTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 186 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Controls for Abrasive Blasting

. . T 17, CCR, 92000, 92200, 92400, 98500, 98510, 92520, 92530 11/08/90 Not applicable

Heavy Duty Diesel Smoke Emission Testing

. . T 13, CCR, 2180

- 2187 11/08/90 On

- road

Revision to Designation Criteria . . T 17, CCR, 60200

- 60204, 60208 11/08/90 Not applicable

Identification of Vinyl Chloride as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 11/13/90 Not applicable

Conflict of Interest Code

. . T 17, CCR, 95001, et. seq. 12/13/90 Not applicable

Emission Standards for Utility and Lawn and Garden Engines

. . T 17, CCR, 2400 et. seq. 12/13/90 Off

- road

Identification of Chloroform as a Toxic Air Contaminant

.

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 12/13/90 Not applicable

Limit on Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuel

. . T 13, CCR, 2256 12/13/90 Fuels

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. . T 17, CCR, 90800.2, 90801, 90803 02/24/91 Not applicable

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations

. . T 17, CCR, 90621.2, 90620, 90622 04/11/91 Not applicable

Non

- Vehicular Test Methods . . T 17, CCR, 94131, 94132, 94142 04/11/91 Not applicable

Administrative Hearing Procedures

. . T 17, CCR, 60075.1, 60075.47 05/09/91 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 06/13/91 Not applicable

Agricultural Burning Guidelines

. T 17, 80130, 80150, 80250, 80260, 80290 07/11/91 Not applicable

Identification of Metallic & Inorganic Nickel Compounds as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, 93000 08/08/91 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostics for Light

- Duty Trucks and Light & Medium

- Duty Motor Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1977, 1968.1 09/12/91 On

- road

Identification of Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/10/91 Not applicableTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 187 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for SO 2 . T 17, CCR, 70100, 70200, 70201 10/10/91 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1977 11/12/91 On

- road

Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60200, 60209 11/14/91 Not applicable
Low Emission Vehicles amendments revising reactivity adjustment factor (RAF) provisions and adopting a RAF for M85 transitional low emission vehicles . T 13, CCR, 1960.1 11/14/91 On

- road

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase II

. T 13, CCR, 2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260

- 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Fuels

Wintertime Gasoline Program

. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2298, 2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 Fuels

Specifications for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuel

. T 13, & 26, CCR, 2290, 2291, 2292.1, 2292.2, 2292.3, 229 2.5 , 2292.6, 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 12/12/91 Fuels

Heavy Duty Diesel Cycle Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2420

- 2427 01/09/92 Off

- road

Phase II

- Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94502, 94505, 94514, 94503.5, 94506, 94507

- 94513, 94515 01/09/92 Consumer products

Identification of Formaldehyde as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 03/12/92 Not applicable

Specifications for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuels

. T 13, & 26, CCR, 2290

- 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 03/12/92 On

- road

Atmospheric Acidity Protection Fees

. T 17, CCR, 90621.3 04/09/92 Not applicable

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.3, 90803 04/09/92 Not applicable

Criteria for Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 70303, 70304 05/14/92 Not applicable

Standards and Test Procedures for Alternative Fuel Retrofit Systems

. T 13, CCR, 2030, 2031 05/14/92 On

- road

Transported Air Pollutants

. T 17, CCR, 70500 05/28/92 Not applicable
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90701, 90704, 90705 07/09/92 Not applicableTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 188 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Identification of 1.3 Butadiene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/09/92 Not applicable

Phase 2 RFG certification fuel specifications

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1956.8(d) 08/13/92 On

- road

CFC Refrigerants in Air Conditioning Systems . T 13, CCR, 2500 09/10/92 Not applicable

Substitute Fuel or Clean Fuel Incorporated Test Procedures

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 2317 11 /12/92 On

- road

Notice of General Public Interest for Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94507

- 94517 11/30/92 Consumer products

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emission of Toxic Metals from Non

- Ferrous Metal Melting

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93107 12/10/92 Not applicable

Criteria for Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 70303.5, 60200

- 60203, 60205, 70303 12/10/92 Not applicable

Smoke Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & Gasoline Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2190

- 2194, 2180

- 2187, 1956.8(b) 12/10/92 On

- road

Certification Requirements for Low Emission Passenger Cars, Light

- Duty Trucks & Medium Duty Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1976, 2061, 1900 01/14/93 On

- road

Transport Mitigation Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 70600, 70601 03/11/93 Not applicable

1

- year Implementation Delay in Emission Standards for Utility Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2400, 2403

- 2407 04/08/93 Off

- road

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90622, 90621.4 04/08/93 Not applicable

Identification of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants as Toxic Air Contaminants

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93001, 39665, 39666 04/08/93 Not applicable

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.4, 90803 04/08/93 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guidelines

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300

- 93347 06/10/93 Not applicable

Urban Transit Buses . T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2112 06/10/93 On

- roadTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 189 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 07/08/93 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II . T 13, CCR, 1968.1 07/09/93 On

- road

Mitigation Transport Pollutants

. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 08/12/93 Not applicable

Wintertime Oxygenate Program

. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2251.5, 2263(b), 2267, 2298, 2259, 2283, 2293.5 09/09/93 Fuels

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93109, 93110 10/14/93 Not applicable

Diesel Fuel Regulations

- Emergency

. T 13, CCR, 2281(h), 2282(1) 10/15/93 Fuels

Conflict of Interest

. T 17, CCR, 90500 11/18/93 Not applicable

Criteria for Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60200

- 60202, 60204, 60206, 60208, 70300

- 70306 11/18/93 Not applicable

Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 2410

- 2414, 2111

- 2140 01/03/94 Off

- road

Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures

. T 13, CCR, 1976 02/10/94 On

- road

SCAQMD's RECLAIM Consideration 03/10/94 Stationary Sources
Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.5, 90803 04/14/94 Not applicable

Predictive Model for Phase II CaRFG

. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262

- 2270 06/09/94 Fuels

Small Refiner Diesel

. T 13, CCR, 2282(e)(1) 07/24/94 Fuels
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 07/28/94 Not applicable

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2403(c), 11(a)(1)(I)(ii), 4(a)(1)(I)(ii) 07/28/94 Off

- road

Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94540

- 94555 09/22/94 Consumer products

Diesel Fuel Certification

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b)&(d), 1960.1(k), 2292.6 09/22/94 Fuels

Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60204 11/09/94 Not applicableTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 190 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & Gasoline Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2190

- 2194, 2180

- 2187, 1956.8(b) 11/09/94 On

- road

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II

. T 13, CCR,1963.1, & Certification Procedures 12/08/94 On

- road

Periodic Smoke Inspection Program

. T 13, CCR, 2190 12/08/94 On

- road

Specification for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuels (M100)

. T 13 CCR, 2292.1 12/08/94 Fuels

Aerosol Coating Products and Alternative Control Plan

. T 17, CCR, 94520

- 94528, 94540

- 94543, 94547... 03/23/95 Consumer products

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.6, 90803 04/27/95 Not applicable

Employee

- Based Trip Reductions Emission Formula

. T 13, CCR, 2330, 2331, 2332 06/29/95 Not applicable

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems . T 17, CCR, 94010

- 94015, 94150

- 94160, 94000

- 94004, 94007. 06/29/95 Vapor Recovery

Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures. 06/29/95 On

- road

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1976, 1978 and incorporate test procedures 06/29/95 On

- road

Test Method for Oxygen in Gasoline

. T 13, CCR, 2251.5(c), 2258(c), 2263(b) 06/29/95 Fuels

Retrofit Emission Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.9, 2030, 2031, and incorporate test procedures 07/27/95 On

- road

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, and Aerosol Coating Products

. T 17, CCR, 94500

- 94506, 94508, 94521 09/28/95 Consumer products

Low Emission Vehicle Standards 3 (LEV 3)

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1965, 2101, 2061, 2062, and incorporate test procedures 09/28/95 On

- road

Test Methods for CaRFG 13, CCR, 2263(b) 10/26/95 FuelsTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 191 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Required Additives in Gasoline (Deposit Control Additives)

. T 13, CCR, 2257 and incorporates testing procedures. 11/16/95 Fuels

CaRFG Housekeeping & CARBOB

. T 13, CCR, 2263.7, 2266.5, 2260, 226 2.5 , 2264, 2265, 2272 12/14/95 Fuels

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95 On Road/Off Road

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR, 90700

- 90705 and Appendix A 01/25/96 Not applicable

CaRFG Variance Requirements

. T 13, CCR, 2271 (Emergency) 01/25/96 Fuels

Relaxation of Carbon Mo nox ide Emission Standards for Utility Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2403 and incorporating test procedures 01/25/96 Off

- road

Postpone Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements

. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1, 1976 03/28/96 On

- road

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90803, 90800.7 04/25/96 Not applicable

Basin Boundaries for Agricultural Burning (Mojave Desert, South Coast & Salton Sea)

. T 17, CCR, 60104, 60109, 60114, 80280, 80311 05/30/96 Not applicable

Regulation Improvement and Repeal

. T 17, CCR, 93301

- 93355, Appendix A

- E ( emissions invento ry) 05/30/96 Not applicable

Regulation Improvements and Repeals (fuel additives)

. T 13, CCR, 2201, 2202 05/30/96 Fuels

Emissions Inventory Criteria & Guideline Report

. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 07/25/96 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR, 90701

- 90705 Appendix A to §§ 90700

- 90705 09/26/96 Not applicable

Stationary Source Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94105, 94107, 94114, 94135, 94141, 94143, 94161 09/26/96 Not applicable

Wintertime Requirements for Utility Engines & Off

Highway Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 2403 09/26/96 Off

- road

Diesel Fuel Certification Test Methods

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Fuels

Diesel Fuel Test Methods

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 FuelsTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 192 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, Aerosol Coating Products (ARB Test Method 310)

. T 17, CCR, 94506(a), 94515(a), 94526 11/21/96 Consumer products

Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60201

- 60209 11/21/96 Not applicable

Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products Amendments

. T 17, CCR, 94508

- 94515, 99517, 94321 11/21/96 Consumer products

Transport Pollutants

. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 11/21/96 Not applicable
Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II, Technical Status

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 2030, 2031 12/12/96 On

- road

Consumer Products (Hair Spray) Amendments

. T 17, CCR, 94509, 94513, 94514 03/27/97 Consumer products

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Propane Limit Specification Delay

. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 03/27/97 Fuels

Portable Equipment Registration Program

. T 13, CCR, 2450

- 2465 03/27/97 Off

- road

Identification of Inorganic Lead as Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC)

. T 17, CCR, 93000 04/24/97 Not applicable

Interchangeable Emission s Reduction Credits

. T 17, CCR, 91500 05/22/97 Not applicable

Postpone Enhanced Evaporative Emission Requirements for Ultra

- Small Volume Vehicle Manufacturers

. T 13, CCR, 1976 and incorporate test procedures 05/22/97 On

- road

Consumer Products (Mid

- Term Measures) Amendments

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94513 07/24/97 Consumer products

Off

- Cycle Emissions Supplemental Federal Test Procedures (SFTPs)

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 2101 and incorp orate test procedures 07/24/97 On

- road

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR 90701

- 90705 and Appendix A 11/13/97 Not applicable

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201 & 60205 11/13/97 Not applicable
Consumer Products (Hairspray Credit Program)

. T 17, CCR, 94502, 94509, 94522, & 94548 11/13/97 Consumer products

Heavy Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program/Periodic Smoke Inspection Program

. T 13, CCR, 2180

- 2188 and 2190

- 2194 12/11/97 On

- roadTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 193 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17,CCR 90800.... 01/29/98 Not applicable

Small Off

- Road Engines (SORE)

. T 13, CCR, 2400,2410

- 2414 03/26/98 Off

- road

Classifying Minor Violations

. T 17, CCR, 60090

- 60095 04/23/98 Not applicable

Heavy Duty Vehicle Regulations: 2004 Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2036, 2112 and test procedures 04/23/98 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating . T 17, CCR, 93102 05/21/98 Not applicable

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Model Flexibility

. T 13, CCR, Sections 2260, 2262.1, 2262.3, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.7 and 2265 08/27/98 Fuels

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems . T 17, CCR, 94010

- 94015 and 94150, 94156, 94157, 94158, 94159, 94160, 94162 08/27/98 Vapor Recovery

Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant . T 17, CCR, 93000 08/27/98 Not applicable

Gasoline Deposit Control Additive Regulation

. T 13, CCR, 2257, and incorporating test procedures 09/24/98 Fuels

Air Toxics ― Hot Spots ‖ Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90701

- 90705 and Appendix A 10/22/98 Not applicable

Area Designations and Criteria for the National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone

. T 17, CCR, 60301, 60202, 60205, 60206, 70300

- 70306, 70303.1 10/22/98 Not applicable

Large Off

- Road Spark

- Ignition Engine Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 2430 et seq., and 2411

- 2414 10/22/98 Off

- road

Stationary Source Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94101

- 94104, 94106, 94108

- 94113, 941T 17

- 94124, 94137 and revision of Method 12. 10/22/98 Not applicable

Low Emission Vehicles Standards (LEV 2) and Compliance Assurance Program (CAP 2000)

. T 13, CCR,1961 & 1962 (both new); 1900, 1960.1, 1965, 1968.1, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2101, 2106, 2107, 2110, 2112, 2114, 2119, 2130, 2137

- 2140, 2143

- 2148 11/05/98 On

- road

Aftermarket Parts for Off

- Road Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2470

- 2476 11/19/98 Off

- roadTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 194 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Consumer Products

- LVP

- VOC Definitions And Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94506, 94506.5, 94508(a)(78), 94515 and 94526, and the amendment of ARB Method 310 11/19/98 Consumer products

Consumer Products, Aerosol Coatings & Antiperspirants and Deodorants

. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94508, 94521, 94522, and 94524 11/19/98 Consumer products

1997 & Later Model Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2410

- 2414, 2415 12/10/98 Off

- road

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 Marine Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2440 et seq 12/10/98 Off

- road

Exhaust Standards for (On

- Road) Motorcycles

. T 13, CCR, 1958 12/10/98 On

- road

Revisions to Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program

. T 13, CCR, 2450

- 2463 12/10/98 Off

- road

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 2600

- 2610 12/10/98 On

- road

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Increasing the Oxygen Content)

. T 13, CCR, sections 226 2.5 (b) and 2265(a)(2) 12/11/98 Fuels

Specifications for Liquid Petroleum Gas Used as a Motor Vehicle Fuel

. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 Fuels

Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requirement for Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump Labeling for MTBE . T 13, CCR, 226 2.5 , and 2273 06/24/99 Fuels

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17, CCR, 94011, 94153, 94155, and incorporated test procedures, CP

- 201, TP

- 201.4, and TP

- 201.6 06/24/99 Vapor Recovery

Clean Fuels Regulation Requirements

. T 13, CCR, sections 2300

- 2317, and 2303.5, 2311.5 07/22/99 On

- road

Portable Container Spillage Control Measure

. T 13, CCR, 2470

- 2478 09/23/99 Off

- road

Administrative Hearing Procedures

. T 17, CCR, 60040 and 60075.1

- 60075.45 10/22/99 Not applicable

California Consumer Products Regulation Mid

- Term Measures II

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, and 94513 10/28/99 Consumer products

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards

. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/18/99 Not applicableTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 195 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (Phase out of MTBE, standards, predictive model)

. T 13, CCR, 2260, 2261, 2262.1, 226 2.5 , 2263, 2264, 2264.2, 2265, 2266 etc... 12/09/99 Fuels

Off

- Road Compression Ignition Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2144, 2400, 2401, 2403, 2420, 2421, 2423

- 2427, & appendix A to article 2.1. 01/27/00 Off

- road

Transit Bus Standards . T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, 1956.4, 1956.8, 1965 02/24/00 On

- road

Agricultural Burning Guidelines

. T 17 Amendments 80145, 80T 179, 80100

- 80102, 80110, 80120, 80130, 80140, 80150, 80155, 80160, 80T 170, 80180, 80200, 80210, 80230, 80240, 80250, 80260, 80270, 80280, 80290, 80300, 80310, 80311, 80320, 80330 03/23/00 Not applicable

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (Emergency Filing CP

- 201, section 18) . T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00 Vapor Recovery

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (In Station Diagnostics and Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery)

. T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00 Vapor Recovery

Air Toxic Control Measure for Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facilities

. T 17, CCR, 93111 04/27/00 Other

Consumer Products Aerosol Adhesives Control Measure

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94512, 94513 05/25/00 Consumer products

Aerosol ( Paint) Coatings Products

. T 17, CCR, 94700, 94701, 94521

- 94524, 94526 06/22/00 Consumer products

Air Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos Containing Serpentine

. T 17, CCR, 93106 07/20/00 Not applicable

Conflict of Interest Code

. T 17, CCR, 95001, 95002, 95005, and subchapter 9 09/28/00 Not applicable

Rice Straw Conditional Burn Permit Program

. T 17, CCR, 80101, 80156

- 80158 09/28/00 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90705 tables 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 4 10/26/00 Not applicable

Antiperspirant and Deodorant Reg ulations. T 17, CCR, 94502, 94504 10/26/00 Consumer products

Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone

. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/16/00 Not applicableTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 196 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

CaRFG Phase 3 Follow

- up Amendments

. T 13, CCR, sections 2260, 2261, 2262.3, 226 2.5 , 2263, 2264, 2265, 2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2272, 2273, 2282, 2296, 2297, 2262.9 and incorporated test procedures 11/16/00 Fuels

CaRFG Phase 3 Test Methods . T 13, CCR, sections 2263(b) 11/16/00 Fuels

Heavy Duty Diesel Engines "Not

- to

- Exceed (NTE)" Test Procedures

. T 13 CCR, 1956.8, 2065 12/07/00 On

- road

Light

- and Medium Duty Low Emission Vehicle Alignment with Federal Standards

. Exhaust Emission Standards for Heavy Duty Gas Engines . T 13, CCR, 1956.8 &1961 12/07/00 On

- road

Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation Update

. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1(k), 1961, 1962 & incorporated Test Procedure 01/25/01 On

- road

Ozone Transport Assessment

. T 17, CCR, 70500 & 70600 04/26/01 Not applicable

Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure and Standardization of Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment

. T 13, CCR, 1900(b), 1962(b) 1962.1 06/28/01 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos from Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining

. T 17, CCR, 93105 07/26/01 Not applicable

Marine Inboard Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2139, 2140, 2147, 2440

- 2442, 2443.1

- 2443.3, 2444, 2445.1, 2445.2, 2446, 2444.2 and incorporation of documents by reference 07/26/01 Off

- road

Air Toxic Control Measures for Auto and Mobile Equip Refinishing Coatings containing Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium Compounds

. T 17, CCR, 93112 09/20/01 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR, 90700

- 90705 10/25/01 Not applicable

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Methods and Compliance Procedures . T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94153, 94155, 94163, 94164, 94165 & incorporated procedures 10/25/01 Vapor Recovery

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards for 2007 and Later

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporated test procedures 10/25/01 On

- roadTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 197 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 94200

- 94214 11/15/01 Other

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Defects . T 17, CCR, 94006 and incorporated document. 11/15/01 Vapor Recovery

Low Emission Vehicle Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1,1960.5, 1961, 1962 and incorp o ra te test procedures and guidelines 11/15/01 On

- road

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule

. T 13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1

- 60060.7 12/13/01 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor Residential Waste Burning

. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/21/02 Other

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations . T 13, CCR, 2601

- 2605, 2606 & appendices C & D, and 2607

- 2610 02/21/02 On

- road

On

- Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments . T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 On

- road

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In

Use Compliance Requirements . T 13, CCR, 2700

- 2710 05/16/02 On

- road

Review of California Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates

. T 17, CCR, 70100,70200, and 70100.1 06/20/02 Not applicable

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments

. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 2271, 2272, 2265, and 2296 07/25/02 Fuels

Revision to Transit Bus Regulations Amendments . T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.4,1956.8, and 2112, & documents incorporated by reference 10/24/02 On

- road

Administrative Civil Penalties Program

. T 17, CCR, 60065.1

- 60065.45 and 60075.1

- 60075.45 12/12/02 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from School Bus Idling . T 13, CCR, 2480 12/12/02 On

- road

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendmen ts (specifications for De Minimi s Levels of Oxygenates and MTBE Phase Out Issues)

. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262.6, 2263, 2266.5, 2272, 2273, 2260, 2273.5 12/12/02 FuelsTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 198 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Procedures . T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94163, 94164, and 94165 and procedures incorporated by reference, and 94166, 94167, and incorporation by reference. 12/12/02 Vapor Recovery

Low Emission Vehicles II

. Align Heavy Duty Gas Engine Standards with Federal Standards; minor administrative changes . T 13, CCR, 1961, 1965, 1956.8, 1956.1, 1978, 2065 and documents incorporated by reference 12/12/02 On

- road

Zero Emission Vehicle Amendments for 2003 . T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 1961(a) and (d), 1900, 1962, and documents incorporated by reference 03/25/03 On

- road

Ozone Transport Mitigation Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 70600 and 70601 05/22/03 Not applicable

Off

- Highway Recreation Vehicles

. T13, CCR, 2415 07/24/03 Off

- road
Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.75, 90800.9, 90804, 90800.8, 90801, 90802, and 90803 07/24/03 Not applicable

Specifications for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel

. T 13 & T 17, CCR, 1961, 2281, 2282, 2701, 2284, 2285, 93114, and incorporated test procedure 07/24/03 Fuels

Solid Waste Collection Vehicles . T 13, CCR, 2020, 2021, 2021.1, 2021.2 09/24/03 On

- road

Small Off

- Road Engines (SORE)

. T 13, CCR, 2400

- 2409, 2405.1, 2405.2, 2405.3, 2750

- 2754, 2754.1, 2754.2, 2755

- 2767, 2767.1, 2768

- 2773 and the documents incorporated by reference 09/25/03 Off

- road

Revised Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity Values

. T 1, CCR, 94700. 12/03/03 Consumer products

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate for Transport Refrigeration Units . T 13, CCR, 2022 & 2477 12/11/03 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines

. T 17, CCR 93115 & documents incorp orate by reference 12/11/03 Other

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In

Use Compliance Requirements (Amendments)

. T 13, CCR, 2701

- 2707 & 2709 12/11/03 On

- roadTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 199 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Area Designation Criteria and Area Designations for State PM 2.5 and Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210 01/22/0 4 Not applicable

CA Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule

. T 13, CCR, 1969 01/22/04 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel

- Fueled Portable Engines

. T 17, CCR,93116, 93116.1, 93116.2, 93116.3, 93116.4, and 93116.5 02/26/04 Off

- road

Modifications to the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) Regulations

. T 13, CCR Amendments to 2450

- 2465, and repeal of 2466 02/26/04 Off

- road

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine

- Chip Reflash

. T 13, CCR, 2011, 2180.1, 2181, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2192, and 2194 03/27/04 On

- road

Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic System Requirements for 2007 and Subsequent Model Heavy Duty Engines

. T 13, CCR, 1971 05/20/04 On

- road

Consumer Products & Methods 310/ATCM for Para

Dicholorobenzene

. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94506, 94507, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94512, 94513, 94515, and 94526, and ARB Method 310, which is incorporated by reference 06/24/04 Consumer products

Urban Bus Engines/Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, and 1956.4, 06/24/04 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from Diesel Fueled Commercial Vehicle Idling

. T 13, CCR, 2485 07/22/04 On

- road

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing Facilities. Emergency Filing

. T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04 Vapor Recovery

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04 Vapor Recovery

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment Defects List . T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated document 08/24/04 Vapor Recovery

Greenhouse Gas

. T 13, CCR, 1961.1, 1900, 1961 and Incorporated Test Procedures 09/23/04 On

- roadTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 200 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase 3

. T 13, CCR, 2260, 2262, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.9, 2263, 2265 (and the incorporated ―California Procedures‖), and 2266.5 11/18/04 Fuels

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harbor C raft & Locomotives

. T 13, CCR, 2299, 2281, 2282, and 2284, and T 17, CCR, 93117 11/18/04 Fuels

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Extension

. T 17, CCR, 94011 and certification procedure 11/18/04 Vapor Recovery

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources . T 17, CCR 90805 and 90806; and 90800.8 and 90803 11/18/04 Not applicable

Emergency Regulation for Temporary Delay of Diesel Fuel Lubricity Standard

. T 13, CCR, 2284 11/24/04 Fuels

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Hexavalent Chromium and Nickel from Thermal Spraying

. T 17, CCR, 9310 2.5 12/09/04 Not applicable

Off

- Road Compression Ignition Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2427 12/09/04 Off

- road

Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210 01/20/05 Not applicable

Transit Fleet Rule

. T 13, CCR, 2023, 2023.1, 2023.2, 2023.3, 2023.4, 1956.1, 2020, 2021, repeal 1956.2, 1956.3, 1956.4 02/24/05 On

- road

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone

. T 17, CCR, 70100, 70100.1, and 70200 04/28/05 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines (amendments) . T 17, CCR, 93115 05/26/05 Other

Definition of Large Confined Animal Facility

. T 17, CCR 86500 and 86501 06/23/05 Not applicable

On

- Board Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model

- Year Heavy

- Duty Engines (HD OBD)

. T 13, CCR, 1971.1 07/21/05 On

- road

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit

. Emergency Rule

. T 13, CCR, 2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 FuelsTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 201 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

2007

- 2009 Model

- Year Heavy Duty Urban Bus Engines and the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, and 1956.8 09/15/05 On

- road

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 2 of 2]

. T 13, CCR 2467.2, 2467.3, 2467.4, 2467.5, 2467.6, 2467.7; repeal of 2467.8, and adoption of new 2467.8 and 2467.9. 09/15/05 Off road

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 1 of 2] . T 13, CCR, 2467 and 2467.1 09/15/05 Off road

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In

- Use Trucks, Beginning in 2008

. T 13, CCR section1956.8 and the incorporated document 10/20/05 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships Onboard Incineration . T 17, CCR, 93119 11/17/05 Off road

Marine Inboard Sterndrive Engines

. T 13 CCR 2111, 2112, 2441, 2442, 2444.2, 2445.1, 2446, 2447, and incorporated document 11/17/05 Off

- road

Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel

- Electric Engines Operated on Ocean

- Going Vessels within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline

. T 13, CCR, 2299.1 and T 17, CCR, 93118 12/08/05 Off

- road

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Duty Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities

. T 13, CCR, 2022 and 2022.1 12/08/05 On

- road

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards

. T 13, CCR, 2479 12/08/05 Off

- road

AB1009 Heavy

- Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program

. T 13, CCR, 2180, 2180.1, 2181, 2182, 2183, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2187, and 2188, 2189 01/26/06 On

- road

Identification of Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, CCR, 93000 01/26/06 Not applicable

Diesel Verification Procedure, Warranty & In

- Use

. T 13, CCR, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2706, 2707, and 2709. 03/23/06 On

- road

Technical Amendments to Evaporative Exhaust and Evaporative Emissions Test Procedures

. T 13, CCR, 1961,1976 and 1978. 05/25/06 On

- roadTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 202 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment. (Large Off

Road Spark Ignition Engines > 1 liter) T 13, CCR 2430, 2433, 2434. Adopt 2775, 2775.1, 2775.2, 2780, 2781, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 2788, and 2789. 05/26/06 Off

- road

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule

. T 13, CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06 On

- road

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17 CCR 94011 and incorporated certification 06/22/06 Vapor Recovery

Portable Equipment Registration Program

. T 13, CCR, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, and 2465 06/22/06 Off

- road

Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines . T 13, CCR, 2411

- 2413, 2415 & documents incorporated by reference 07/20/06 Off

- road

Heavy

- Duty In

- Use Compliance Regulation

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.8, and documents incorporated by reference 09/28/06 On

- road

On

- Board Diagnostic II

. T 13, CCR, 1968.2, 1968.5, 2035, 2037 and 2038 09/28/06 On

- road

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 94201, 94201.1, 94203, 94204, & 94207

- 942142 10/19/06 Other

Zero Emission Bus Regulation . T 13, CCR, 2023.1, 2023.3, & 2023.4 10/19/06 On

- road

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guidelines

. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 and document incorporated by reference 11/16/06 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships and Ocean

- Going Ships Onboard Incineration (amendments)

. T 17, CCR, 93119 11/16/06 Off

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines (amendments, Agricultural Eng. Exemption removal)

. T 17, CCR, 93115.1

- 93115.15.t. 11/16/06 Other

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, & 60210 11/16/06 Not applicable

Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94513 & 94523 11/17/06 Consumer productsTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 203 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Emergency Regulation for Portable Equipment Registration Program

, Airborne Toxic Control Measures and Portable and Stationary diesel

- Fueled Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2452, 2455, 2456, 2461; T17 CCR 93115, 93116.2, 93116.3 12/06/06 Off

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations

. T 17, CCR, 93102.1

- 93102.16 12/07/06 Not applicable

Voluntary Accelerated Retirement Regulation

. T 13, CCR, 2601

- 2610 and appendices A

- D 12/07/06 On

- roadTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 204 

### B

. State Rules that Do Not Address Ozone Precursor s in the South Coast Nonattainment Area

A substantial number of the measures adopted by CARB since 1990 do not affect direct

ozone precursor emissions in the South Coast nonattainment area . These types of measures include fee rules, identificatio n of toxic air contaminants, area boundary designations, and controls for pollutants other than direct PM 2.5 (or PM), NO x , VOC, or SO 2 . Appendix Table A

- 2 provides a list of these measures.

Appendix Table A

- 2



### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address Ozone in the South Coast Nonattainment Area 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Transported Pollutants (Ozone)

. T 17, CCR, 70500 12/04/89 Not an emission s reduction

measure

Non

- vehicular Test Methods . T 17, CCR, 94002, 94003 17, &26, 94146

- 94149, 94132, 94135, 94139, 94140 01/11/90 Not an emission s reduction

measure Test Method for Asbestos in Serpentine Aggregate

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 94147, Method 435 04/12/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in Surfacing Applications

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 Not an ozone precursor emissions reduction measure
Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.1, 90800, 90802

- 90803 05/10/90 Not an emiss ions reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90704, 93300

- 93347 05/10/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Dioxins Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Medical Waste Incinerators

. T 17, CCR, 93104 07/12/90 Air toxics control measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guidelines

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300

- 93347 06/14/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure Criteria for Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard

. T 17, CCR, 70303 & 70304 06/14/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Emission s Reduction Accounting Procedures for California Clean Air Act

. T 17, CCR, 70700

- 70704 07/12/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure Identification of Inorganic Arsenic as a Toxic Air Contam inant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/12/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure Transport Mitigation Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 70600

- 70601 08/09/90 Not an emissions reduction

measureTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 205 Appendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address Ozone in the South Coast Nonattainment Area 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Air Toxic Fee Schedule & Emissions Invento ry Criteria and Guidelines

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90704, 93300

- 93347 09/13/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure Revision to Designation Criteria . T 17, CCR, 60200

- 60204, 60208 11/08/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure Identification of Vinyl Chloride as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 11/13/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Identification of Chloroform as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 12/13/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Conflict of Interest Code

. T 17, CCR, 95001, et. seq. 12/13/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- V ehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.2, 90801, 90803 02/24/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Non

- Vehicular Test Methods . T 17, CCR, 94131, 94132, 94142 04/11/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure. Acid Deposition Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90621.2, 90620, 90622 04/11/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure. Obsolete.
Administrative Hearing Procedures

. T 17, CCR, 60075.1, 60075.47 05/09/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 06/13/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure Agricultural Burning Guidelines

. T 17, 80130, 80150, 80250, 80260, 80290 07/11/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure Identification of Metallic & Inorganic Nickel Compounds as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, 93000 08/08/91 Not an emissions r eduction

measure State Ambient Air Quality Standard for SO 2 . T 17, CCR, 70100, 70200, 70201 10/10/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure Identification of Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/10/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60200, 60209 11/14/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure Identification of Formaldehyde as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 03/12/92 Not an emissions reduction

measureTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 206 Appendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address Ozone in the South Coast Nonattainment Area 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Atmospheric Acidity Protection Fees

. T 17, CCR, 90621.3 04/09/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.3, 90803 04/09/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Criteria for Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 70303, 70304 05/14/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Transported Air Pollutants

. T 17, CCR, 70500 05/28/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90701, 90704, 90705 07/09/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Identification of 1.3 Butadiene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/09/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure CFC Refrigerants in Air Conditioning Systems . T 13, CCR, 2500 09/10/92 Air toxics control measure

Criteria for Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 70303.5, 60200

- 60203, 60205, 70303 12/10/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure Transport Mitigation Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 70600, 70601 03/11/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Identification of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants as Toxic Air Contaminants

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93001, 39665, 39666 04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90622, 90621.4 04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.4, 90803 04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guidelines

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300

- 93347 06/10/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 07/08/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure Mitigation Transport Pollutants

. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 08/12/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93109, 93110 10/14/93 Air toxics control measure

Conflict of Interest

. T 17, CCR, 90500 11/18/93 Not an emissions reduction

measureTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 207 Appendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address Ozone in the South Coast Nonattainment Area 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Criteria for Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60200

- 60202, 60204, 60206, 60208, 70300

- 70306 11/18/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.5, 90803 04/14/94 Not an emissions reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 07/28/94 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60204 11/09/94 Not an emissions reduction

measure Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.6, 90803 04/27/95 Not an emissions reduction

measure Employee

- Based Trip Reductions Emission Formula

. T 13, CCR, 2330, 2331, 2332 06/29/95 Not an emissions reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR, 90700

- 90705 and Appendix A 01/25/96 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Relaxation of Carbon Monoxide Emission Standards for Utility Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2403 and incorporating test procedures 01/25/96 Carbon monoxide requirement

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90803, 90800.7 04/25/96 Not an emissions reduction

measure Basin Boundaries for Agricultural Burning (Mojave Desert, South Coast & Salton Sea)

. T 17, CCR, 60104, 60109, 60114, 80280, 80311 05/30/96 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Regulation Improvement and Repeal

. T 17, CCR, 93301

- 93355, Appendix A

- E ( emissions invento ry) 05/30/96 Not an emissions reduction

measure Emissions Inventory Criteria & Guideline Report

. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 07/25/96 Not an emissions reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR, 90701

- 90705 Appendix A to §§ 90700

- 90705 09/26/96 Not an emissions reduction

measure Stationary Source Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94105, 94107, 94114, 94135, 94141, 94143, 94161 09/26/96 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60201

- 60209 11/21/96 Not an em issions reduction

measure

Transport Pollutants

. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 11/21/96 Not an emissions reduction

measure Identification of Inorganic Lead as Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC)

. T 17, CCR, 93000 04/24/97 Not an emissions reduction

measureTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 208 Appendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address Ozone in the South Coast Nonattainment Area 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Interchangeable Emission s Reduction Credits

. T 17, CCR, 91500 05/22/97 Not an emissions reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR 90701

- 90705 and Appendix A §§ 90700

- 90705 11/13/97 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Area Designat ions '97

. T 17, CCR, §§ 60201 & 60205 11/13/97 Not an emissions reduction

measure Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17,CCR 90800.... 01/29/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Classifying Minor Violations

. T 17, CCR, 60090

- 60095 04/23/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating . T 17, CCR, 93102 05/21/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant . T 17, CCR, 93000 08/27/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure Stationary Source Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94101

- 94104, 94106, 94108

- 94113, 941T 17

- 94124, 94137 and revision of Method 12. 10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Administrative Hearing Procedures

. T 17, CCR, 60040 and 60075.1

- 60075.45 10/22/99 Not an emissions reduction

measure Area Designations and Criteria for the National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone

. T 17, CCR, 60301, 60202, 60205, 60206, 70300

- 70306, 70303.1 10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Air Toxics ― Hot Spots ‖ Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90701

- 90705 and Appendix A 10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards

. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/18/99 Not an emissions reduction

measure Agricultural Burning Guidelines

. T 17 Amendments 80145, 80T 179, 80100

- 80102, 80110, 80120, 80130, 80140, 80150, 80155, 80160, 80T 170, 80180, 80200, 80210, 80230, 80240, 80250, 80260, 80270, 80280, 80290, 80300, 80310, 80311, 80320, 80330 03/23/00 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Air Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos Containing Serpentine

. T 17, CCR, 93106 07/20/00 Air toxics control measure

Conflict of Interest Code

. T 17, CCR, 95001, 95002, 95005, and subchapter 9 09/28/00 Not an emissions reduction

measureTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 209 Appendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address Ozone in the South Coast Nonattainment Area 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Rice Straw Conditional Burn Permit Program

. T 17, CCR, 80101, 80156

- 80158 09/28/00 Not a South Coast control measure (Sacramento Valley air basin only)
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90705 tables 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 4 10/26/00 Not an emissions reduction

measure Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone

. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/16/00 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Ozone Transport Assessment

. T 17, CCR, 70500 & 70600 04/26/01 Not an emissions reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR, 90700

- 90705 10/25/01 Not an emissions reduction

measure Review of California Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates

. T 17, CCR, 70100,70200, and 70100.1 06/20/02 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Administrative Civil Penalties Program

. T 17, CCR, 60065.1

- 60065.45 and 60075.1

- 60075.45 12/12/02 Not an emissions reduction

measure Ozone Transport Mitigation Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 70600 and 70601 05/22/03 Not an emissions reduction

measure Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.75, 90800.9, 90804, 90800.8, 90801, 90802, and 90803 07/24/03 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Area Designation Criteria and Area Designations for State PM 2.5 and Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210 01/22/04 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources . T 17, CCR 90805 and 90806; and 90800.8 and 90803 11/18/04 Not an emissions reduction

measure Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210 01/20/05 Not an emissions reduction

measure State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone

. T 17, CCR, 70100, 70100.1, and 70200 04/28/05 Not an emissions reduction

measure Definition of Large Confined Animal Facility

. T 17, CCR 86500 and 86501 06/23/05 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Identification of Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, CCR, 93000 01/26/06 Not an emissions reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Invento ry Criteria and Guidelines

. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 and document incorporated by reference 11/16/06 No t an emissions reduction

measureTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 210 Appendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address Ozone in the South Coast Nonattainment Area 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, & 60210 11/16/06 Not an emissions reduction

measureTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 211 

### C

. State Fuel Measures

CARB has adopted a number of revisions to its reformulated gasoline program and clean diesel program since 1990, as well as measures addressing other motor vehicle fuels and fuel standards for off

- road sources. Appendix Table A

- 3 is a list of these revisio ns.

Appendix Table A

- 3 

### Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Wintertime Limits for Sulfur in Diesel Fuel

. T 13, CCR, 2255 06/21/90 Renumber ed to section 228 1. Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Limit on Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuel

. T 13, CCR, 2256 12/13/90 Renumber ed to section 2282

. Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) (listed as 4/15/01 adoption in FR)
Diesel Fuel Regulations

- Emergency

. T 13, CCR, 2281(h), 2282(1) 10/15/93 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Small Refiner Diesel

. T 13, CCR, 2282(e)(1) 07/24/94 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Diesel Fuel Test Methods

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Approved 75 FR 26653 ( 5/12/10 )

Specifications for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel

. T 13 & T 17, CCR, 1961, 2281, 2282, 2701, 2284, 2285, 93114, and incorporated test procedure 07/24/03 Approved 75 FR 26653 ( 5/12/10 )

Emergency Regulation for Temporary Delay of Diesel Fuel Lubricity Standard

. T 13, CCR, 2284 11/24/04 Temporary delay of standard. Expired

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harbor C raft & Locomotives

. T 13, CCR, 2299, 2281, 2282, and 2284, and T 17, CCR, 93117 11/18/04 See CARB 6/29/09 Letter

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), Phase I

. T 13, CCR, 2251.5 09/27/90 RVP standard for period between 1992 and 1996

. Obsolete.
California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase II

. T 13, CCR, 2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260

- 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Wintertime Gasoline Program

. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2298, 2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Predictive Model for Phase II CaRFG

. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262

- 2270 06/09/94 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

Test Method for Oxygen in Gasoline

. T 13, CCR, 2251.5(c), 2258(c), 2263(b) 06/29/95 Section 2251.5

- obsolete; section 2258 wintertime; section 2263, supersededTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 212 Appendix Table A

- 3 

### Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Wintertime Oxygenate Program

. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2251.5, 2263(b), 2267, 2298, 2259, 2283, 2293.5 09/09/93 Carbon monoxide control measure

Test Methods for CaRFG 13, CCR, 2263(b) 10/26/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules
Required Additives in Gasoline (Deposit Control Additives)

. T 13, CCR, 2257 and incorporates testing procedures. 11/16/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Housekeeping & CARBOB

. T 13, CCR, 2263.7, 2266.5, 2260, 226 2.5 , 2264, 2265, 2272 12/14/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules
CaRFG Variance Requirements

. T 13, CCR, 2271 (Emergency) 01/25/96 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules
Regulation Improvements and Repeals (fuel additives)

. T 13, CCR, 2201, 2202 05/30/96 R epealed sections

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Model Flexibility

. T 13, CCR, Sections 2260, 2262.1, 2262.3, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.7 and 2265 08/27/98 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

Gasoline Deposit Control Additive Regulation

. T 13, CCR, 2257, and incorporating test procedures 09/24/98 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Increasing the Oxygen Content)

. T 13, CCR, sections 226 2.5 (b) and 2265(a)(2) 12/11/98 Wintertime gasoline for South Coast and Imperial County

. Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requirement for Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump Labeling for MTBE . T 13, CCR, 226 2.5 , and 2273 06/24/99 Not applicable to the SC area/Obsolete

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (Phase out of MTBE, standards, predictive model)

. T 13, CCR, 2260, 2261, 2262.1, 226 2.5 , 2263, 2264, 2264.2, 2265, 2266 etc... 12/09/99 2262.1 renumber to 2262.4; 2264 (designation of alternative limits) not approved; otherwise
super seded by 11/18/04 and 6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Test Methods . T 13, CCR, sections 2263(b) 11/16/00 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Follow

- up Amendments

. T 13, CCR, sections 2260, 2261, 2262.3, 226 2.5 , 2263, 2264, 2265, 2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2272, 2273, 2282, 2296, 2297, 2262.9 and incorporated test procedures 11/16/00 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments

. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 2271, 2272, 2265, and 2296 07/25/02 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rulesTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 213 Appendix Table A

- 3 

### Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (specifications for De Minimus Levels of Oxygenates and MTBE Phase Out Issues)

. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262.6, 2263, 2266.5, 2272, 2273, 2260, 2273.5 12/12/02 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rule

. Approved 75 FR 26653 ( 5/12/10 ) (except for section 2272 (CARFG3 standards for small refineries) and 2273.5 (requirement to identify gasoline containing ethanol when delivered to retail station))
California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase 3

. T 13, CCR, 2260, 2262, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.9, 2263, 2265 (and the incorporated ―California Procedures‖), and 2266.5 11/18/04 Approved 75 FR 26653 ( 5/12/10 )

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit

. Emergency Rule

. T 13, CCR, 2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 Operative for September and October 2005 only

. Obsolete.

Specifications for Liquid Petroleum Gas Used as a Motor Vehicle Fuel

. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 No identifiable emission s reductions
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Propane Limit Specification Delay

. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 03/27/97 ExpiredTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 214 

### D

. State On

- Road Mobile Sources Measures

Appendix Tables A

- 4 and A

- 5 list measures adopted by C ARB since 19 90 for on

- road and off

- road sources.

Appendix Table A

- 4



### On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Certification Procedure for Aftermarket Parts

. VC 27156 & 38391 02/08/90 Compliance provisions

Emission Standards for Medium Duty Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1968.1, 2061, 2112, 2139 06/14/90 Waiver granted September 16, 1994 (59 FR 48625 (9/22/94))

Evaporative Emission Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 Waiver granted August 25, 1994 (59 FR 46979 (9/13/94))
Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1904, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1960.1.5, 1960.5 and 2111, 2112, 2125, and 2139, 2061. 09/28/90 Waivers granted January 7, 19 93 & April 6, 19 98 (58 FR 4166 (1/13/93) & 63 FR 18403 (4/15/98))
Heavy Duty Diesel Smoke Emission Testing. T 13, CCR, 2180

- 2187 11/08/90 Inspection program

Onboard Diagnostics for Light

- Duty Trucks and Light & Medium

- Duty Motor Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1977, 1968.1 09/12/91 Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96)) Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1977 11/12/91
Low Emission Vehicles amendments revising reactivity adjustment factor (RAF) provisions and adopting a RAF for M85 transitional low emission vehicles . T 13, CCR, 1960.1 11/14/91 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 18, 1993

Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuel Certification Fuel Specification. T 13 & 26, CCR, 2290

- 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 3/12/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994

Standards and Test Procedures for Alternative Fuel Retrofit Systems

. T 13, CCR, 2030, 2031 05/14/92 Compliance provisions

Phase 2 RFG certification fuel specifications

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1956.8(d) 08/13/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994
Substitute Fuel or Clean Fuel Incorporated Test Procedure s. T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 2317 11 /12/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994
Smoke Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & Gasoline Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190

- 2194, 2180

- 2187, 1956.8(b) 12/10/92 Inspection programTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 215 Appendix Table A

- 4


### On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Certification Requirements for Low Emission Passenger Cars, Light

- Duty Trucks & Medium Duty Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1976, 2061, 1900 01/14/93 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 21, 1994

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II . T 13, CCR, 1968.1 07/09/93 Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Urban Transit Buses . T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2112 06/10/93 Found within the scope September 28, 2004 ( 69 FR 59920 (October 6, 2004 ) )
Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures

. T 13, CCR, 1976 02/10/94 Waiver granted July 28, 1999 (64 FR 42689 (8/5/99))
Diesel Fuel Certification. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b)&(d), 1960.1(k), 2292.6 09/22/94 Confirm within the scope finding requested September 14, 1995
Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190

- 2194, 2180

- 2187, 1956.8(b) 11/09/94 Inspection program

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II. T 13, CCR,1963.1, & Certification Procedures 12/08/94 Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 2190 12/08/94 Inspection program
Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures. 06/29/95 Found within the scope September 28, 2004 (69 FR 59920 (10/6/04))
Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1976, 1978 and incorporate test procedures 06/29/95 Waiver granted August 13, 2002 (67 FR 54180 (8/21/02))

Retrofit Emission Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.9, 2030, 2031, and incorporate test procedures 07/27/95 Compliance provision

Low Emission Vehicle Standards 3 (LEV 3)

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1965, 2101, 2061, 2062, and incorporate test procedures 09/28/95 Confirm within the scope finding requested October 8, 1996.

Postpone Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements

. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1, 1976 03/28/96 Found within the scope January 18

, 200 1 (66 FR 7751 (1/25/01))

Diesel Fuel Certification Test Methods

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Confirm within the scope finding requested November 24, 1997
Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II, Technical Status

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 2030, 2031 12/12/96 Initial notice 69 FR 5542 (February 5, 2004)
Postpone Enhanced Evaporative Emission Requirements for Ultra

- Small Volume Vehicle Manufacturers

. T 13, CCR, 1976 and incorporate test procedures 05/22/97 Found within the scope July 28, 1999 (64 FR 42689 (8/5/99))TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 216 Appendix Table A

- 4


### On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Off

- Cycle Emissions Supplemental Federal Test Procedures (SFTPs)

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 2101 and incorp orate test procedures 07/24/97 Waiver granted September 30, 2004 (69 FR 60996 (10/14/04))

Heavy Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program/Periodic Smoke Inspection Program

. T 13, CCR, 2180

- 2188 and 2190

- 2194 12/11/97 Inspection program

Heavy Duty Vehicle Regulations: 2004 Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2036, 2112 and test procedures 04/23/98 Confirm within the scope finding requested December 26, 2001
Low Emission Vehicles Standards (LEV 2) and Compliance Assurance Program (CAP 2000)

. T 13, CCR,1961 & 1962 (both new); 1900, 1960.1, 1965, 1968.1, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2101, 2106, 2107, 2110, 2112, 2114, 2119, 2130, 2137

- 2140, 2143

- 2148 11/05/98 Waiver granted April 11, 2003 (68 FR 19811 (4/22/03))/found within the scope (1999 ZEV amendments) December 21, 2006 (7 1 FR 78190 (12/28/06))
Exhaust Standards for (On

- Road) Motorcycles

. T 13, CCR, 1958 12/10/98 Waiver granted July 27, 2006 (71 FR 44027 (8/3/06))

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 2600

- 2610 12/10/98 Establishes standards for a voluntary accelerated retirement program

. Revised 2/21/ 06 and 12/7/06

Clean Fuels Regulation Requirements

. T 13, CCR, sections 2300

- 2317, and 2303.5, 2311.5 07/22/99 Removal of obsolete provisions, streamlining and other minor changes to 9/1990 rule.

Transit Bus Standards . T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, 1956.4, 1956.8, 1965 02/24/00 Combination of fleet requirements, emission standards, and zero

emission bus standards

. Federal & state emission standards are the same for 2010 MY buses.

Light

- and Medium Duty Low Emission Vehicle Alignment with Federal Standards

. Exhaust Emission Standards for Heavy Duty Gas Engines . T 13, CCR, 1956.8 &1961 12/07/00 Waiver granted for LDV & HDV April 11, 2003 (68 FR 19811 (4/22/03))
Initial notice on within

- the

- scope finding request for HDGE: 72 FR 27114 (May 14, 2007).
Heavy Duty Diesel Engines "Not

- to

- Exceed (NTE)" Test Procedures

. T 13 CCR, 1956.8, 2065 12/07/00 Confirm within the scope finding requested December 26, 2001.

Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation Update

. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1(k), 1961, 1962 & incorporated Test Procedure 01/25/01 Found within the scope December 21, 2006 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 217 Appendix Table A

- 4


### On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure and Standardization of Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment

. T 13, CCR, 1900(b), 1962(b) 1962.1 06/28/01 Found within the scope December 21, 2006 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards for 2007 and Later

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures 10/25/01 Waiver granted August 19, 2005 (70 FR 50322 (8/26/05))

Low Emission Vehicle Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1,19 60.5, 1961, 1962 and incorporate test procedures and guidelines 11/15/01 Found within the scope April 21, 2005 (70 FR 22034 (4/28/05))

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule

. T 13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1

- 60060.7 12/13/01 Compliance provision

. Very similar to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 86.1808.01
Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations . T 13, CCR, 2601

- 2605, 2606 & appendices C & D, and 2607

- 2610 02/21/02 Establishes standards for a voluntary accelerated retirement program

. Revised 12/7/06

. On

- Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments . T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 Initial notice 69 FR 5542 (2/5/04)

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In

- Use Compliance Requirements . T 13, CCR, 2700

- 2710 05/16/02 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit technology.

Revision to Transit Bus Regulations Amendments . T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.4,1956.8, and 2112, & documents incorporated by reference 10/24/02 Slight relaxation in requirements over 2000 rule.

Low Emission Vehicles II

. Align Heavy Duty Gas Engine Standards with Federal Standards; minor administrative changes . T 13, CCR, 1961, 1965, 1956.8, 1956.1, 1978, 2065 and documents incorporated by reference 12/12/02 Waiver granted August 19, 2005 (70 FR 50322 (8/26/05)) for all but HDGE. HDGE standards adopted to harmonize with EPA‘s. Initial noti ce on within

- the

- scope finding request for HDGE: 72 FR 27114 (5/14/07).

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from School Bus Idling . T 13, CCR, 2480 12/12/02 No emissions reductions claimed.

Zero Emission Vehicle Amendments for 2003 . T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 1961(a) and (d), 1900, 1962, and documents incorporated by reference 03/25/03 Found within the scope December 21, 2005 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 218 Appendix Table A

- 4


### On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Solid Waste Collection Vehicles . T 13, CCR, 2020, 2021, 2021.1, 2021.2 09/24/03 Diesel reduction program. Minimal reductions. See CARB, ― Staff Report: Initial Statement Of Reasons

, Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure f or On

Road Heavy

- Duty Residential a nd Commercial Solid Waste Collection Vehicles ,‖ June 6, 2003 , p. 53.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from Transport Refrigeration Units . T 13, CCR, 2022 and 2477 12/11/03 Waiver granted (non

- road) January 9, 2009 (74 FR 3030 (1/16/2009))

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In

- Use Compliance Requirements (Amendments)

. T 13, CCR, 2701

- 2707 & 2709 12/11/03 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit technology.

CA Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13, CCR, 1969 01/22/04 Compliance provision

. Very similar to EPA regulations at 40 C FR 86.1808.01
Heavy Duty Diesel Engine

- Chip Reflash. T 13, CCR, 2011, 2180.1, 2181, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2192, and 2194 03/27/04 Compliance provision.

Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic System Requirements for 2007 and Subsequent Model Heavy Duty Engines

. T 13, CCR, 1971 05/20/04 Waiver granted December 22, 2005 (71 FR 335 (1/4/06))

Urban Bus Engines/Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, and 1956.4 06/24/04 Various modifications to urban/transit bus standards.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from Diesel Fueled Commercial Vehicle Idling. T 13, CCR, 2485 07/22/04 CARB has requested that EPA confirm requirement is not preempted. Initial notice 75 FR 43975 (7/27/10)
Greenhouse Gas Standards. T 13, CCR, 1961.1, 1900, 1961 and Incorporated Test Procedures 09/23/04 Waiver granted June 30, 2009 (74 FR 32744 (July 8, 2009)
Transit Fleet Rule. T 13, CCR, 2023, 2023.1, 2023.2, 2023.3, 2023.4, 1956.1, 2020, 2021, repeal 1956.2, 1956.3, 1956.4 02/24/05 Diesel reduction program

On

- Board Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model

- Year Heavy

- Duty Engines (HD OBD)

. T 13, CCR, 1971.1 07/21/05 Waiver granted August 13, 2008 (73 FR 52042 (9/8/08))TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 219 Appendix Table A

- 4


### On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

2007

- 2009 Model

- Year Heavy Duty Urban Bus Engines and the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, and 1956.8 09/15/05 & 10/20/05 Aligns State emission standards with

federal emission standards.

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In

Use Trucks, Beginning in 2008

. T 13, CCR section 1956.8 and the incorporated document 10/20/05 Confirm not pre

- empted or within the scope finding requested

. Initial notice 75 FR 43975 (7/27/2010)

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Duty Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities

. T 13, CCR, 2022 and 2022.1 12/08/05 Diesel reduction program. Minimal reductions. See CARB, ― Staff Report: Initial Statement Of Reasons

, Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure f or On

Road Heavy

- Dut y Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles Owned o r Operated By Public Agencies And Utilities ,‖ October 21, 2005 , p. 55.
AB1009 Heavy

- Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program

. T 13, CCR, 2180, 2180.1, 2181, 2182, 2183, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2187, and 2188, 2189 01/26/06 Requires trucks have emission control labels

.

Diesel Verification Procedure, Warranty & In

- Use

. T 13, CCR, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2706, 2707, and 2709. 03/23/06 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit technology, supporting rule for in

use control measures.
Technical Amendments to Evaporative Exhaust and Evaporative Emissions Test Procedures

. T 13, CCR, 1961,1976 and 1978. 05/25/06 Within the scope finding July 22, 2010 (75 FR 44948 (July 27, 2010))

.

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule

. T 13, CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06 Compliance provision

. Very similar to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 86.1808.01

On

- Board Diagnostic II

. T 13, CCR, 1968.2, 1968.5, 2035, 2037 and 2038 09/28/06 Confirm within the scope finding requested

.

Heavy

- Duty In

- Use Compliance Regulation

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.8, and documents incorporated by reference 09/28/06 Compliance provision

. Compliance program "essentially identical to EPA's

. " See Updated Information Digest for the Rule.

Zero Emission Bus Regulation . T 13, CCR, 2023.1, 2023.3, & 2023.4 10/19/06 Delays ZEB requirements due to high bus costs and unproven durability, reliability and ability to produce the number of buses required by the regulation

. See Updated Information Digest.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 220 Appendix Table A

- 4


### On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Voluntary Accelerated Retirement Regulation

. T 13, CCR, 2601

- 2610 and appendices A

- D 12/07/06 Establishes standards for a voluntary accelerated retirement program.

Appendix Table A

- 5 

### Off

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Emission Standards for Utility and Lawn and Garden Engines

. T 17, CCR, 2400 et. seq. 12/13/90 Waiver granted July 5, 1995 ( 60 FR 37440 ( 7 /2 0 /95) ) 1

- year Implementation Delay in Emission Standards for Utility Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2400, 2403

- 2407 04/08/93

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2403(c), 11(a)(1)(I)(ii), 4(a)(1)(I)(ii) 07/28/94 Within the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00))

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines

. CO Standards 1/25/96 Within the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00))

Small Off

- Road Engines (SORE)

. T 13, CCR, 2400, 2410

- 2414 03/26/98 W ithin the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69767 (11/20/00)), waiver granted (durability requirements), November 10, 20 03 ( 65 FR 65702 (1 1 / 21 /0 3 ))

. Small Off

- Road Engines (SORE)

. T 13, CCR, 2400

- 2409, 2405.1, 2405.2, 2405.3, 2750

- 2754, 2754.1, 2754.2, 2755

- 2767, 2767.1, 2768

- 2773 and the documents incorporated by reference 09/25/03 Waiver granted, December 11, 2006 (71 FR 75536 (12/15/2006))

Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 2410

- 2414, 2111

- 2140 01/03/94 Waiver granted December 23, 1996 (61 FR 69093 (12/31/1996))TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 221 Appendix Table A

- 5 

### Off

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Wintertime Requirements for Utility Engines & Off

Highway Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 2403 09/26/96 Within the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00))

1997 & Later Model Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2410

- 2414, 2415 12/10/98 Within the scope finding request March 4, 2000

Off

- Highway Recreation Vehicles

. T13, CCR, 2415 07/24/03 Addition to March 4, 2000 request November 19, 2004. Made changes to riding season restrictions

. Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines . T 13, CCR, 2411

- 2413, 2415 & documents incorporated by reference 07/20/06 Adopted evaporative emission standards identical to EPA's.

Heavy Duty Diesel Cycle Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2420

- 2427 01/09/92 Waiver granted May 15, 1995 (60 FR 48981 (9/21/1995))

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95 Within the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00))

Off

- Road Compression Ignition Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2144, 2400, 2401, 2403, 2420, 2421, 2423

- 2427, & appendix A to article 2.1. 01/2 7 /00 Waiver granted, February 5, 2010 (75 FR 8056 ( 2/23/2010 )

Off

- Road Compression Ignition Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2427 12/09/04 Waiver granted February 5, 2010 (75 FR 8056 ( 2/23/2010 ) )

In

- Use Off

- Road Diesel Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 2449 07/26/07 Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment (on waiver), 75 FR 11880 (3/12/2010).

Large Off

- Road Spark

- Ignition Engine Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 2430 et seq., and 2411

- 2414 10/22/98 Waiver granted May 15, 20 06 (71 FR 29623 (5/23/2006))
Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment. (Large Off

Road Spark Ignition Engines > 1 liter) T 13, CCR 2430, 2433, 2434. Adopt 2775, 2775.1, 2775.2, 2780, 2781, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 2788, and 2789. 05/26/06 Adopts EPA's Standards for 2007;

a dopts more stringent standards for 2010

. Waiver requested.

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 Marine Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2440 et seq 12/10/98 Waiver granted March 22, 2007 (59 FR 14546 (March 28, 2007))TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 222 Appendix Table A

- 5 

### Off

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Marine Inboard Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2139, 2140, 2147, 2440

- 2442, 2443.1

- 2443.3, 2444, 2445.1, 2445.2, 2446, 2444.2 and incorporation of documents by reference 07/26/01 Waiver granted in part March 22, 2007 (59 FR 14546 (March 28, 20 07)) 2007 standards waiver granted April 26, 2011 (76 FR 24872 (5/3/11))

Marine Inboard Sterndrive Engines

. T 13 CCR 2111, 2112, 2441, 2442, 2444.2, 2445.1, 2446, 2447, and incorporated document 11/17/05 Revision to year 2007 standards in 7/26/2001 marine inboard engine standards. Waiver requested February 7, 2008.

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450

- 2465 03/27/97 Revised by June 22, 2006 rule Waiver request withdrawn/replaced by favor of December 5, 2008 request
Revisions to Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450

- 2463 12/10/98 Revised by June 22, 2006 rule

Modifications to the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) Regulations . T 13, CCR Amendments to 2450

- 2465, and repeal of 2466 02/26/04 Revised by June 22, 2006 rule

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel

- Fueled Portable Engines

. T 17, CCR,93116, 93116.1, 93116.2, 93116.3, 93116.4, and 93116.5 02/26/04 Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment published February 9, 2011 (76 FR 7196)
Within

- the

- scope finding/waiver requested March 28, 2005.

Portable Equipment Registration Program

. T 13, CCR, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, and 2465 06/22/06 Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment published February 9, 2011 (76 FR 7194)
Within

- the

- scope finding/w aiver requested December 5, 2008

. Emergency Regulation for Portable Equipment Registration Program Airborne Toxic Control Measures and Portable and Stationary diesel

- Fueled Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2452, 2455, 2456, 2461; T17 CCR 93115, 93116.2, 93116.3 12/06/06 Expired.

Portable Equipment Registration Program and Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel

- Fueled Portable Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2451, 2452, 2456, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, and 2462, T 17, CCR, 93116.1, 93116.2, 93116.3 , 93116.3.1 03/22/07 Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment published Febru ary 9, 2011 (76 FR 7194)
Within

- the

- scope finding/w aiver requested December 5, 2008

.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 223 Appendix Table A

- 5 

### Off

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Aftermarket Parts for Off

- Road Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2470

- 2476 11/19/98 Compliance measure

Portable Container Spillage Control Measure

. T 13, CCR, 2470

- 2478 09/23/99 Similar federal regulation. 40 CFR part 59, subpart F.
Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 1 of 2] . T 13, CCR, 2467 and 2467.1 09/15/05 Similar federal regulation. 40 CFR part 59, subpart F.

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 2 of 2]

. T 13, CCR 2467.2, 2467.3, 2467.4, 2467.5, 2467.6, 2467.7; repeal of 2467.8, and adoption of new 2467.8 and 2467.9. 09/15/05 Similar federal regulation. 40 CFR part 59, subpart F.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate for Transport Refrigeration Units . T 13, CCR, 2022 & 2477 12/11/03 Waiver granted (non

- road) January 9, 200 9 (74 FR 3030 (1/16/2009))

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards

. T 13, CCR, 2479 12/08/05 Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment published February 1, 2011 (76 FR 5586)
Within

- the

- scope finding and

w aiver request January 29, 20 07

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships Onboard Incineration . T 17, CCR, 93119 11/17/05 See Initial Statement of Reasons for Rule, p. II

- 1.
Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel

- Electric Engines Operated on Ocean

- Going Vessels within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline

. T 13, CCR, 2299.1 and T 17, CCR, 93118 12/ 08/05

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships and Ocean

- Going Ships Onboard Incineration (amendments)

. T 17, CCR, 93119 11/16/06 Air toxics control measure

Ocean

- Going Vessels At Berth (Shore Power)

. T 13, CCR, 2299.3 and T 17, CCR, 93118.3 and documents incorporated by reference 12/06/07

Commercial Harbor Craft

. T 13, CCR, 2222 and incorporated "California Evaluation Procedures for New Aftermarket Catalytic Converters" 11/15/07

Cleaner Fuels in Ocean

- Going Vessel Main Engines and Auxiliary Boiler

. T 13, CCR, 2299.2 and T 17, CCR, section 93118.2 07/24/08 Proposed approval signed June 29, 2011TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 224 

### E

. State Consumer Product Measures

California has been regulating the VOC content of consumer products for 20 years and continues to tighten standards and regulate more products. Appendix Table A

- 6 is a list of CARB‘s rulemaking actions on consumer products since 1990.

Appendix Table A

- 6 

### Consumer Products Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Antiperspirant/Deodorants

. T 17, CCR, 94500

- 94506 11/09/89 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379)

Consumer Products BAAQMD

. T 17, CCR, 94520

- 94526 06/14/90 Not applicable to the South Coast

area
Phase I

- Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94507

- 94517 10/11/90 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379)

Phase II

- Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94502, 94505, 94514, 94503.5, 94506, 94507

- 94513, 94515 01/09/92 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379)

Notice of General Public Interest for Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94507

- 94517 11/30/92 Not a control measure

Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94540

- 94555 09/22/94 Voluntary compliance option

. No action.
Aerosol Coating Products and Alternative Control Plan

. T 17, CCR, 94520

- 94528, 94540

- 94543, 94547. 03/23/95 Superseded by 6/22/00 rule.

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, and Aerosol Coating Products

. T 17, CCR, 94500

- 94506, 94508, 94521 09/28/95 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for antiperspirants and deodorants; superseded by 11/17/06 rule for consumer products; superseded by 11/17/06 rule for aerosol coating products.

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, Aerosol Coating Products (ARB Test Method 310)

. T 17, CCR, 94506(a), 94515(a), 94526 11/21/96 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for antiperspirants and deodorants; superseded by 11/17/16 rule for consumer products; superseded by 11/17/06 rule for aerosol coating products.
Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products Amendments

. T 17, CCR, 94508

- 94515, 99517, 94321 11/21/96 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products (Hair Spray) Amendments

. T 17, CCR, 94509, 94513, 94514 03/27/97 Voluntary compliance option

. No action.
Consumer Products (Mid

- Term Measures) Amendments

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94513 07/24/97 Superseded by 11/17/06 ruleTSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 225 Appendix Table A

- 6 

### Consumer Products Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Consumer Products (Hairspray Credit Program)

. T 17, CCR, 94502, 94509, 94522, & 94548 11/13/97 Voluntary compliance option

. No action.
Consumer Products, Aerosol Coatings & Antiperspirants and Deodorants

. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94508, 94521, 94522, and 94524 11/19/98 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products

- LVP

- VOC Definitions And Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94506, 94506.5, 94508(a)(78), 94515 and 94526, and the amendment of CARB Method 310 11/19/98 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for test method 310 and 11/17/06 rule for rest.

California Consumer Products Regulation Mid

- Term Measures II

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, and 94513 10/28/99 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products Aerosol Adhesives Control Measure

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94512, 94513 05/25/00 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Aerosol (Paint) Coatings Products

. T 17, CCR, 94700, 94701, 94521

- 94524, 94526 06/22/00 Approved 9/13/05 70 FR 53920; superseded by 11/17/06 rule
Antiperspirant and Deodorant Reg ulations. T 17, CCR, 94502, 94504 10/26/00 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule

Revised Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity Values

. T 1, CCR, 94700. 12/03/03 Approved 9/13/05 70 FR 53920; superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products & Methods 310/ATCM for Para

Dicholorobenzene

. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94506, 94507, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94512, 94513, 94515, and 94526, and CARB Method 310, which is incorporated by reference 06/24/04 Approved November 4, 2009 (74 FR 57074) (EO order date of 5/6/05)

Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94513 & 94523 11/17/06 Approved November 4, 2009 (74 FR 57074) (EO order date 9/16/07)TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 226 

### F

. State Vapor Recovery Measures

Under California State law (Health and Safety Code Sections 41954), C ARB is required to adopt procedures and performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from ga soline marketing operations, including transfer and storage operations

. State law also authorizes C ARB, in cooperation with the districts, to certify vapor recovery sys tems, identify defective equipment, and develop test methods

. The installation and operation of C ARB

- certified vapor recovery equipment is required and enforced by District Rules 461 and 462. Appendix Table A

- 7 is a list of rulemaking actions taken by C ARB since 19 90 that address vapor recovery equipment certification, defects, and/or test methods.

Appendix Table A

- 7 

### Gasoline Vapor Recovery Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17, CCR, 94010

- 94015, 94150

- 94160, 94000

- 94004, 94007. 06/29/95

C ARB sets requirements for and certifies vapor recovery equipment. District rules establish requirements for the installation of C ARB

- certified equipment. See SCAQMD Rules 461 & 462 Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17, CCR, 94010

- 94015 and 94150, 94156, 94157, 94158, 94159, 94160, 94162 08/27/98

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17, CCR, 94011, 94153, 94155, and incorporate d test procedures, CP

- 201, TP

- 201.4, and TP

- 201.6 06/24/99

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (In Station Diagnostics and Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery)

. T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (Emergency Filing CP

- 201, section 18)

. T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Methods and Compliance Procedures

. T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94153, 94155, 94163, 94164, 94165 & incorporated procedures 10/25/01

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Defects . T 17, CCR, 94006 and incorporated document. 11/15/01

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Procedures . T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94163, 94164, and 94165 and procedures incorporated by reference, and 94166, 94167, and incorporation by reference. 12/12/02

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 227 Appendix Table A

- 7 

### Gasoline Vapor Recovery Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing Facilities. Emergency Filing . T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment Defects List . T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated document 08/24/04

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Extension

. T 17, CCR, 94011 and certification procedure 11/18/04

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems . T 17 CCR 94011 and incorporated certification 06/22/06

Vapor Recovery Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST)

. T 17 , CCR, 94010

, 94011

, 94016 and 94168 and incorporated documents 06/21/07

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment Defects List. T 17, CCR, 94006 N/ATSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 228 

### G. Other State Measures

A number of CARB measures do not fall into one of the categories of measures listed in Appendix Tables A

- 2 through A

- 7. These measures are listed below in Appendix Table A

- 8.

Appendix Table A

- 8 

### Other Not Previously Listed Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Airborne Air Toxic Measure for Ethylene Oxide from Sterilizers & Aerators

. T 17, CCR, 93108 05/10/90

Controls for Abrasive Blasting

. T 17, CCR, 92000, 92200, 92400, 98500, 98510, 92520, 92530 11/08/90 Small source category in South Coast

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emission of Toxic Metals from N on

- Ferrous Metal Melting. T 17 & 26, CCR, 93107 12/10/92

Air Toxic Control Measure for Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facilities

. T 17, CCR, 93111 04/27/00 Mainly addresses non

- VOC

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos from Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining

. T 17, CCR, 93105 07/26/01 Mainly addresses air toxics

Air Toxic Control Measures for Auto and Mobile Equip ment Refinishing Coatings C ontaining Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium Compounds

. T 17, CCR, 93112 09/20/01 Air toxic control measures prohibits additives with hexavalent chromium. Total emissions CA are less than 300 lb
per year. ISOR, p. V

- 2.

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 94200

- 94214 11/15/01 Minimal impact, few units certified

. See ISOR for 9/28/06 rule amendment

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor Residential Waste Burning

. T 17, C CR, 93113 02/21/02

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines

. T 17, CCR 93115 & documents incorp orate by reference 2/26/04 PM control measure . PM reductions are expected to be achieved primarily by replacement of existing engines as a result of District rule.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 229 Appendix Table A

- 8 

### Other Not Previously Listed Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Hexavalent Chromium and Nickel from Thermal Spraying

. T 17, CCR, 9310 2.5 12/09/04 Air toxic control measures. Total emissions (chromium & nickel in CA are less than 200 lb per year. ISOR, p. IV

- 6 to 8.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines (amendments) . T 17, CCR, 93115 05/26/05 3/17/05 Revisions to 2/26/04 rule. PM control measure

.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines (amendments, In

- Use Agricultural Eng. Exemption removal)

. T 17, CCR, 93115.1

- 93115.15.t. 11/16/06 PM control measure . PM reductions are expected to be achieved primarily by replacem ent of existing engines as a result of District rule.
Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 94201, 94201.1, 94203, 94204, & 94207

- 942142 10/19/06 Addition of 2013 standards NO x and VOC standards for DG units which burn waste gas.
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations

. T 17, CCR, 93102.1

- 93102.16 12/07/06 Air toxic control measures. Total emissions in CA are 14.4 lb per year. ISOR, p. 49.TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8

- hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ ________________________________________________________________________________ EPA

- Region 9 230



## Appendix B

– SCAQMD RulesTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approv al Federal

Register Cite Comments

223 Large Confined Animal Feeding

Operations 6/2 /06 3/17/09 n/a n/a Baseline measure

401 Visible Emissions 11/09/01 7/10/84 1/29/85 50 FR 3907 Baseline measure

403 Fugitive Dust 6/3/05 10/20/05 03/10/ 08 73 FR 12639 Baseline measure

431.2. Sulfur Content Of Liquid Fuels 9/15/ 00 12/31/90 06/08/99 64 FR 30396 Baseline measure

442 Usage Of Solvents 12/15/ 00 05/08/01 05/23/02 67 FR 36105 Baseline measure

444 Open Burning 11/7/ 08 1/22/02 4/8/02 67 FR 16644 Baseline and control strategy measure

445 Wood Burning Devices 03/07/ 08 07/18/08 6/11/2009 74 FR 27716 Control Strategy

measure

461 Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing 03/07/ 08 10/20/05 4/11/06 71 FR 18216 Baseline and control strategy measure

462 Organic Liquid Loading 05/14/ 99 06/03/99 07/21/99 64 FR 39037 Baseline measure

463 Organic Liquid Storage 05/6/ 05 10/20/05 01/04/07 72 FR 267 Baseline measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approv al Federal

Register Cite Comments

1102 Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners 11/7/2000 5/08/01 7/17/02 67 FR 46876 Baseline measure

1103 Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics

Manufacturing 3/12/99 5/13/99 7/21/99 64 FR 39037 Baseline measure

1104 Wood Flat Stock Coating Operation 8/13/99 10/29/99 3/22/00 65 FR 15240 Baseline measure

1105 Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units

- SOx 9/1/84 2/6/85 7/12/90 55 FR 28624 Baseline measure

1105.1 Reduction of PM and NH3 emissions

from Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units 11/7/03 6/3/04 1/4/06 71 FR 241 Baseline measure

1106 Marine Coating Operations 1/13/95 2/24/95 7/14/95 60 FR 36225 Baseline measure

1106.1 Pleasure Craft Coating Operations 2/12/99 6/3/99 8/31/99 64 FR 47390 Baseline measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approv al Federal

Register Cite Comments

1107 Coating of Metal Parts and Products 1/6/06 5/8/07 11/24/08 73 FR 70883 Baseline and control strategy measure

1108 Cutback Asphalt 2/1/85 4/12/85 7/12/90 55 FR 28624 Baseline measure

1108.1 Emulsified Asphalt 11/4/83 10/25/84 1/24/85 50 FR 3338 B aseline measure

1109 NOx Emissions from Boilers and

Process Heaters

– Petroleum Refineries 8/5/88 3/26/90 1/13/00 65 FR 2052 Baseline measure

1110.2 Emissions from Gaseous and Liquid

Fueled Engines 2/1/08 5/20/08 4/17/09 74 FR 18995 Control strategy measure

1111 NOx emissions from Natural

- Gas

Fired, Fan type Central Furnaces 11/6/09 5/17/10 8/4/10 75 FR 46845 Control strategy measure

1112 NOx from Cement Kilns 6/6/86 10/10/86 6/25/90 55 FR 25832 Baseline measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approv al Federal

Register Cite Comments

1112.1 PM from Cement Kilns 12/4/09 7/20/10 09/2/98 63 FR 46659 Baseline and control strategy measure

1113 Architectural coatings 7/13/07 3/07/08 8/17/11 76 FR 50891 Baseline and control strategy measure

1115 Motor Vehicle Assembly Line

Coating Operations 5/12/95 6/16/95 7/14/95 60 FR 36225 Baseline measure

1117 NOx emissions from Glass Melting

Furnaces 1/6/84 2/6/85 7/12/90 55 FR 28624 Baseline measure

1118 Refinery flares 11/4/05 10/5/06 8/28/07 72 FR 49196 Baseline measure

1121 Control of NOx from Residential type

natural

- gas

- fired water heaters 9/3/04 7/18/08 5/6/09 74 FR 20880 Baseline and control strategy measure

1122 Solvent Degreasers 10/1/04 1/13/05 2/8/06 71 FR 6350 Baseline measure

1123 Refinery Process Turnarounds 12/7/90 5/13/91 8/11/92 57 FR 35758 Baseline measure

1124 Aerospace Assembly and Component

Manufacturing Operations 9/21/01 1/22/02 8/13/02 67 FR 52611 Baseline measure

1125 Metal Container, Closure, and Coil

Coating Operations 03/7/08 4/6/09 12/21/09 74 FR 67844 Baseline and control strategy measure

1126 Magnet Wire Coating Operations 1/13/95 2/24/95 6/13/95 60 FR 31081 Baseline measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approv al Federal

Register Cite Comments

1127 Emissions Reductions from Livestock

Waste 8/6/04 10/5/06 n/a n/a Control strategy

measures

1128 Paper, Fabric, and Film Coating

Operations 3/8/96 7/23/96 5/4/99 64 FR 23774 Baseline measure

1130 Graphic Arts 10/8/99 1/21/00 9/13/00 65 FR 55201 Baseline measure

1130.1 Screen Printing Operations 12/13/96 3/3/97 8/21/98 63 FR 44792 Baseline measure

1131 Food Product Manufacturing and

Processing Operations 6/6/03 8/11/03 1/22/04 69 FR 3018 Baseline measure

1132 Further Control of VOC from High

Emitting Spray Booths 5/5/06 1/10/10 4/26/04 69 FR 22445 Baseline measure

1133, 1133.1, 1133.2 Composting and Related Operations 1/10/03 6/5/03 7/ 21/04 69 FR 43518 Baseline measure

1134 NOx from Stationary Gas Turbines 8/8/97 3/10/98 8/1/00 65 FR 46873 Baseline measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approv al Federal

Register Cite Comments

1135 NOx from Electric Power Generating

Systems 7/9/91 1/28/92 8/11/98 63 FR 42721 Baseline measure

1136 Wood Products Coatings 6/14/96 8/28/96 8/18/98 63 FR 44132 Baseline measure

1137 PM10 Reduction from Woodworking

Operations 2/1/02 11/9/02 1/22/04 69 FR 3018 Baseline measure

1138 Control of Emissions from Restaurant

Operations 11/14/97 3/10/98 7/11/01 66 FR 36170 Baseline measure

1140 Abrasive Blasting 8/2/85 11/12/85 09/28/81 46 FR 47451 Baseline measure

1141 Control of VOC Emissions from

Resin Manufacturing 11/17/00 3/14/01 8/13/02 67 FR 52611 Baseline measure

1141.1 Coatings and Ink Manufacturing 11/17/00 3/14/01 2/12/02 67 FR 6410 Baseline measure

1141.2 Surfactant Manufacturing 1/11/02 5/21/02 8/26/03 68 FR 51181 Baseline measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approv al Federal

Register Cite Comments

1142 Marine Tank Vessel Operations 7/19/91 01/28/92 12/13/94 59 FR 64132 Baseline measure

1143 Consumer paint thinners and

multipurpose solvents 12/3/10 4/5/11 11/16/11 76 FR 70888 Control strategy

measure

1144 Metalworking fluids and direct

contact lubricants 7/9/10 4/5/11 11/16/11 76 FR 70888 Control strategy

measure

1145 Plastic, Rubber, Leather and Glass

Coatings 12/3/09 5/17/10 07/14/10 75 FR 40726 Control strategy

measure

1146 NOx from Industrial, Institutional, and

Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 9/5/08 7/20/10 7/8 /2011 Proposed limited approval/lim ited disapproval : 76 FR 40303 Control strategy

measure

1146.1 NOx from Industrial, Institutional, and

Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 9/5/08 7/20/10 7/8 /2011 Proposed limited approval/lim ited disapproval : 76 FR 40303 Control strategy

measure

1146.2 NOx from Large Water Heaters and

Small Boilers 5/5/06 3/7/08 12/5/08 73 FR 74027 Baseline measure

1147 NOx Reductions from Miscellaneous

Sources 12/5/08 5/17/10 8/4/10 75 FR 46845 Control strategy measure

Thermally Enhanced Oil Recovery 11/5/82 2/3/83 10/19/84 49 FR 41028 Baseline measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approv al Federal

Register Cite Comments

1148 Wells

1148.1 Oil and gas production wells 0 3/ 0 5/04 0 1/10/10 9/29/11 76 FR 60377 Baseline measure
1149 Storage Tank Degassing 05/02/08 04/06/09 12/21/09 74 FR 67821 Control strategy measure

1150.1 Control of Gaseous Emissions from

Active Landfills 0 3/17/00 0 7/26/00 0 7/ 0 1/02 67 FR 44062 Baseline measure

1151 Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment

Non

- Assembly Line Coating Operations 12/ 0 2/05 0 6/ 0 4/09 12/29/09 74 FR 68759 Baseline measure

1153 Commercial Bakery Ovens 0 1/13/95 0 2/24/95 0 8/ 0 8/95 60 FR 40285 Baseline measure

1156 PM10 Emissions Reductions from

Cement Manufacturing 3/6/09 4/29/09 3/10/08 73 FR 12639 Control s trategy measure

1157 PM10 Emissions Reductions from

Aggregate and Related Operations 9/8/06 5/17/10 11/22/11 Proposed approval 76 FR 72142 Baseline and control

strategy measure

1158 Storage, Handling and Transport of

Petroleum Coke 7/11/08 12/23/08 11/10/09 74 FR 57907 Control strategy measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approv al Federal

Register Cite Comments

1159 Nitric Acid Units

- NOx

- 12/6/85 2/10/86 7/12/90 55 FR 28622 Baseline measure

1162 Polyester Resin Operations 7/8/05 4/6/09 2/12/02 67 FR 6410 Baseline measure

1164 Semiconductor Manufacturing 1/13/95 2/24/95 2/1/96 61 FR 3579 Baseline measure

1166 VOC Emissions from Decontaminated

Soil 7/14/95 10/13/95 8/17/98 63 FR 43884 Baseline measure

1168 Adhesive and Sealant Applications 1/7/05 4/29/09 12/12/03 68 FR 69320 Baseline measure

1171 Solvent Cleaning Operations 02/01/08 4/5/11 7/27/04 69 FR 44599 Baseline and control strategy measure

1173 Fugitive VOC Emissions 2/6/09 1/10/10 5/5/10 75 FR 24406 Baseline and c ontrol strategy measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approv al Federal

Register Cite Comments

1174 Control of VOC Emissions from the

Ignition of Barbecue Charcoal 10/5/90 5/13/91 10/4/94 59 FR 50498 Baseline measure

1175 Control of Emissions from the

Manufacture of Polymeric Cellular (Foam) Products 9/7/07 3/7/08 5/5/10 75 FR 24406 Baseline measure and control strategy measure

1176 Sumps and Wastewater Separators 9/3/96 11/26/96 10/7/02 67 FR 62376 Baseline measure

1178 Further Reductions of VOC Emissions

From Storage Tanks at Petroleum Facilities 12/21/01 5/21/02 8/26/03 68 FR 51181 Baseline measure

1179 Publicly Owned Treatment Works

Operations 3/6/92 9/14/92 10/4/94 58 FR 50498 Baseline measure

1186 PM10 Emissions from Paved and

Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations 7/11/08 12/23/08 11/14/05 70 FR 69081 Baseline and control strategy measure.

1189 Emission from Hydrogen Plant

Process Vents 1/21/00 7/26/00 6/8/01 66 FR 30815 Baseline measure

2000

- 2015 RECLAIM 11/4/10 4/5/11 August 12, 2011 76 FR 50128 Baseline and control strategy measure