# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 75 Fed. Reg. 71294 2010

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Thu Apr 21 22:43:57 2011

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0366; FRL-9229-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; 2007 South Coast State Implementation Plan for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter Standards; 2007 State Strategy; PM2. 5
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part State implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State ofCalifornia to provide for attainment ofthe 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2. 5national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin area (SouthCoast nonattainment area). The submitted SIP revisions are contained in the South Coast 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (SouthCoast 2007 AQMP) andportions ofthe 2007 State Strategy as revised in 2009. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the emissions inventories as meeting the requirements ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's fine particulate implementing regulations. EPA is also proposing to approve commitments to propose specific

measures and meet specific aggregate emissions reductions by the South Coast Air Quality Management (District) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) because the commitments strengthen the SIP. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the air quality modeling demonstration as meeting the requirements ofthe CAA andEPA guidance. EPA is proposing to disapprove the attainment demonstration because itdoes not provide sufficient emissions reductions from adopted and EPA approved

measures to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. As a result,EPA is also proposing to disapprove the reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control technology (RACM/ RACT) and reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstrations and proposing not to grant California's request to extend to April 5, 2015 the deadline for the South Coast nonattainment area to attain the 1997 PM2.5NAAQS because these requirements are linked to approving the attainment demonstration under the 1997 PM2.5implementation rule. We are also proposing to disapprove the assignment of 10 tpd ofNOx to the federal government. Finally, EPA is proposing to disapprove PM2. 5 contingency measures and the motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets)for the area's RFP years and attainment year. To the extent that the State can remedy the shortfall in emissions reductions for the attainment demonstration, which isthe basis for the proposed disapproval ofthe attainment demonstration, EPA believes that many ofthe noted deficiencies could be addressed. DATES: Any comments must arrive by January 21, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09- OAR-2009-0366, by one ofthe following methods: * FederaleRulemakingPortal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions. * E-mail:tax.wienke@epa.gov. * Mailordeliver:Marty Robin, Office ofAir Planning (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Instructions:All comments will be included in the public docket without change and maybe made available online athttp://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI)

or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http:// www.regulations.govor e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is

an "anonymous access" system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body ofyour comment. Ifyou send e-mail directly to EPA,your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part ofthe public comment. IfEPA cannot read your comments due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may notbe able to consider your comment.

Docket:The index to the docket for this action is available electronically on the http://www.regulations.govWeb site and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index,

some information maybe publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normalbusiness hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

Copies ofthe SIP materials are also available for inspection at the following locations:

* California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, California 95812, and

* South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765.

The SIP materials are also electronically available at: http:// aqmd.gov/aqmp/O7aqmp/index.html and http://www.arb.ca.gov/planningl sip/sip.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4192, tax.wienke@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, "we," "us" and "our" refer to EPA.
Table ofContents
I.The PM2. 5 NAAQS and the South Coast PM 2. 5 Nonattainment Area II. California's State Implementation Plan Submittals to Address PM2. 5 Attainment in the South Coast Nonattainment Area A. California's SIP Submittals 1.2007 South Coast AQMP 2. 2007 State Strategy 3.Additional SIP Submittal Related to

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (Budgets) B.CAA Procedural and Administrative

Requirements for SIP Submittals III. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for PM 2. 5 Attainment SIPs IV. Review ofthe SouthCoast 2007 AQMP and the South Coast Portion ofthe Revised 2007 State Strategy A. Summary ofEPA's Proposed Actions B.Emission Inventories 1.Requirements forEmission Inventories 2.Emission Inventories inthe South Coast

2007 AQMP 3. Proposed Action onthe Emission

Inventories C. Reasonably Available Control Measures

(RACM)/Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and Adopted Control Strategy 1.Requirement for RACM/RACT 2.RACM/RACT Demonstration inthe SIP

a. District's RACM/RACT Analysis and

Adopted Control Strategy b. CARB's RACM Analysis and Adopted

Control Strategy

c.TheLocal Jurisdiction's RACM Analysis 3.Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT

Demonstration and Adopted Control Strategy D.Attainment Demonstration 1.Requirements forAttainment

Demonstration 2.Air QualityModeling in the South Coast

2007 AQMP 3.PM2.5 Precursors Addressed inthe South

Coast 2007 AQMP 4. Extension ofthe Attainment Date 

### 71294

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71294 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

5. Attainment Demonstration

a. Enforceable Commitments i. The Commitments Do Not Represent a

Limited Portion ofRequired Reductions ii. The State Is Capable ofFulfilling Its

Commitment iii. The Commitment Is for a Reasonable

and Appropriate Period ofTime b. Federal Reductions 6. Proposed Action on the Attainment

Demonstration E. Reasonable Further Progress

Demonstration 1. Requirements for RFP 2. RFP Demonstration in the South Coast

2007 AQMP 3. Proposed Action on the RFP

Demonstration F. Contingency Measures 1. Requirements for Contingency Measures 2. Contingency Measures in the South

Coast 2007 AQMP 3. Proposed Action on the Contingency

Measures G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for

Transportation Conformity H. Mid-Course Review V. EPA's Proposed Actions

A. EPA's Proposed Approvals and

Disapprovals B. CAA Consequences ofa Final

Disapproval VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The PM2. 5 NAAQS and the South Coast PM 2 . 5 Nonattainment Area

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5, particulate matter with a diameter of2.5 microns or less, including annual standards of 15.0 pg/ms based on a 3-year average ofannual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and 24-hour (ordaily) standards of65 pg/m 3based on a 3-year average ofthe 98th percentile of24-hour concentrations. 40 CFR 50.7 EPA established the standards based on substantial evidence from numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to PM2. 5 concentrations above the levels ofthese standards.

Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant correlations between elevated PM2. 5 levels and premature mortality. Other important health effects associated with PM2. 5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (asindicated by increased hospital admissions, emergency roomvisits, absences from school or work, and restricted activity days), changes inlung function and increased respiratory symptoms, as well as new evidence for

more subtle indicators ofcardiovascular health. Individuals particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children. See, EPA,Air QualityCriteria forParticulate Matter, No. EPA/600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/ P-99/002bF, October 2004.

PM2.5 canbe emitted directly into the atmosphere as a solid orliquid particle ("primary" or "direct PM2. 5")or can be formed in the atmosphere as a result of various chemical reactions from precursor emissions ofnitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3) ("secondaryPM2.5"). See 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007)

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On January 5, 2005, EPA published initial air quality designations for the 1997 PM2. 5 NAAQS, based on air quality monitoring data for three-year periods of 2001-2003 or 2002-2004. (70 FR 944). These designations became effective on April 5, 2005.

EPA designated the "Los AngelesSouth Coast Air Basin" area (South Coast nonattainment area), including Orange County, the southwestern twothirds ofLos Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino County, and western Riverside County as nonattainment for both the 1997 24- hour and the annual PM2.5 standards. The South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment

area ishome to about 17 million people, has a diverse economic base, and contains one ofthe highest-volume port

areas in the world. For a precise description ofthe geographic boundaries ofthe South CoastPM 2.5 nonattainment area, See40 CFR 81.305.1 The local air district with primary responsibility for developing a plan to attain the PM2. 5NAAQS in this

area isthe South CoastAir Quality Management District (District).

Ambient annual PM2.5 levels in the South Coast are among the highest recorded in the United States at 18.8 pg/m 3 for the 2007-2009 period.2 Inthe South Coast, the levels and composition

1On October 17, 2006, EPA strengthened the 24- hour PM2.5NAAQS by lowering the levelto 35pg/ M3

.At the same time, we retained the level ofthe annual PM2.5standard at 15.0 pg/m 3

. 71 FR 61144. On November 13, 2009, EPA designated areas, including the South Coast, withrespect to the revised 24-hour NAAQS. 74 FR 58688. California is

now required to submit anattainment plan for the 35 pg/m 3standards by December 14, 2012. In this preamble, all references to the PM2.5NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour PM25standards of65 pg/m 3 and annual standards
of 15 pg/m 3

.

2 See the Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) Preliminary Design Value Report dated August 26, 2010 inthe docket fortoday's action. 18.8 pg/m 3

is the highest design value in the South Coast nonattainment area. The design value is the three year average ofannual means of a single monitoring site. (See 40 CFR50 Appendix N Section 1(c)(1)). ofPM2.5 differ bygeographic location, with higher PM2.5 concentrations typically occurring in metropolitan Los Angeles and in the inland valley areas of San Bernardino and metropolitan Riverside Counties. The higher PM2.5 concentrations in Los Angeles County

are mainly due to secondary formation ofparticulates. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, pages 2-13.

II. California's State Implementation Plan Submissions to Address PM 2 .

5 Nonattainment inthe South Coast Nonattainment Area

A. California's SIPSubmittals Designation ofan area as nonattainment starts the process for a state to develop and submit to EPA a State implementation plan (SIP) under title 1,part D ofthe CAA. This SIP must include, among other things, a demonstration ofhow the NAAQS will be attained in the nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the date required bythe CAA. Under CAA section 172(b), a State has up to three years after an area's designation to nonattainment to submit its SIP to EPA. Forthe 1997 PM2. 5 NAAQS, these nonattainment SIPs were due no later than April 5, 2008.

California has made several SIP submittals to address PM2. 5 nonattainment in the South Coast nonattainment area. The two principal

ones are the District's 2007 PM2. 5Plan (SouthCoast 2007 AQMP) and the CARB's State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (2007 State Strategy).

1. 2007 South Coast AQMP

On November 28, 2007, the California Air Resources Board (CARB or State) submitted the "Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, June 2007." 3This Plan was adopted by the District onJune 1, 2007 and submitted to CARB on October 24, 2007. 4 The South Coast

3The South Coast2007 AQMP is the first South Coast Plan to address PM2 .5- We have previously acted on numerous South Coast air quality plans for
ozone, PM-10, carbon monoxide, andNO2, such as the 1997/1999 AQMP. We approved the ozone portion ofthe 1997 South Coast AQMP, as amended in 1999, on April 10, 2000 (See 65 FR 18903). Our
mostrecent action on a SIP addressing the CAA requirements forthe South Coast ozone nonattainment area was our partialapproval and partial disapproval ofthe 2003 AQMP (See 74 FR 10176, March 10, 2009). Becausethe District prepares integrated plans that address multiple pollutants, and alsocontrols VOC andNOx as precursors to PM2., we will refer to control

measures and control measure commitments from the 2003 AQMP further in this notice.

4See November 28, 2007 letterto Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, with enclosures. 

### 71295

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71295 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

2007 AQMP includes a PM2. 5 attainment demonstration for the South Coast. In order to meet relevant CAA requirements for the PM2.5NAAQS, the South Coast 2007 AQMP includes base andprojected year PM2. 5 emissions inventories for the South Coast nonattainment area; air quality monitoring data; short-, medium- and long-term District control measures; a summary ofCARB's control measures; transportation control measures (TCMs);

a demonstration ofRFP; a modeled attainment demonstration; a demonstration ofRACM/RACT; contingency measures for the 1997 PM2.5RFP and for attainment for the South Coast PM2. 5 nonattainment area; and a request to extend the attainment date for the 1997 PM2. 5NAAQS to April 5, 2015. 5 The South Coast 2007 AQMP submittal also includes District Governing Board Resolution 07-9 adopting the final South Coast 2007 AQMP. The South Coast 2007 AQMP also contains documentation ofthe District's public process, including written responses to all public
comments received.

2. 2007 State Strategy

To demonstrate attainment, the South Coast 2007 AQMP relies in part on

measures in the 2007 State Strategy. The 2007 State Strategy was adopted by CARB on September 27, 2007 and submitted to EPA on November 16,
2007.6 

### It discusses CARB's overall approach to addressing, in conjunction with local plans, attainment ofboth the 1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS
not only in the South Coast nonattainment area but also in California's other nonattainment areas such as the SanJoaquin Valley andthe Sacramento area. It also includes CARB's commitments to propose 15 defined State measures 7 and to obtain specific amounts ofaggregate emissions reductions ofdirect PM2.5,NON, VOC and SOx in the South Coast from

sources under the State's jurisdiction,

5While the attainment date for PM2.5areas with

a full five-year extension would be April 5 2015, reductions must beimplemented by 2014 to achieve attainment bythat date. See 40CFR 51.1007(b). We refer, therefore, to 2014 as the "attainment year" and April 5, 2015 as the "attainment date."

6 See CARB Resolution No. 07-28, September 27, 2007 withattachments and letter from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 16, 2007 with enclosures.

7 The 2007 State Strategy also includes measures to be implemented by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (Smog Check improvements) and the California Department ofPesticide Regulation (VOC reductions from pesticide use). See 2007 State Strategy, p. 64-65 and CARB Resolution 7-28, Attachment B, p. 8. primarily on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines. OnAugust 12, 2009, CARB submitted the "Status Report onthe State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting Implementation ofthe 2007 State Strategy", dated March 24, 2009, adopted April 24, 2009 ("2009State Strategy Status Report"),8 which updates the 2007 State Strategy to reflect its implementation during 2007 and 2008.

In today's proposal, we are evaluating only those portions ofthe 2007 State Strategy as revised in 20099that are relevant for attainment of the 1997PM 2.5 standards in the South Coast.
3.Additional SIP Submittal Related to Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (Budgets)

In addition to the SIP submittals for the 1997 PM2. 5NAAQS mentioned above, onApril 4, 2008, the District Governing Board approved an alternative approach for transportation conformity motor vehicle emission budgets for the South Coast nonattainment area. This new approach

was based on the 2007 SIP baseline emissions reflecting only the regulations adopted as of October 2006 for all milestone years up to the attainment years. The CARB Governing Board approved Resolution 08-27 itemizing the modifications to the South Coast nonattainment area transportation conformity emission budgets. The revised PM2.5motor vehicle emissions budgets were submitted as an amendment to the California SIP on April 30, 2008. We are acting on those budgets today.

B. CAA Procedural andAdministrative Requirements forSIPSubmittals
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(1) require a state to provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing priorto the adoption and submittal ofa SIP or SIP revision. To meet this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence thatadequate public notice

was given and a public hearing was held consistent with EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.

Both the District and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and

8 See CARB Resolution No. 09-34, April 24, 2009
and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 12, 2009 with enclosures. Only pages 11-27 ofthe 2009 State Strategy Status Report are submitted as a SIPrevision. Thebalance ofthe report is for informational purposes only. See Attachment A to CARB Resolution No. 09-34.

9We will alsorefer to the 2007 State Strategy as revised in 2009 as the "revised 2007 State Strategy." regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal ofthe South Coast 2007 AQMP. The District conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held public hearings prior to the adoption of the South Coast 2007 AQMP onJune 1, 2007 (District Governing Board Resolution No. 07-9). CARB provided the required public notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its September 27, 2007 public hearing

onthe plan. SeeCARB Resolution No. 07-41.

CARB conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held a public hearing prior to the adoption ofthe 2007 State Strategy on September 27, 2007. (CARB Resolution No. 07-28). CARB also provided the required public notice, opportunity for public comment, and a public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009 adoption of the 2009 State Strategy Status Report. SeeCARB Resolution 09-34, April 24, 2009.

The SIP submittals include proof of publication for notices ofthe District and CARB public hearings, as evidence that all hearings were properly noticed. We therefore find thatthe submittals
meet the procedural requirements of CAA sections 110(a) and 110(1).

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section alsoprovides that any plan that EPA has not affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete 6 months after the date of submittal by operation oflaw. EPA's SIP completeness criteria are found in40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.

The South Coast 2007 AQMP became completeby operation oflaw on May 28, 2008. The November 16, 2007 submission ofthe 2007 State Strategy and the 2009 revisions to the Strategy became complete by operation oflaw on May 16, 2008 and February 12, 2010, respectively.

III. CAA andRegulatory Requirements for PM 2.

5Attainment SIPs
EPA isimplementing the PM2. 5 NAAQS under Title 1,Part D, subpart 1ofthe CAA, which includes section 172, "Nonattainment plan provisions." Section 172(a)(2) establishes the attainment date for a PM 2.5 nonattainment area "as expeditiously as practicable" but no later than five years after the area's designation as nonattainment. This section also allows EPA to grant up to a five-year extension ofan area's attainment date based on the severity ofthe area's nonattainment and 

### 71296

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71296 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

the availability and feasibility of controls. EPA designated the South Coast as a nonattainment area effective April 5, 2005, and thus the applicable attainment date is no later thanApril 5, 2010 or, should EPA grant a full fiveyear extension, no later than April 5, 2015.

Section 172(c) contains the general statutory planning requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas, including the requirements for emissions inventories, RACM/RACT, attainment demonstrations, RFP demonstrations, and contingency

measures.

On April 25, 2007, EPA issued the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5NAAQS. 72 FR 20586, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z (PM2. 5implementation rule). The PM2.5implementation rule and its preamble address the statutory planning requirements for emissions inventories, RACM/RACT, attainment demonstrations including air quality modeling requirements, RFP demonstrations, and contingency

measures. This rule also addresses other
matters such as which PM 2.5precursors must be addressed by the State in its PM2.5 attainment SIP, applicable attainment dates, and the requirement for mid-course reviews. 10 We will discuss each ofthese CAA and regulatory requirements for attainment plans in more detail below.

1o

In June 2007, a petition to the EPA
Administrator was filed on behalf ofseveral public health and environmental groups requesting reconsideration offour provisions in the PM2. implementation rule. See EarthJustice, Petition for Reconsideration, "In the Matter ofFinal Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule," June 25, 2007. These provisions are (1) the presumption that compliance with the Clean Air Interstate Rule satisfies the NOx and SO 2 RACT requirements for electric generating units; (2) the deferral ofthe requirement to establish emission limits for condensable particulate matter (CPM) until January 1, 2011; (3) revisions to the criteria for analyzing the economic feasibility ofRACT; and (4) the use of out-of-area emissions reductions to demonstrate RFP. These provisions are found inthe PM2. 5 implementation rule and preamble at 20623-20628,
40 CFR 51.1002(c), 20619-20620, and 20636, respectively. On May 13, 2010, EPA granted the petition with respect to the fourth issue. Letter, Gina McCarthy, EPA, toDavid Baron and Paul Cort, Earthjustice, May 13, 2010. EPA is currently considering the otherissues raisedin the petition.

Neither the District nor the State relied on the first, third, orfourth ofthese provisions in preparing the South Coast 2007 AQMP or 2007 State Strategy. The District has deferred CPM limits in itsrules. EPA does notbelieve that this deferral adversely affects the Plan's RACT or expeditious attainment demonstrations. See section ILD.3 ofthe TSD for this proposal. EPA will evaluate any rule adopted or revised by theDistrict after January 1, 2011 to assure that it appropriately addresses CPM. IV. Review ofthe South Coast 2007 AQMP andthe South Coast Portion of the 2007 State Strategy

A. Summary ofEPA'sProposed Actions
EPA is proposing to approve inpart and disapprove in partthose portions of the South Coast 2007 AQMP andthose portions ofthe 2007 State Strategy as revised in 2009 specific to the 1997 PM2. 5NAAQS in the South Coast.We

are proposing to approve the baseyear and baseline emissions inventories in these SIP revisions asmeeting the applicable requirements ofthe CAA and the PM2.5implementation rule. We are also proposing to approve the District's and CARB's commitments to propose specific measures and to meet specific aggregate emissions reductions in these revisions as strengthening the SIP, as well as the District's air quality modeling demonstration as meeting the applicable requirements ofthe CAA and EPA guidance.

We are proposing to disapprove the attainment demonstration, RACM/RACT analysis, RFP demonstration, and California's request to extend the attainment date to 2015 as not meeting the applicable requirements ofthe CAA and the PM2.5implementation rule because they are dependent on the approval ofthe attainment demonstration (See 40 CFR 51.1009 and 51.1010). For the attainment demonstration, we are proposingto approve the air quality modeling, but

we are proposing to disapprove the overall demonstration because itrelies
too extensively on commitments to emissions reductions in lieu offully adopted and submitted rules. Rules that have either notbeen adopted infinal form or have not been submitted to EPA cannot be credited toward the attainment demonstration. We are proposing to disapprove the motor vehicle emissions budgets for the RFP milestone years and the attainment year, because they are derived fromRFP and attainment demonstrations which we

are proposing to disapprove. Finally, we
are proposing to disapprove the RFP and attainment contingency measures as not meeting the applicable requirements ofthe CAA and the PM2. 5 implementation rule. To the extent that the State can remedy the shortfall in emissions reductions for the attainment demonstration, which isthe basis for the proposed disapproval ofthe attainment demonstration, EPA believes that many ofthe noted deficiencies could be addressed.

EPA's analysis and findings are summarized below and are described in

more detail in the technical support document (TSD) for thisproposal, which is available on line at http:// www.regulations.gov in the docket for this proposal (EPA-R09-OAR-2009- 0366), or from the EPA contact listed at the beginning ofthisnotice.

B. EmissionsInventories
1.Requirements for Emissions Inventories

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires states to submit a "comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources ofthe relevant pollutant." The PM2.5implementation rule requires states to include direct PM2.5 emissions and emissions of all PM2.5precursors in this inventory, even ifithas determined that control of any ofthese precursors isnot necessary for expeditious attainment. 40 CFR §51.1008(a)(2) and 72 FR 20586, at 20648. Direct PM2.5includes condensable particulate matter. See 40 CFR 51.1000. PM2.5precursors are NOx, SO 2,VOC, and ammonia (NH3). A 

### Id. The inventories should meet the data requirements ofEPA's Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (codified at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A) and include any additional inventory information needed to support the SIP's attainment demonstration and (where applicable) RFP demonstration. 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1) and (2).

Abaseline emission inventory is required for the attainment demonstration and for meeting RFP requirements. As determined on the date ofdesignation, the base year for this inventory shouldbe the mostrecent calendar year for which a complete inventory was required tobe submitted
to EPA. The baseline emission inventory for calendar year 2002 or other suitable year should be used for attainment planning and RFP plans for areas initially designated nonattainment for the PM2.5NAAQS in 2005. 40 CFR 51.1008(b).

EPA has provided additional guidance for PM2. 5 emission inventories in "Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation ofOzone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulations," November 2005 (EPA-454/R-05-001).

2.Emissions Inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

The baseline planning inventories for direct PM2. 5 and all PM2.5precursors for the South Coast nonattainment area together with additional documentation for the inventories are found in

11The Districtcontrols sulfur oxides (SOx), which includes SO 2,and considers the two terms interchangeable for emissions purposes. We will

use SOx in this notice. 

### 71297

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71297 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

Appendix III ofthe South Coast 2007 AQMP. Average annual day baseline inventories are provided for the years 2002, 2005 (the reference year for the air quality modeling) and for the years 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2014. The baseline inventories incorporate reductions from federal, state, and District measures adopted prior to 2007 ("baselinemeasures"). South Coast 2007 AQMP, page 3-1. The District also provided both summer and winter planning inventories for PM 2.5 and PM2. 5precursors. South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, page III-1-23.

Table 1is a summary ofthe average annual day inventories for directlyemitted PM2 .5 andfor the PM2 .5 precursors NOx, VOC, and SOx for the baseline modeling year of 2005 and the targeted attainment year of 2014from the South Coast 2007 AQMP (derived from Appendix A, Table A-2). Itis these inventories that provide the basis forthe control measure analysis and the RFP and attainment demonstrations inthe South Coast 2007 AQMP.

TABLE 1-SOUTH COAST NONATTAINMENT AREA EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR PM 2 . 5 AND PM 2 .5 PRECURSORS FOR THE 2005 BASELINE YEAR AND 

### 2014 ATTAINMENT YEAR [Annual average day emissions in tons per day] a

NOx VOC PM 2. 5 sox NH 3 Emissions inventory category 2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014
Stationary/Areawide Sources

............................................... 87 71 259 260 58 63 22 17 75 68 On-road Mobile Sources

...................................................... 526 287 264 159 20 17 4 2 29 15 Off-road Mobile Sources

...................................................... 360 293 208 157 22 18 37 25 n/a n/a

Total

.............................................................................. 972 650 731 566 101 98 63 45 104 83

aNumbers may not add dueto rounding.

As a starting point for the South Coast 2007 AQMP's inventories, the District used CARB's 2002 base year inventory. An example ofthis inventory and CARB's documentation for its inventories can be found in Appendices A and F, respectively, ofthe 2007 State Strategy. The 2002 inventory for the South Coast nonattainment area was projected to 2005 and future years using CARB's California Emission Forecasting and Planning Inventory System (CEFIS). South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, page III1--1. Bothbase year and baseline inventories use the current version of California's mobile source emissions model approved by EPA for

use in SIPs, EMFAC2007 V2.3, for estimating on-road motor vehicle emissions. 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). Off-road inventories were developed using the CARB off-road model. Ammonia emissions estimates

were provided separately by the District. 12
3.Proposed Action on the Emission Inventories

We have reviewed the emissions inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the inventory methodologies used by the District and CARB for consistency with CAA requirements, the PM2 .5implementation rule, andEPA's guidance. We find that the base year and projected baseline year inventories are comprehensive, accurate, and current inventories of actual or projected emissions ofPM2. 5 andPM2.5precursors in the South Coast nonattainment area

12Electronic mail from Kathy Hsiao, SCAQMD to Wienke Tax,EPA Region 9, RE: NH3 numbers for SCAB, dated October 29, 2010. as ofthe date oftheir submittal. We therefore propose to approve these inventories as meeting the requirements ofCAA section 

### 172(c)(3), the PM2. 5 implementation rule and applicable EPA guidance. We provide more detail

on our review of the inventories in section II.A. ofthe TSD for this proposal.

C.ReasonablyAvailable Control Measures(RACM)/ReasonablyAvailable ControlTechnology (RACT) and Adopted ControlStrategy
1.Requirements for RACM/RACT

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan "provide for the implementation ofall reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as maybe obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, ofreasonably available control technology), and shall provide for attainment ofthe national primary ambient air quality standards." EPA defines RACM as measures that a State finds are both reasonably available and contribute to attainment as expeditiously as practicable in its nonattainment area. Thus, what constitutes RACM/RACT in a PM2. 5 attainment plan is closely tied to that plan's expeditious attainment demonstration. 40 CFR 51.1010; 72 FR 20586 at 20612. States are required to evaluate RACM/RACT for direct PM2. 5 and all ofits attainment plan precursors. 40 CFR 51.1002(c).

For PM2.5 attainment plans, EPA is requiring a combined approach to RACM and RACT under subpart 1of Part D ofthe CAA. Subpart 1,unlike subparts 2 and 4, does not identify specific source categories for which EPA
must issue control technology documents or guidelines, or identify specific source categories for State and EPA evaluation during attainment plan development. 72 FR 20586, at 20610. Rather, under subpart 1, EPA considers RACT to be part of an area's overall RACM obligation. Because ofthe variable nature ofthe PM2.5problem in different nonattainment areas, which may require States to develop attainment plans that address widely disparate circumstances, EPA determined that states should have flexibility with respect to RACT and RACM controls but also that in areas needing significant emission reductions
to attain the standards, RACT/RACM controls on smaller sources maybe necessary toreach attainment as expeditiously as practicable. 72 FR 20586, at 20612, 20615. Thus, under the PM2.5implementation rule, RACT and RACM are those reasonably available

measures that contribute to attainment

as expeditiously as practicable in the specific nonattainment area. 40 CFR 51.1010; 72 FR 20586, at 20612. Specifically, the PM2.5implementation rule requires that attainment plans include the listofmeasures the state considered and information sufficient to show thata state met allrequirements for the determination ofwhat constitutes RACM/RACT in the specific nonattainment area. 40 CFR 51.1010(a). In addition, the rule requires that the state, in determining whether a particular emissions reduction measure

or set ofmeasures mustbe adopted as 

### 71298

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71298 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

RACM/RACT, consider the cumulative impact ofimplementing the available

measures and adopt as RACM/RACT any potential measures that are reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility if,considered collectively, they would advance the attainment date by one year
ormore. Any measures that are necessary to meet these requirements that are not already either federally promulgated, part ofthe 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. 72 FR 20586, at 20614.

A more comprehensive discussion of the RACM/RACT requirement for PM 2. 5 attainment plans and EPA's guidance for it can be found in the PM 2. 5 implementation rule preamble at 20609-20633 and in section II.D. ofthe TSD for this proposal.

2.RACM/RACT Demonstration in the SIP

CARB and the District have rulemaking processes for development, adoption and implementation ofRACM/ RACT thathave been in place for decades. Many ofthe measures being implemented in California and the South Coast nonattainment area are the most stringent in the nation and are often adopted for implementation in other areas. In addition, the State and District have adopted new measures since 2002, the base year for the South Coast 2007 AQMP, and included enforceable commitments for measures that are scheduled to be adopted in the future. The RACM/RACT analysis for the South Coast 2007 AQMP includes

an evaluation ofthe State's, District's, and the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG's) new stationary, area and mobile sources
measures that havebeen adopted since the base year and those that are being committed to for adoption in the future. SeeCARB StaffReport, "Proposed 2007 State Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air Basin-PM2.5Annual Average and 8-Hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards" (September 21, 2007); South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix VI; and 2007 State Strategy, Appendix G. A more detailed discussion ofthe District, State and SCAG measures is provided below.

a. District's RACM/RACT Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy

The District's RACM/RACT analysis, which focuses on stationary and area

source controls, is described in Chapter 6 and Appendix VI ofthe South Coast 2007 AQMP. Since the 1970s, the Districthas adopted stationary source control rules that have resulted in significant improvement of air quality in the South Coast nonattainment area. When command and control rules were no longer within the limitations of economic efficiency, the Districtbegan using economic incentive approaches with programs such as the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) and the Carl Moyer program. 13While the District still relies on command and control regulations, the District's control strategies are now supplemented by market incentive and compliance flexibility approaches where appropriate. These regulations and strategies have yielded significant emissions reductions from sources under the District'sjurisdiction. In developing the South Coast 2007 AQMP, the District conducted aprocess to identify RACM for the South Coast that involved public meetings to solicit input, evaluation ofEPA suggested RACM and RACT, and evaluation of other air agencies' regulations. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix VI.

To determine which measures would be feasible for the South Coast, the District looked at measures implemented in other nonattainment areas' plans (includingthe San Joaquin Valley, the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, Ventura, Dallas-Fort Worth, the Houston-Galveston area, and by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, or LADCO), and held meetings with CARB, technical experts, local government representatives, and the public during development ofthe South Coast 2007 AQMP. The District sponsored an AQMP summit, which generated 200 potential control

measures. In addition, the District reviewed the list ofcontrol measures in EPA's PM 2.5implementation rule. The District also reevaluated all 82 District rules andregulations. The District then screened the identified measures and rejected those that affected few orno

sources in the South Coast, had already been adopted as rules, or were in the process ofbeing adopted. The remaining

measures were evaluated using baseline inventories, available control technologies, and potential emission

13The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program ("CarlMoyer Program") provides incentive grants for engines, equipment and othersources ofpollutionthat are cleaner than required, providing early or extra emission reductions. Eligible projects include cleaner on-road, off-road, marine, locomotive and stationary agricultural pump engines. Theprogram achieves near-term reductions in emissionsof NOx, PM, and VOC orreactive organic gas (ROG)which

are necessary for California tomeetits clean air commitments under the SIP. reductions as well as whether the

measure could be implemented on a schedule that would contribute to attainment of the PM2 . 5 standard assuming a 2015 deadline. South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix VI.

In general, EPA believes that the District's current rules and regulations

are equivalent to or more stringent with respect to emissions of PM 2.5 and PM 2. 5 precursors than those developed by other air districts, with a few exceptions where improvements are possible. The District is exploring several options for reducing emissions further. These include the feasibility oflowering emission limits and increasing levels of control in order topromote cleaner stationary source technologies; lowering the VOC content ofcoatings and solvents; establishing standards and test methods for generic equipment and lowering release or leak thresholds; improving leakdetection, repair, inspection and maintenance; and adding best management practices to rules.

Based on its RACM/RACT evaluation for stationary and area sources underits jurisdiction, the District developed 37 stationary source control measures that contained all measures included in other districts' AQMPs, as well as some
new innovative measures. The District determined that the few available

measures that District staffdid not include would not advance the attainment date or contribute to RFP due to the insignificant or unquantifiable emissions reductions they would potentially generate. Since submittal ofthe AQMP in 2007, the District has completed action onthe majority ofthese rules and submitted them to EPA for approval into the SIP.

From October 2002 through June 2006, the District adopted approximately 17 rules to address its commitment to achieve the reductions committed to in the 2003 AQMP for the South Coast. These rules included controls on VOC emissions from refineries and chemical plants, cocomposting operations, architectural coatings, solvent cleaning operations, oil and gasproduction wells, and livestock waste. Many of the adopted rules achieved more estimated reductions in VOC, NOx and SOx than

were expected in the 2003 AQMP. A summary ofthese rules, which are included in the baseline emissions estimates for the South Coast 2007 AQMP, is provided inTable 1-2 ofthe South Coast 2007 AQMP. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Chapter 1, Table 1- 2 and Chapter 4, page 4-6, and Table B1in Appendix B ofthe TSD for today's action. 

### 71299

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71299 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

In addition to the rules adopted for 2003 AQMP, the District has also made

new commitments in its South Coast 2007 AQMP to achieve further reductions from VOC, NOx, SOx and direct PM2. 5 sources in the South Coast Area. The District committed to adopt and submit measures that will achieve the following additional emissions reductions: 32 tpdNOx, 10 tpd VOC, 4 tpd direct PM2. 5 and 3tpd SOx 14 See CARB StaffReport on the South Coast 2007 AQMP, page ES-2 to ES-4. The District expects to meet its emissions reductions commitments for each ofthe pollutants byadopting new control

measures and programs found in the Table 4-2A ofthe South Coast 2007

14CARB uses the term ROG (reactive organic gases) where we use the term VOC. We will use the term "VOC" inthis notice to refer to both ROG and VOC. AQMP (See South Coast 2007 AQMP, page 4-10 and CARB StaffReport on South Coast 2007 AQMP, p. 18) and from additional actions summarized in the CARB Staff Report on the South Coast 2007 AQMP (SeeCARB Staff Report on South Coast 2007 AQMP, p. 17). The new control measures and additional actions are estimated to achieve more ofthe District's NOx and VOC emission reduction commitments. They include new rules to regulate lubricants, consumer products, nonRECLAIM ovens, dryers and furnaces, space heaters, facility modernizations, livestock waste, residential wood burning, commercial cooking, and continuation ofthe Carl Moyer program. The South Coast 2007 AQMP also identifies 22 measures (beyondthe new control measures and additional actions just discussed) for furtherreview which may also yield additional reductions towards the District's commitments. As discussed above, the District's commitment is to achieve the estimated total tonnage reductions ofeach pollutant because specific control

measures and actions as adopted may provide more or less reductions than estimated in the South Coast 2007 AQMP.

Finally, EPA notes that since the adoption ofthe South Coast 2007 AQMP, the Districthas already adopted and submitted several new rules that help fulfill the District's enforceable commitments for additional emission reductions ofNOx, VOC, direct PM2. 5 and SOx in the South Coast area. Tables 2 and 3below summarize the status of these new rules.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

### 71300

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71300 2010

### Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

Table 2. Status of District Short- and Intermediate-Term Control Measures Credited in South Coast 2007 AQMP Attainment Demonstration

Control Rule Title Emissions Reduction Emissions Reductions

measure No. Commitment in South Achieved'

Coast 2007 AQMP BCM-03 445 Woodburning fireplaces 1.0 tpd PM25 1.0 tpd PM25 and wood stoves Vanishing oils and rust CTS-01 1144 inhibitors 1.9 tpd VOC 2.7 tpd VOC Consumer Paint Thinners CTS-03 1143 and Multi-Purpose 2.1 tpd VOC Not yet submitted Solvents Plastic, Rubber, CTS-04 1145 Leather and Glass negligible Coatings CMB-01 1147 NOx reductions from miscellaneous sources 3.5 tpd NOx 6.2 tpd NOx CMB-02 2002 Further SOx reductions from RECLAIM 3.0 tpd SOx

FUG

- 1149 Storage Tank and 04 Pipeline Cleaning and None 1.3 tpd VOC Degassing CMB-03 1111 Further NOx reductions from space heaters 0.8 tpd NOx 0.1 tpd NOx MCS-01 1110.2 Liquid and gaseous 0.4 tpd NOx fuels

- stationary ICEs 0.3 tpd VOC NOx from industrial, 1146 institutional, & 1.6 tpdNOx commercial boilers, 0.4 tpd PM_ steam generators, and 2.0 tpd VOC
process heaters NOx from small ind, 1146.1 inst, & comm'l boilers, steam gens, and proc. Htrs

MCS-05 1127 Livestock waste 0.8 tpd VOC FLX-02 Refinery pilot program 0.7 tpd VOC, 0.4 tpd PM_

ROB-04 Carl Moyer funds 7.5 tpd NOx, 0.2 tpd 7.5 tpd NOx + 3 tpd NOx PM_ 0.2 tpd PM 2 , MOB-05 2251 AB923 LDV high emitter 0.8 tpd VOC, 0.4 tpd NOx

program MOB-06 AB923 MDV high emitter 0.5 tpd VOC, 0.5 tpd NOx
program Total achieved PM2 , reductions 1.2

Total achieved VOC reductions 4.3

Total achieved NOx reductions 14.5

From SCAMQD Rule Evaluation Forms. b The 2007 State Strategy credits the South Coast Moyer program with an additional 3 tpd of NOx. (See 2007 State Strategy, page 17).

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

TABLE 3-SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL STATUS OF DISTRICT RULES IN THE 

### 2007 PM 2 . 5 PLAN

Rule 445-Woodburning fireplaces and wood stoves

............................. Rule 1144- Vanishing oils and rust inhibitors

......................................... Rule 1143-Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi-Purpose Solvents

.......

Rule 1145-Plastic, Rubber, Leather and Glass Coatings

...................... Rule 1147-NOx reductions from miscellaneous sources
...................... Rule 2002-Further SOx reductions from RECLAIM

..............................

Rule 1111-Further NOx reductions from space heaters

....................... Rule 1110.2-Liquid and gaseous fuels-stationary ICEs

...................... Rule 1146-NOx from industrial, institutional, commercial boilers,

steam generators, and process heaters. Rule 1146.1-NOx from small industrial, institutional, commercial boilers, steam generators, and process heaters. Rule 1127- Livestock Waste

................................................................... Refinery Pilot Program
............................................................................. SIP-approved

.................................. SIP-approved

.................................. Not yet submitted-adopted 07/09/

10.
SIP-approved

.................................. SIP-approved

.................................. Not yetadopted

.............................. SIP-approved

.................................. SIP-approved

.................................. Submitted

.......................................
Submitted

.......................................
Submitted to EPA on 10/05/06

...... Not yetadopted

.............................. 74 FR 27716, 6/11/09. 75 FR 40726, 07/14/10. New rule; no previous version

approved into the SIP; District is revising rule. 75 FR 40726, 07/14/10. 75 FR 46845, 08/04/10. Most recent approval 08/29/06,

71 FR 51120. 75 FR 46845, 08/04/10. 74 FR 18995, 4/27/09. Most recent approval-04/08/02,

67 FR 16640. Most recent approval-09/06/95,

60 FR 46220. Found complete on 10/25/06. N/A. 

### 71301

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71301 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

TABLE 3-SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL STATUS OF DISTRICT RULES IN THE 

### 2007 PM 2 .5 

### PLAN-Continued

Rule 2301- Indirect Source Review

........................................................ Not yetadopted

.............................. N/A. Carl Moyer program .................................................................................. No rule associated with this meas- Ongoing.

ure. AB923 Light duty vehicle high emitter program ....................................... No rule associated with this meas- N/A.

ure. AB923 Light duty vehicle high emitter program ....................................... No rule associated with this meas- N/A.

ure.

b. CARB's RACM Analysis and Adopted EPA on goods movement activities and approval of SanJoaquin Valley PM 10 Control Strategy is implementing programs to reduce plan).

Source categories for which CARB has emissions from ship auxiliary engines, CARB developed its proposed 2007 primary responsibility for reducing locomotives, harbor craft and new cargo State Strategy after an extensive public emissions in California include most handling equipment. In addition, the consultation process to identify newiandiexting afornianud e ro State has standards for lawn and garden potential SIP measures. 1 From this new and existing on- and off-road equipment, recreational vehicles and poeta SIP mesure Fmh engines and vehicles, motor vehicle boats, and other off-road sources that process, CARB identified and fuels, and consumer products. In require newly manufactured equipment committed to propose 15 new defined addition, California has unique to be 80-98% cleaner than their measures. These measures focus on authority under CAA section 209 uncontrolled counterparts. Id.Finally, (subject to a waiver by EPA) to adopt the State has adopted many measures increasing the stringency of emissions and implement new emission standards that focus on achieving reductions from standards for a number ofengine for many categories of on-road vehicles in-use mobile sources that include more categories, fuels, and consumer and engines, and new and in-use off- stringent inspection and maintenance products. Many, ifnot most, ofthese road vehicles and engines. (I/M)or "Smog Check" requirements, measures are being proposed for

Given the need for significant truck and bus idling restrictions, and adoption for the first time anywhere in emissions reductions from mobile and various incentive programs. Since 1994 the nation. They build on CARB's

area sources to meet the NAAQS in alone, the State has taken more than 45 already comprehensive program California nonattainment areas, the rulemaking actions and achieved most described above that addresses State of California has been a leader in ofthe emissions reductions needed for emissions from all types ofmobile the development of some ofthe most attainment in the State's nonattainment sources and consumer products, stringent control measures nationwide areas. See 2007 State Strategy, pp. through both regulations and incentive for on-road and off-road mobile sources 36-40. As is noted in the 2007 State programs. See Appendix A ofthe TSD. and the fuels that power them. These Strategy, EPA has approved California's Table 4below lists the new defined standards have reduced new car mobile source program as representing measures in the 2007 State Strategy that emissions by 99 percent and new truck best available control measures. See include one measure each from the emissions by 90 percent from 2007 State Strategy, Appendix G, 69 FR California Bureau ofAutomotive Repair uncontrolled levels. 2007 State Strategy, 5412 (February 4, 2004), 69 FR 30006 and the California Department of p. 37. The State is also working with (May 26, 2004) (proposed and final Pesticide Regulation.

TABLE 4-2007 STATE STRATEGY DEFINED MEASURES SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION AND CURRENT STATUS

Defined state measure Primary area (SC Adoption year Current status and/or SJV) 

# 1__________

_________________ Smog Check Improvements

............................... Both

.............................. 2007-2008

................... Expanded Vehicle Retirement

............................ Both

.............................. 2008-2014

...................

Revisions to Reformulated Gasoline Program

...
Cleaner In-use Heavy Duty Trucks

.................... Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Other Clean

Technologies. Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels

............... B oth

..............................

B

oth

.............................. SC

................................

SC

................................

Port Truck M odernization

.................................... I SC

................................

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Locomotives. Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts

........................
Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Engines

...................... Cleaner In-Use Agricultural Equipment

.............. New Emissions Standards for Recreational

Boats.

15

Moreinformation on this public process including presentations from the workshops and 2007

.............................
2008

............................. 2007-2008

...................

Fuel: 2007, Engines:

2009. 2007-2008

................... Elements approved 75 FR 38023 (July 1,

2010). Adopted CARB June 2009; Bureau of

Automotive Repair September 2010. Approved, See 75 FR 26653 (May 2,

2010). Adopted 2008, pending revisions. Adopted December 2007.

Adopted July 2007.

Adopted December 2007 and December

2008. Both

.............................. 2007-2008

................... I In progress.

SC

................................
B

oth

.............................. SJV

............................... B

oth

.............................. 2007

.............................

2007

............................. 2009

............................. 2009-2010

................... Adopted November 2007, revised June

2010. Adopted 2007, pending revisions. In progress using incentive funds. Partial adoption, 2008; additional regulation in public review.

symposium that proceeded the adoption ofthe 2007 State Strategy can be found athttp:// www.arb.ca.gov/planninglsip/2o07sip/2OO7sip.htm. 

### 71302

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71302 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

TABLE 

### 4-2007 STATE STRATEGY DEFINED MEASURES SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION AND CURRENT STATUS

### Continued

Defined state measure Primary area (SC Adoption year Current status and/or SJV)
Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Emis- Both

.............................. By 2010

........................ Adopted November 2008.

sions Standards. Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above Ground Both

.............................. 2007

............................. Adopted June 2007.

Storage Tanks. Additional Evaporative Emissions Standards

..... Both

.............................. By 2010

........................ Partial adoption, 2008. Consumer Products Program (I& II)

.................. Both

.............................. 2008 & 2010-2012

...... Phase I-Approved 74 FR 57074 (November 4, 2009). Department of Pesticide Regulation

................... SJV................. 2008

............................. Adopted 2008, amended 2009.

SC = South Coast nonattainment area; SJV = San Joaquin Valley. Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 23 (footnotes in original not included).

Appendix A ofthe TSD includes a list ofall measures adopted by GARB between 1990 and the beginning of 2007. These measures, reductions from which are reflected in the South Coast 2007 AQMP's baseline inventories, fall into two categories: Measures that are subject to a waiver ofFederal preemption under CAA section 209 ("section 209 waiver measures" or "waiver measures") and those for which the State is not required to obtain a waiver ("non-waiver measures"). Emissions reductions from waiver

measures are fully creditable in attainment and RFP demonstrations and may be used to meet other CAA requirements, such as contingency

measures. See EPA's proposed approval ofthe San Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone plan at 74 FR 33933, 33938 (July14, 2009) and final approval at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010). The State's baseline non-waiver measures have generally all been approved by EPA into the SIP and as such are fully creditable formeeting CAA requirements.

In addition to the State's commitments to propose defined new measures, the 2007 State Strategy includes enforceable commitments for direct PM2.5,NOx, VOC, and SOx emissions reductions from mobile

source categories that are that are crucial for attainment ofthe PM 2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment area. For the South Coast nonattainment area, the revised 2007 State Strategy includes State commitments to achieve 152 tpd of NOx, 46 tpd ofVOC, 9 tpd ofdirect PM2 . 5 ,and 20 tpd ofSOx (See 2007 State Strategy, p. 63 and CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B, p. 6). The 2007 State Strategy indicates that the State expects to achieve these emission reductions in the South Coast nonattainment area by the projected attainment year of 2014 from the

measures listed in Table 4 or other

TABLE 5-EXPECTED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM DEFINED MEASURES IN THE COAST (2014 TONS PER DAY) similar measures. In the 2007 State Strategy, CARB provides an estimated emissions reduction for each measure to show that, when considered together, these measures can meet the total commitment. CARB states, however, that its enforceable commitment is to achieve the aggregate emissions reductions for each pollutant by the given dates and not for a specific level ofreductions from any specific measure. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 58. A summary ofthe estimates from the proposed measures is provided inTable 5below.

As mentioned above, CARB's commitment is also to propose specific

new measures that are identified and defined in the 2007 Strategy State. See 2007 State Strategy, pp. 64-65 and 2009 State Strategy revisions, pp. 22-23. Table 5below lists these defined

measures. As shown in this table, the State has adopted many ofthe measures.

2007 STATE STRATEGY FOR THE SOUTH

Measure 2014 NOx 2014 VOC 2014 Direct 2014 SOx PM 2.

5 Smog Check Improvements (BAR) [partial]

.................................................... 2.0 4.1

........................ ........................ Modifications to Reformulated Gasoline Program

.................................................................... 4.4

................................................. Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks

................................................................. 59.7 5.0 3.5

........................ Ship Auxiliary Engine Cold Ironing & Clean Technology

................................ 25.4 0.1 0.5 0.3 Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuel [fuel portion only]

................................. 1.3

........................ 1.9 17.0 Clean U p Existing H arbor Craft

....................................................................... 2.4 0.1 0.1

........................ Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment (>25hp)

................................................ 10.5 2.7 2.6

........................ Consumer Products Program [partial]

............................................................. ........................ 1.8

........................ ........................
T

otals

............................................................................................................... 101.3 18.2 8.6 17.3

Source: 2009 CARB Staff Report on the State Strategy, p. 5. Only defined measures with reductions in the South Coast nonattainment area are shown here.

c. The Local Jurisdiction's RACM Analysis

The localjurisdiction's RACM analysis was conducted by the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the South Coast region, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). This analysis, which focused on transportation control

measures (TCMs), and itsresults are described in Appendix IV-C ofthe South Coast 2007 AQMP. The TCMs in the South Coast 2007 AQMP are derived from TCM projects in the 2006 SCAG Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). This evaluation, describedbeginning on page 49 of Appendix IV-C ofthe South Coast 2007 AQMP, resulted in extensive local government commitments to implement 

### 71303

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71303 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

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 ofTCMs in process and newly programmed TCMs. The enforceable commitment from SCAG and the transportation agencies was to fund and implement projects in the first two years ofthe 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).

3.Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT and Adopted Control Strategy

Under the PM2. 5implementation rule, RACM/RACT are the set ofmeasures necessary for expeditious attainment. The measures must address emissions of PM2.5 and allPM2.5 attainment plan precursors that are necessary to result in such expeditious attainment. In order for aPM2. 5plan to demonstrate that it provides for RACM/RACT, itmust also demonstrate that it provides for expeditious attainment. 72 FR 20586, p. 20612-20623. As discussed further below in section D.5., we are proposing
to disapprove the PM2.5 attainment demonstration for the South Coast nonattainment area because itrelies too heavily on commitments to reduce emissions in lieu offully adopted

measures. Absent an approvable attainment demonstration, we are unable topropose to approve and must instead propose to disapprove the AQMP's RACM/RACT demonstration. It appears, however, that the District, State and local jurisdictions have identified and otherwise provided for the implementation ofa comprehensive set ofmeasures that are among the most stringent in the nation and, should the State correct the deficiencies in the attainment demonstration, we expect to be able topropose to approve the plan's RACM/RACT demonstration.

Because they will strengthen the California SIP, we are proposing to approve the District's commitments to the adoption and implementation schedule for specific control measures given in Table 7-3 in the South Coast 2007 AQMP, to the extent that these commitments have not yet been fulfilled, and to achieve specific aggregate emissions reductions ofdirect PM2.5, NOx, VOC, and 

### Sexby specific years as given in Table 4-10 ofthe South Coast 2007 AQMP.

We are also proposing to approve, as
a SIP strengthening measure, CARB's commitments to propose certain defined
measures, as given on page 23 ofthe 2009 State Strategy Status Report, to achieve aggregate emissions reductions of 152 tpd NOx, 46 tpd VOC, 9 tpd PM2. 5,and 20 tpd SOx in the South Coast by 2014.

D.AttainmentDemonstration

1.Requirements for Attainment Demonstrations

CAA section 172 requires a State to submit a plan for each ofits nonattainment areas that demonstrates attainment ofthe applicable ambient air quality standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the specified attainment date. Under the PM2. 5implementation rule, this demonstration should consist offour parts: (1)Technical analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of emissions that are contributing to violations ofthe PM 2.5NAAQS; (2) analyses of future year emissions reductions and air quality improvement resulting from already-adopted national, State, and local programs and from potential new State and local measures to meet the RACT, RACM, and RFP requirements in the area; (3) adopted emissions reduction

measures with schedules for implementation; and (4) contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) ofthe CAA. See40 CFR 51.1007; 72 FR 20586, at 20605.

The requirements for the first two parts are described inthe sections on emissions inventories and RACM/RACT above and in the sections on air quality modeling, PM2. 5precursors, extension of attainment date, and attainment demonstrations that follow immediately below. Requirements for the third and fourth parts are described in the sections on the control strategy and the contingency measures, respectively.

2.Air Quality Modeling in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

The procedures for modeling attainment ofthe PM2. 5NAAQS as part of an attainment SIP are contained in EPA's "Guidance on the Use ofModels and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment ofAir Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5NAAQS and Regional Haze." 16 Abriefdescription of the modeling used to support South Coast's attainment demonstration follows. For more detailed information about the modeling, please refer to the TSD associated with this rulemaking, which canbe foundin the docket for today's action.

16The guidance is available athttp:// www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance sip.htmand in the docket for today's action. Air quality modeling is usedto establish emission attainment targets, a combination ofemissions ofPM2. 5 and PM2.5precursors that the nonattainment

area can accommodate without exceeding the NAAQS, and to assess whether the proposed control strategy will result in attainment ofthe NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. Air quality modeling is performed for a base year and compared to air quality monitoring data to determine model performance. Once the performance is determined to be acceptable, future year emission inventory changes are simulated to determine the relationship between emission reductions and changes in ambient air quality throughout the nonattainment area.

The attainment demonstration for the South Coast nonattainment area isbased

on the CAMx model using the "one atmosphere" approach comprised ofthe carbon bond IV (CB-IV)gas phased chemistry and a static two-mode particle size aerosol.17 CAMx annual average PM2.5modeling simulations

were generated for 2005 and 2014 baseline emissions scenarios and for a 2014 controlled emissions scenario by the District. District staffcompared the base year model output to speciated particulate data measured in 2005 as part ofthe Multiple AirToxics III (MATES-III) program. Model specifications, such as boundary conditions, domain size, and resolution,
meet EPA criteria and are discussed in the TSD. Model performance for total

mass (the sum ofspecific individual species), as well as specific individual species, is adequate and is discussed in the TSD.

The District's attainment analysis follows EPA's guideline technique of applying component-specific relative response factors (RRF) to monitored data throughout the South Coast nonattainment area. A RRF is the ratio ofthe model's future to current (baseline)predictions at a monitor. Future PM2.5 concentrations are estimated at existing monitoring sites by multiplying a modeled RRF at the grid cell locations ofeach monitor bythe observation-based, monitor-specific, "baseline" design value. A separate RRF is calculated for each ofthe PM2. 5 precursors. Future PM2.5 design values

were estimated by District staffat existing monitoring sites throughout the South Coast nonattainment area by multiplying modeled RRFs for each

17CAMx is the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions, anEulerian photochemical dispersion model that allows for integrated "oneatmosphere" assessments ofgaseous and particulate air pollution (ozone, PM2.5,PM10, airtoxics) over many scales ranging from sub-urban to continental. 

### 71304

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71304 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

monitor times the observed "component-specific design value". The future PM2.5 design values were then compared to the annual and 24-hour NAAQS to demonstrate attainment at each site. The maximum 2014 predicted 24-hour PM2. 5 design value at any site is 56.6 pg/m3; this islower than the 24- hour PM2. 5NAAQS at65 pg/ms. The maximum 2014 predicted PM2. 5 annual design value is 15.0 pg/m3; a predicted designvalue of 15.04 pg/ms or loweris considered modeled attainment ofthe annual standard.

EPA guidance also recommends the

use ofsupplemental data analyses to support the air quality modeling. The District used air quality trends and emission inventory trends as "weight of evidence" to support the air quality modeling for the attainment demonstration.

The District used its air quality modeling to establish emissions reduction targets tobe used in developing the control strategy for the nonattainment SIP. Once a proposed control strategy was developed, the District then used the photochemical modeling to verify that the projected emissions reductions would result in attainment ofthe 1997 PM2.5 standards throughout the South Coast nonattainment area by the target attainment date of 2014. The estimated carrying capacities for the South Coast nonattainment area are included in Table 7.1819

We are proposing to approve the air quality modeling demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP as meeting the requirements ofthe CAA andEPA guidance. We provide further discussion in the TSD.

TABLE 6-EMISSIONS CARRYING CAPACITY ESTIMATES FOR THE SOUTH COAST NONATTAINMENT AREA FOR PM 2.5 ATTAINMENT [Tons/day, based on planning inventory]

PM 2. 5 NOx SOx VOC

87 454 19 469

18

"Carrying capacity" is defined as the maximum
level ofemissions that enable the attainment and maintenance ofan ambient air quality standard for

a pollutant. (See South Coast 2007 AQMP, page 5- 27.)

19

The CARB StaffReport for the South Coast 2007 AQMP presents a slightly different emissions carrying capacity which relies more heavily on reductions of primaryPM2.5and less heavily on reductions of precursors to PM2.5.The StaffReport's emission carrying capacity estimates are PM2.- 86 tons/day, NOx--460 tons/day, SOx-20 tons/day, and VOC-474 tons/day (See CARB Staff Report on the South Coast AQMP, page ES-3). 3. PM2.5 Precursors Addressed in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

EPA recognizes NOx, SO 2, VOCs, and ammonia as the main precursor gases associated with the formation of secondary PM2.5 in the ambient air. These gas-phase PM2. 5 precursors undergo chemical reactions inthe atmosphere to form secondary particulate matter. Formation of secondary PM2. 5 depends onnumerous factors including the concentrations of precursors; the concentrations ofother gaseous reactive species; atmospheric conditions including solar radiation, temperature, and relative humidity; and the interactions ofprecursors with preexisting particles and with cloud or fog droplets. 72 FR 20586, at 20589.

As discussed previously, a state must submit emissions inventories for each of the fourPM2. 5 precursor pollutants. 72 FR 20586, at 20589 and 40 CFR §51.1008(a)(1). However, the overall contribution of different precursors to PM2. 5 formation andthe effectiveness of alternative potential control measures will vary by area. Thus, the precursors that a state should regulate to attain the PM2. 5 NAAQS could also vary to some extent from area to area. 72 FR 20586, at 20589.

In the PM2. 5 implementation rule, EPA did not make afinding that all potential PM2. 5 precursors must be controlled in each specific nonattainment area. See 72 FR 20586, at 20589. Instead, for the reasons explained in the rule, a state must evaluate control measures for sources of SO2 in addition to sources of direct PM2. 5 in allnonattainment areas. 40 CFR §51.1002(c) and (c)(1). A state must also evaluate control measures for sources of NOx unless the State and/or EPA determine that control ofNOx emissions would not significantly reduce PM2. 5 concentrations in the specific nonattainment area. Id. at40 CFR 51.1002(c)(2). EPA has determined in the PM2. 5 implementation rule that
states do not need to address VOC and ammonia in an area unless the state and/or EPA determine that controls on such sources would significantly contribute to reducing PM2. 5 concentrations in the nonattainment

area. Id. at 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3) and (4). "Significantly contributes" in this
context means that a significant reduction in emissions of the precursor from sources in the area wouldbe projected to provide a significant reduction in PM2. 5 concentrations in the

area. 72 FR 20586, at 20590.

In the South Coast nonattainment
area, PM2. 5 canbe directly emitted, such

as from road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, and other sources ("primaryparticles"), orformed through atmospheric chemical reactions of precursor chemicals ("secondary particles"). Examples ofsecondary particles include sulfates, nitrates, and complex carbon compounds formed from reactions ofNOx, SOx, VOCs, and ammonia. The attainment demonstration for the South Coast PM2. 5 nonattainment area addresses ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate because they represent a dominant fraction ofPM2. 5 components in this area and are formed through secondary reactions ofthe precursors NOx, SOx, VOC and ammonia. The District's analysis indicates that SOx reductions followed by directly-emitted PM2. 5 and NOx reductions provide the greatest ambient PM2. 5 reductions. VOC reductions can also contribute to improving ambient PM2. 5 concentrations and will occur concurrently as a result ofDistrict's 8-hour ozone strategy. 2 0 Starting in 2011, the PM2. 5 implementation rule requires that states must also address condensable particulate matter (CPM), including estimates ofCPM in emissions inventories, modeling, and control strategies.
4. Extension ofthe Attainment Date

CAA section 172(a)(2) provides that

an area's attainment date "shall be the date by which attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5years from the date such area was designated nonattainment * * *,except thatthe Administrator may extend the attainment date to the extent the Administrator determines appropriate, for aperiod nogreater than 10years from the date ofdesignation as nonattainment considering the severity ofnonattainment and the availability and feasibility ofpollution control measures."

Because the effective date of designations for the 1997 PM2.5 standards was April 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), the initial attainment date for PM2. 5 nonattainment areas is as expeditiously

as practicable but not later than April 5, 2010. For any areas that are granted a full five-year attainment date extension under section 172, the attainment date would be no later than April 5, 2015.

Section 51.1004 ofthe PM2.5 implementation rule addresses the attainment date requirement. Section 51.1004(b) requires a State to submit an

20See page 5-17 ofChapter 5 ofthe South Coast 2007 AQMP. We approved the South Coast RACT SIP on December 18, 2008 (See 73 FR 76947) as complying with the relevant CAArequirements for RACT SIPs for 8-hour ozone. 

### 71305

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71305 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

attainment demonstration justifying its proposed attainment date and provides that EPA will approve an attainment date when we approve that demonstration. Thus, the selection of the attainment date is dependent upon

a demonstration showing expeditious attainment, and likewise dependent upon proper evaluation of what constitutes RACM/RACT level controls in the area.

States that request an extension ofthe attainment date under CAA section 172(a)(2) must provide sufficient information to show thatattainment by April 5, 2010 is impracticable due to the severity ofthe nonattainment problem in the area and the lack of available and feasible control measures to provide for faster attainment. 40 CFR 51.1004(b). States must also demonstrate that all RACM and RACT for the area arebeing implemented to bring about attainment ofthe standard by the most expeditious alternative date practicable for the area. 72 FR 20586, at 20601. Thus, the proper evaluation ofRACM/RACT controls is

an integral part ofjustifying an extension ofthe attainment date.

For urban areas nationwide, the South Coast nonattainment area has the second highest average annual mean
PM2.5 concentration (ranking only behind the San Joaquin Valley in California for the 1997 PM2.5 standards).

PM2.5 concentrations recorded over the last few years at the Riverside andMira Loma monitoring sites continue to read well above the 1997 PM2. 5 NAAQS.21 The PM2.5problem in the South Coast is complex, caused byboth direct PM2. 5 and secondary PM2.5, and compounded by the topographical and meteorological conditions for the area that are very conducive to the formation and concentration ofPM2. 5particles. South Coast 2007 AQMP, Chapter 4.

As discussed in section IV.C.3. above, the District's strategy for attaining the PM2.5 standard relies on reductions of directly-emitted PM2. 5 aswell as the

PM2.5 precursor pollutants NOx,VOC, and SOx. The South Coast nonattainment area needs significant 

### reductions in PM 2.5,NOx, VOC, 

### and SOx to demonstrate attainment. EPA believes that further reduction ofthese pollutants is challenging, because the State and local air pollution regulations already in place include most ofthe 

### readily available PM 2. 5,NOx,VOC, 

### and SOx control measures. Moreover, attainment in the South Coast nonattainment area must also mitigate the emissions increases associated with the projected increases in population and emissions levels for this highgrowth area.

The direct PM2. 5reductions are achieved primarily from open burning and residential wood combustion control measures. These types ofcontrol

measures present special implementation challenges (e.g., the large number ofindividuals subject to regulation and the difficulty of applying conventional technological control solutions). NOx reductions come largely from District rules for fuel combustion
sources, and from the State's mobile

source rules. VOC reductions come from District rules governing the petroleum industry, as well as consumer products rules atboth the State and local level. SOx reductions identified inthe plan

come from District rules such as RECLAIM, and State measures related to ships.

Because ofthe necessity ofobtaining additional emissions reductions from these source categories in the South Coast nonattainment area and the need
to conduct significant public outreach if applicable control approaches are to be effective, EPA agrees with the District and CARB that the South Coast 2007 AQMP reflects expeditious implementation ofthe programs during the 2008-2014 time frame. EPA also agrees that the implementation schedule for enhanced stationary source controls is expeditious, taking into account the time necessary for purchase and installation ofthe required control technologies. Finally, we believe that it is not feasible at this timeto accelerate the emission reduction schedule for the State and Federal mobile source requirements, which set aggressive compliance dates for new emission standards and which must rely on fleet
turnover over the years to deliver the ultimate emission reductions. The District's control strategies are discussed in greater detail inChapter 4 ofthe South Coast 2007 AQMP, and in section IV.C.2 above.

In addition, the State has adopted standards for many categories ofon-road and off-road vehicles and engines, and gasoline and diesel fuels, and included commitments to develop rules for Smog Check Improvements, Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks, SIP Auxiliary Engines Cold Ironing and Clean Technology, Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuel, Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment. EPA believes that the District and State are implementing these rules and programs as expeditiously as practicable. We anticipate that the District will reevaluate this conclusion after completion ofthe mid-course review ofthe nonattainment SIP for this
area, due in April 2011. EPA also expects that CARB and the District will continue to investigate opportunities to accelerate progress as new control opportunities arise, and that the agencies will promptly adopt and expeditiously implement any new
measures found tobe feasible in the future.

As discussed in section IV.C.6 above, however, we are not in a position atthis time to approve, and therefore are proposing to disapprove, the RACM/ RACT demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP because we cannot approve the attainment demonstration. As stated in the PM2.5 implementation rule, EPA
cannot grant an extension ofthe attainment date beyond the initial five years provided by section 172(a)(2)(A) if the State has not adequately considered and evaluated the implementation of RACM and RACT for this area. (See 72 FR 20586, at 20601) Giventhe severity ofthe PM2. 5 nonattainment problem in the South Coast nonattainment area and the substantial progress the Districthas made to adopt and implement reduction strategies, an extension ofthe attainment date would mostlikely be appropriate and approvable ifitwere supported bythe necessary analysis and

a part of an attainment plan that meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
5.Attainment Demonstration

Table 7below summarizes the

measures that are relied upon in the South Coast 2007 AQMP'sPM 2.5 attainment demonstration to achieve the target emissions estimates shown in Table 7.The District and State reduction levels reflect an agreement between CARB, the District, and SCAG which provides for more NOx reductions than

were identified as necessary for attainment in the South Coast 2007 AQMP. SeeCARB StaffReport for South Coast 2007 AQMP, ES-1, ES-3; November 28, 2007 letter to Wayne Nastri, EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator, Enclosure VI, CARB Resolution 07-41, adopting the 2007 South Coast nonattainment area revisions to the California SIP, September 27, 2007.

21 See footnote 3. 

### 71306

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71306 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

TABLE 7-SUMMARY OF MEASURES NEEDED FOR SOUTH COAST'S PM 2 . 5 ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION [tpd]

NOx VOC PM 2.5 sox

A. 2006 baseline (2007 State Strategy, p. 33)

................................................................ 972 732 101 63 B. 2014 baseline (ARB Staff Report for South Coast 2007 AQMP)

............................... 654 528 102 43 C. 2014 Attainment target (ARB staff Report for South Coast 2007 AQMP)

................. 460 474 86 20
D.Reductions needed from "new" measures (B minus C)

............................................ 194 54 16 23 E.Total reductions needed by 2014 (A minus C)

........................................................... 512 258 16 43 F. Reductions from "baseline" (pre-2007 measures) (A minus B)

................................. 318 204 0 20 G

. N ew local/AQMD reductions

....................................................................................... 28 10 4 3 H

. N ew State reductions

.................................................................................................. 152 46 9 20
I.

Fe

d

eralred u

ctio n

s ........................................................................................................ 10

.................... ..................... . ...... . . . . . . J. Additional local/AQMD reductions

............................................................................... 4

............... . .................... K. Total "new" reductions (G+H+I+J)

.............................................................................. 194 56 16 23
L.

Total reductions (F+ K)

................................................................................................. 512 260 16 43
Source: CARB staff report on the South Coast 2007 AQMP, 2009 State Strategy Status Report.

As shown in Table 7,the majority of emissions reductions the State projects

are needed for PM 2 .5 attainment in the South Coast nonattainment area by 2015

come frombaseline reductions, i.e., from adopted measures thathave generally been approved by EPA either through the SIP or the CAA section 209 waiver process. See Appendices A and B ofthe TSD.The remaining reductions needed for attainment are to be achieved through the District's and CARB's commitments to reduce emissions inthe South Coast and from a federal assignment which EPA cannot approve,
as discussed below. Since the submittal ofthe South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, the District and CARB have already adopted measures (summarized in Table 8 below) that can be credited toward reducing their aggregate emissions reduction in their enforceable commitments. Forthe State, adopted waiver measures 22 or EPAapproved measures since 2007 (Ship Auxiliary Engine Cold Ironing &Clean Technology; Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft; Modifications to Reformulated Gasoline Program-Phase 3; Consumer Products Program I) reduced emissions by 27.8 tpd ofNOx, 6.4 tpd ofVOC, 0.6 tpd ofPM 2.5 and 0.3 of

### SOx (SeeTable 8 for a summary ofthese reductions). Emissions reductions from District

measures approved by EPA since 2007 include 14.5 tpd ofNOx, 4.3 tpd of VOC, and 1.2 tpd ofPM 2.5.

TABLE 8-SUMMARY OF ENFORCEABLE COMMITMENTS IN THE SOUTH COAST 

### 2007 AQMP FOR PM 2 .5 ATTAINMENT IN 

### 2014

2014 NOx 2014 VOC 2014 PM 2. 5 2014 SOx

State Strategy Commitment (tpd)

............................................................................................ 152

........ 46

............ 9 23

........... 20

. Less Reductions from Adopted Waiver Measures or EPA-approved measures Since 2007 27.8 tpd

... 6.4 tpd

..... 0.6 tpd

..... 0.3 tpd.

(Ship Auxiliary Engine Cold Ironing & Clean Technology; Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft; Modifications to Reformulated Gasoline Program-Phase 3; Consumer Products Program 1)a. Remaining S tate Commitment

................................................................................................. 124.2

....... 39.6

......... 8.4

........... 19.7

. District Commitment

................................................................................................................. 32

......... 10

.... . ... 4

.......... 3. Less reductions from EPA approved District measures since 2007

....................................... 14.5

......... 4.3

........... 1.2

........... 0. Remaining D istrict Commitment

.............................................................................................. 17.5

......... 5.7

........ 2.8

........ 3. Missing 3 tpd PM2.5 (Seefootnote 23)

.................................................................................... ................... .................. 3

............... Total remaining commitment (tpd)b

......................................................................................... 151.7

....... 45.3

.......... 14.2

.......... 22.7. Total remaining commitment (%) (compared to Line Eof Table 7 above)

............................. 30%

......... 18%

......... 89% °

....... 153%.

a Reductions from other adopted measures listed in the revised 2007 State Strategy on p. 5 (South Coast 2014) are not creditable in reducing the enforceable commitment because they have either not been submitted to EPA or approved (or proposed for approval) into the SIP. These
measures include the Smog Check Improvements (to be adopted by the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR)), Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks, Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment, and Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuel. See 2009 State Strategy revisions, p. 5.

bIncludesfederal assignment of 10 tpd NOx. I Seefootnote 23. This percentage assumes that total direct PM 2.5 reductions needed for attainment is 16 tpd, as indicated in Table 7.

a. Enforceable Commitments

As stated and shown above, measures already adopted by the District and CARB (bothprior to and pursuant to the South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised 2007 State Strategy) provide the

22EPA allows emission reduction credit for

measures that are subject to the CAA section 209
process. See EPA's proposed approval ofthe San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan at 74 FR 33933, 33938 (July 14, 2009). The State's baseline nonmajority ofemission reductions needed
to demonstrate attainment in the nonattainment SIP as designed for this

area. The balance ofthe needed reductions is in the form ofenforceable commitments by CARB. This approach

waiver measures have generally all been approved by EPA into the SIP. See TSD,Appendix A.

2 3The 2007 State Strategy identifies 9tpd of directly-emitted PM2 .5as the aggregate State commitment by the 2015 attainment date (See 2009 State Strategy Status Report, page 20) butthe CARB is consistent with past practice because the CAA allows approval ofenforceable commitments that are limited in scope where circumstances existthat warrant the use of such commitments in place

staffreport for the South Coast 2007 AQMP indicates a 12 tpd commitment. (See 2007 staff report, pageES-3) Itis unclear whether the State's commitment is for 9tpd PM2.5 or 12 tpdof direct PM2. 5. 

### 71307

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71307 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

ofadopted measures. 24 Once EPA determines thatcircumstances warrant consideration of an enforceable commitment, EPA considers three factors in determining whether to approve the CAA requirement that relies

onthe enforceable commitment: (a) Does the commitment address a limited portion ofthe CAA requirement; (b) is the State capable offulfilling its commitment; and (c) is the commitment for areasonable and appropriate period oftime.25

We believe that, in acting onthe South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised 2007 State Strategy, circumstances
warrant the consideration ofenforceable commitments as part ofthe attainment demonstrations for this area. As shown in Table 8 above, the majority of emission reductions needed to demonstrate attainment and all ofthe emission reductions needed to demonstrate RFP come from rules and regulations that were adopted priorto the AQMP's submittal in November 2007, i.e., they come from the baseline

measures.

As a result ofthese already-adopted State and District efforts, most sources

24Commitments approvedby EPA under section 110(k)(3) ofthe CAA areenforceable by EPA and citizens under, respectively, sections 113 and 304 ofthe CAA. In the past, EPA has approved enforceable commitments and courts have enforced these actions against states that failed to comply with those commitments: See, e.g.,AmericanLung 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. StateDept.of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens fora BetterEnv'tv. Deukmejian,731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for CleanAirv. South Coast Air Quality Mgt.Dist., No. CV 97-6916-HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999). Further, ifa state fails to meet its commitments, EPA could make a finding offailure to implement the SIPunder CAA Section 179(a), which starts an 18-month period for the State to correct the nonimplementation before mandatory sanctions are imposed.

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) provides that each SIP "shall include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques * * *

as well as schedules and timetables for compliance,

as maybe necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirement ofthe Act." Section 172(c)(6) ofthe Act, which applies to nonattainment SIPs, is virtually identical to section 110(a)(2)(A). The language in these sections of the CAA is quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any "means ortechniques" that EPA determines are "necessary or appropriate" to meet CAA requirements, such that the area will attain as expeditiously as practicable, butno later than the designated date. Furthermore, the express allowance for "schedules and timetables" demonstrates that Congress understood that all required controls might nothave to be in place before a SIP could be fully approved.

25The U.S. Court ofAppeals forthe Fifth Circuit upheld EPA's interpretation ofCAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and the Agency's use and application ofthe three factor test inapproving enforceable commitments in the 1-hour ozone SIP for Houston-Galveston. BCCAAppeal Groupet al.

v. EPA et aL., 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003). in the South Coastnonattainment area
were already subject to stringent rules prior to the development ofthe 2007 State Strategy and the South Coast 2007 AQMP, leaving fewer and more technologically challenging opportunities to reduce emissions. In the South Coast 2007 AQMP andthe revised 2007 State Strategy, the District and CARB identified potential control

measures that could achieve the additional emissions reductions needed for attainment (SeeCARB StaffReport

on South Coast 2007 AQMP, pp. 17-20, and revised 2007 State Strategy, p. 17). However, the timeline needed to develop, adopt, and implement these

measures went well beyond November 28, 2007, the submittal date ofthe South Coast's attainment plan. As discussed above andbelow, since 2007, the State and District have made progress meeting their commitments, but have not completely fulfilled them. Given these circumstances, the reliance on enforceable commitments in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy is warranted. We now consider the three factors EPA uses to determine whether enforceable commitments in lieu ofadopted measures are approvable.
i. The Commitments Do Not Represent

a Limited Portion ofRequired Reductions

First, we lookto see ifthe commitment addresses a limited portion of a statutory requirement, such as the
amount ofemissions reductions needed in anonattainment area. The remaining portion ofthe enforceable commitments in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the revised 2007 State Strategy are 141.7 tpd NO,, 45.3 tpd VOC, 11.2 tpd direct PM2. 5 and 22.7 tpd SOx. When compared to the State's current estimate ofthe emissions reductions needed for PM2. 5 attainment in 2014, the remaining portion ofthe enforceable commitments represent approximately 30% ofthe needed NON reductions, 18% ofthe needed VOC reductions, 89% ofthe needed PM2.5reductions and 53% ofthe needed SOx reductions. Historically, EPA has generally approved nonattainment area SIPs with enforceable commitments in the range of 10% or less of the total needed emissions reductions. See, e.g., approval ofthe San Joaquin Valley PM-10 SIP at 69 30005 (May 26, 2004), approval of the SanJoaquin 1-hour ozone plan at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010), and approval ofthe Houston-Galveston ozone SIP at 66 FR 57160, 57161 (November 14, 2001).

We note that there are significant emissions reductions tied to the Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks measure, and the Cleaner Main Ship Engines andFuel

measure listed in the 2009 State Strategy Status Report, page 5.EPA understands that the State is working on adopting and submitting these measures for EPA approval. Itis possible that the reductions from these measures and several outstanding District rules will reduce the percentage ofthe remaining portion ofthe emissions reductions attributed to enforceable commitments to below 10% ofthe totalneeded reductions for each of the pollutants. However, until these (or other)measures
are adopted, submitted to EPA and approved (as necessary), we believe that the percentages ofenforceable commitments for NOx, VOC, direct PM2.5 and 

### SOx, relied upon by the South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised 2007 State Strategy are too high and not

a limited portion ofthe total emissions reductions needed to meet the statutory requirement for attainment in the South Coast nonattainment area. ii. The State is Capable ofFulfilling Its Commitment

The second factor to consider for enforceable commitments is whether the State and District are capable of fulfilling their commitments. As discussed above, following the adoption and submittal ofthe 2007 State Strategy, CARB adopted and submitted the 2009 State Strategy Status Report which shows the State's progress in achieving its enforceable commitments forthe South Coast and several other nonattainment areas in California. The revised 2007 State Strategy shows that during 2007 and 2008, the State adopted rules for 10 control measures identified in the 2007 State Strategy and 3 control

measures that were not identified in the 2007 State Strategy that will contribute
to the needed PM2.5reductions. See 2009 Status Report on State Strategy, p. 1,Highlights. While progress has been made by the State to achieve its enforceable commitments for reductions ofNOx, VOC, direct PM2.5 and 

### SOx, there are still significant reductions that
must be addressed in order to satisfy the commitments. As discussed above, the remaining portion ofthe enforceable commitments is anywhere from 18-89% for the relevant pollutants. The revised 2007 State Strategy includes a table with estimates ofthe measures that may fulfill the whole commitment. See 2009 Status Report on State Strategy, p. 17. While the percentage ofremaining commitments is too high for EPA to accept as part of an approvable attainment demonstration, EPA believes that the State and District have made good progress in meeting their 

### 71308

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71308 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

enforceable commitments in the past. Given the evidence of the State's and District's efforts to date and their continuing program to adopt controls,

we believe that the State and District are capable ofmeeting their enforceable commitments to achieve the necessary reductions in the South Coast nonattainment area by 2014.
iii. The Commitment Is for aReasonable and Appropriate Timeframe

Finally, the third factor we consider is whether the commitment is for a reasonable and appropriate period of time. In order to meet the commitment to achieve the needed reductions by 2014, the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy projected an ambitious rule development, adoption, and implementation schedule. EPA considers this projected schedule as providing sufficient timeto achieve the committed reductions by 2014. As we noted previously, many ofthe scheduled measures have been adopted. SeeTables 2, 3, 5 and 6 above and the 2009 State Strategy Status Report, pp. 4, 17 &23. The State and District are continuing to evaluate their adopted

measures and the need for additional emissions reductions from new
measures in this area. SeeDistrict Board Resolution 07-9 and the 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 24. While we believe the State and District have provided a reasonable and appropriate schedule for achieving their commitments by 2014, as discussed above, EPA isnot proposing to approve the attainment date extension for the South Coast nonattainment area. Thus

we cannot currently conclude that the third factor is satisfied.
b. Federal Reductions

As shown in Table 7,the South Coast 2007 AQMP assigns 10 tonsper day of NOx reductions to the Federal government. The CAA does not authorize a State to assign responsibility
to the Federal government for meeting SIP requirements. However, we agree that we have both the authority and the responsibility under the Act for regulating certain nationwide sources of air pollution. The 1990 CAA Amendments extended EPA's authority
to regulate nonroad vehicles and engines and expressly required EPA to evaluate nonroad engine emissions, determine whether these emissions contribute significantly to ozone orCO in areas which have failed to attain the

ozone or CO NAAQS, and regulate these emissions categories iffound tobe significant. EPA agrees with the State that national mobile source emissions

are increasingly significant contributors to PM2.5 and ozone pollution, particularly in the South Coast. The federal government has adopted a variety ofnational measures that have reduced emissions inthe South Coast and will continue to explore future reduction opportunities. South Coast may take credit for these reductions in its attainment plans. The Districtmay not, however, assign a reduction target to the federal government as ithas done in the 2007 AQMP.

In May 2004, as part ofthe Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule, EPA finalized new requirements for nonroad diesel fuel that decreased the allowable levels of sulfur in fuel usedin locomotives by 99 percent. 26 The requirement for locomotives to use ultra-low sulfur diesel takes effect in 2012. These fuel improvements have created and will continue to result in significant environmental and public health benefits by reducing PM2.5 from existing engines. In addition, in March 2008, EPA finalized a three-partprogram that reduces emissions from diesel locomotives ofall types-line-haul, switch, and passenger rail.27 The Locomotive and Marine Diesel Engine rule cuts PM2.5 emissions from these engines by as much as 90 percent and NOx emissions by as much as 80 percent when fully implemented. This rule sets new emission standards for existing locomotives when they are remanufactured. The rule also includes Tier 3emission standards for newlybuilt locomotives, provisions for clean switch locomotives, and idle reduction requirements for new and remanufactured locomotives. The Tier 3 emissions standards for locomotives started to phase-in in 2009. Finally, the Locomotive and Marine Diesel Engine rule establishes long-term, Tier 4, standards for newly-built engines based

on the application ofhigh-efficiency catalytic after treatment technology, beginning in 2015. See 73 FR 37096. To the extent that these and other Federal programs yield additional reductions in the South Coastby 2014, the South Coast 2007 AQMP and State Strategy

can be revised to reflect these reductions.

However, as stated above, because the CAA does not authorize States to assign responsibility for meeting emission reduction requirements to the EPA, we

26 See 69 FR 38957, "Control ofEmissions ofAir Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines", also referred to as the "Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule",
June 29, 2004.

27 See 73 FR 37095, "Control ofEmissions ofAir Pollution from Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder," also referred to as the "Locomotive and Marine DieselEngine Rule," June 30, 2008. are proposing to disapprove the 10 tpd NOx emissions reductions the District and State assigned to the Federal government in the South Coast 2007 AQMP.

5.Proposed Action on Attainment Demonstrations

In order to approve a SIP's attainment demonstration, EPA must make several findings and approve the plan's proposed attainment date.

First, we must find that the demonstration's technical bases, including the emissions inventories and air quality modeling, are adequate. As discussed above in section IV.B and IV.D, we are proposing to approve these portions ofthe South Coast 2007AQMP.

Second, we must find that the SIP submittal provides for expeditious attainment through the implementation of all RACM and RACT. As discussed above in section IV.C., we are proposing
to disapprove the RACM/RACT demonstration in the South Coast South Coast 2007 AQMP.

Third, EPA must find that the emissions reductions that are relied on for attainment are creditable. As discussed above in section IV.D.5.a., the South Coast 2007 AQMP relies on enforceable commitments for almost 27 percent ofthe State's current estimate of the total emissions reductions needed in this area. SeeTable 8. While EPA has previously accepted enforceable commitments in lieu ofadopted control

measures in attainment demonstrations, EPA has done so only when the circumstances warranted it and the commitments met three criteria. We believe that circumstances here warrant the consideration ofenforceable commitments. We alsobelieve thatboth the State and the District have demonstrated their capability to meet their commitments. However, the commitments do not constitute a limited portion ofthe required emissions reductions, and are notfor an appropriate timeframe. The State's and District's unfulfilled commitments currently represent 30 percent ofthe NOx reductions, 18 percent ofthe VOC reductions, 89 percent ofthe PM2. 5 reductions, and 53 percent ofthe SOx emissions reductions currently estimated tobe required for attainment ofthe 1997 PM2.5NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment area. These percentages are well above the 10 percent figure oftotal reductions needed for attainment generally accepted by EPA to approve an attainment demonstration thatrelies in part on enforceable commitments. The timeframe of 2014 is not currently appropriate since we are not proposing 

### 71309

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71309 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

to grant the State's request for the full attainment date extension to 2015.

Finally, for PM 2.5 nonattainment areas that demonstrate that they cannot attain within five years of designation as nonattainment, EPA must grant an extension ofthe attainment date in order to approve the attainment demonstration for the area. As discussed above in section IV.D.4., we are proposing not to grant the State's request to extend the attainment date in the South Coast nonattainment area to April 5, 2015 because we cannot at this time approve the attainment demonstration.

For the foregoing reasons, we are proposing to disapprove the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP. As noted above, however, we believe that the State and District are in

a position to address these issues inthe relatively near term, before we take final action. We lookforward to working with the State and District inthe coming months. E.RFPDemonstration

1.Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress

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 incremental reductions in emissions ofthe relevant airpollutant

as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment ofthe applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date."

The PM 2 .5 implementation rule requires submission ofa specific RFP demonstration at the same time as the attainment demonstration for any area for which the State justifies an extension ofthe attainment datebeyond 2010. For areas seeking an attainment date extension to 2015 such as the South Coast, the RFP demonstration
must show that in the applicable milestone years of 2009 and 2012, emissions in the area willbe at alevel consistent with generally linear progress in reducing emissions between the base year and the attainment year. See40 CFR 51.1009(d). States may demonstrate this by showing that emissions for each milestone year are roughly equivalent to benchmark emission levels for direct PM2 . 5 emissions and each PM2 . 5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the plan. The steps for determining the benchmark emissions levels to demonstrate generally linear progress

are given in the PM2. 5 implementation rule in 40 CFR 51.1009(f).

The RFP plan must describe the control measures that provide for meeting the reasonable further progress milestones for the area, the timing of implementation ofthose measures, and the expected reductions in emissions of directly-emitted PM2 . 5 and PM2 . 5 attainment plan precursors. See 40 CFR §51.1009(c).

2.RFP Demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

The RFP demonstration isin Chapter 6 ofthe South Coast 2007 AQMP. The demonstration addresses direct PM2.5, NOx, VOC, and SOx emissions and uses the 2002 annual average inventory as the baseline year inventory and 2014 as the attainment year. Table 9 below summarizes the South Coast PM2.5RFP demonstration. SeeSouth Coast 2007 AQMP, Table 6-3A.

TABLE 9-SOUTH COAST 

### RFP DEMONSTRATION

Pollutant NOx VOC PM 2. 5 Sox

2002 baseline inventory (tpd)

.......................................................................................... 1,093 844 99 53 Annual percentage change needed to show linear progress (%)

................................... 4.87 3.7 1.01 5.35 2009 target needed to show linear progress (tpd)

.......................................................... 720 625 92 33 2009 remaining emissions with plan (tpd)

....................................................................... 813 578 99 28 Projected shortfall (tpd)

................................................................................................... 93 0 7 0 2012 target needed to show linear progress (tpd)

.......................................................... 561 532 89 25 2012 remaining emissions with plan (tpd)

....................................................................... 565 505 92 21 Projected shortfall (tpd)

................................................................................................... 4 0 3 0 2014 remaining emissions with plan (tpd)

....................................................................... 459 464 87 19

As discussed above, the District's modeling demonstration indicated that for attainment ofthe 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, Sex reductions are the most effective, followed by directly-emitted
PM 2.5, and then NOx and VOC. Therefore, the District's proposed control strategy maximizes reductions of direct PM=.5 and SOx to the extent possible. The RFP demonstration for 2009 shows a shortfall of 7tpd of directly-emitted PM 2. 5 and 93 tpd of NOx while the SOx and VOC reductions exceed their linear targets. The RFP demonstration for 2012 indicates a slight shortfall in meeting the 2012 milestones for directly-emitted PM 2. 5 and for NOx, although SOx and PM2 . 5 targets are not onlymet but surpassed. While the shortfall of93 tpd for NOx in 2009 is significant, this shortfall is almost completely made up by the reductions estimated for 2012. We note that the shortfall in 2012 for PM2.5 is only about 3% ofthe 2002baseline inventory, and the shortfall in NOx reductions is less than 1%, while SOx and VOC reduction milestones are exceeded by more than 4% and 3% respectively. Thus, we find thatthe RFP demonstration for 2012 meets the "generally linear" test for RFP requirements for 2012 and addresses the shortfall ofNOxin 2009.
3.Proposed Action on the RFP Demonstration

While we believe the District has demonstrated generally linear progress towards attainment by 2015, we are not proposing to approve the attainment date extension to 2015 and therefore
cannot propose to approve the RFP demonstration. We believe, however, that ifthe deficiencies identified with the attainment demonstration are addressed, we may then be able to propose to approve the attainment date extension and RFP demonstration. See 40 CFR 51.1009.

F. Contingency Measures

1.Requirements for Contingency Measures

Under CAA section 172(c)(9), all
PM 2.5 attainment plans must include contingency measures to be implemented ifan area fails to meet RFP ("RFP contingency measures") and contingency measures to be implemented ifan area fails to attain the
PM 2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date ("attainment contingency measures"). These 

### 71310

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71310 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that

are ready to be implemented quickly without significant additional action by the State. 40 CFR 51.1012. They must also be measures not relied on inthe plan to demonstrate RFP or attainment and should provide SIP-creditable emissions reductions equivalent to one year ofRFP. Finally, the SIP should contain trigger mechanisms forthe contingency measures and specify a schedule for their implementation. 72 FR 20586, p. 20642.

Contingency measures can include Federal measures and local measures already scheduled for implementation that provide emissions reductions in

excess ofthose needed to provide for RFP or expeditious attainment. EPA has approved numerous SIPs under this interpretation. See, e.g., 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.

2.Contingency Measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

The attainment plan for the South Coast nonattainment area includes contingency measures to be implemented ifthe area fails to attain by its attainment date or fails to meet RFP requirements. The contingency

measures for the South Coast nonattainment area are described in Chapter 9 ofthe South Coast 2007 AQMP and discussed in more detail in Appendix IV-A, section 2ofthe AQMP. They are described below.

The South Coast 2007 AQMP describes the contingency measures in the following way, "Although implementation ofthese measures is expected to reduce emissions, there are issues that limit the viability ofthese

measures as AQMP control measures at this time. Issues surrounding these

measures include, but are notlimited to availability ofDistrict resources to implement and enforce the measure, cost-effectiveness ofthe measure, potential adverse environmental impacts, potential economic impacts, effectiveness ofemissions reductions, and availability ofmethods to quantify emissions reductions." South Coast 2007 AQMP, page 9-1. The contingency

measures do not meet the requirements ofthe CAA, namely the requirements for these contingency measures to be fully adopted or otherwise ready for quick implementation, for trigger mechanisms and an implementation schedule, and the AQMP does not provide for quantification ofemissions reductions demonstrating the equivalent ofone year ofRFP. CTY-O1-Offsettingpotential emissionsincreasedue to changein naturalgasspecifications-This proposed contingency measure requires RECLAIM facilities that use natural gas of a quality that creates more emissions
to offset these emissions for all pollutants. The measure is listed as a "Remaining 2003 AQMP Revision Control Measure" and thus was relied

on in the 2003 AQMP for attainment. In addition, the reductions are not quantified, and maybe zero, since the proposed measure may only reduce future emissions increases rather than provide net reductions. The measure is
not triggered by failure to meet RFP or attainment and there isno defined implementation schedule. Forthese
reasons, this proposed measure does not meet CAA requirements for contingency

measures. CTY-02-CleanAirAct Emission Fees forMajorStationarySources-This proposed contingency measure would

use fees generated from the District's Rule 317, Clean Air Act Nonattainment Fees, to achieve emissions reductions. The implementation ofRule 317 is triggered by a failure ofthe South Coast
to attain the 1-hour standard by its applicable attainment date (which can
occur no earlier than November 15, 2010) and notby any failure to make RFP or to attain the PM2.5NAAQS, a minimum requirement for contingency

measures for PM2. 5 SIPs. There is no implementation schedule provided, and the AQMP does not quantify the reductions associated with this measure. For these reasons, this proposed

measure does not meet CAA requirements for contingency measures. CTY-03-Banning pre-Tier 3 offroad dieselengineson HighPollution Advisory (HPA)days-Thisproposed contingency measure would complement a CARB rule which proposed to establish declining fleet average emissions levels for off-road equipment over 25 horsepower (hp). The District proposed a complementary
measure, SC-OFFRD-1, that would ban the use ofpre-Tier 3off-road diesel engines after 2023 onHPA days should the South Coast nonattainment area fail
to meet the 8-hour ozone standard. This proposed contingency measure would require additional rulemaking at the District level, as it isnot currently adopted. Italso would be implemented
too late in time to provide for RFP or contingency reductions for PM 2.5RFP or attainment. In addition, the AQMP does not quantify the reductions associated with this measure. For these reasons, this proposed measure does notmeet CAA requirements for contingency

measures. CTY-04-Accelerated implementationofCARB's mobile

sourcemeasures-Thisproposed contingency measure, which could function as both an RFP and an attainment contingency measure, requires the District's Board to request that CARB accelerate the adoption and/

or implementation ofthe remaining control measures that have notbeen adopted or fully implemented by one year. South Coast 2007 AQMP, page 9-3. Under CAA section 172(c)(9) and EPA's long-standing policies interpreting this section, contingency

measures must require minimal additional rulemaking by the State and take effect within afew months ofa failure to make RFP or to attain. This proposed contingency measure would require additional rulemaking atthe District level and potentially substantial and lengthy additional rulemaking at the State level to be implemented. There is no trigger mechanism or implementation schedule provided, and the AQMP does not quantify the reductions associated with this measure. For these reasons, this proposed

measure does not meet CAA requirements for contingency measures.

Post-Attainmen t-YearEmissions Reductions.We note that we are not proposing to approve the attainment date extension. However, even if it were approved, excess reductions in 2015/ 2016 from CARB mobile source

measures do not fully address the contingency measure requirement for the PM 2 .5 attainment year. There is no calculation ofthe emissions reductions equivalent of one year's work of RFP in the South Coast 2007 AQMP. However, from information in the Plan,we calculate one year's worth ofRFP to be 1.08 tpd PM 2 .5, 52.8 tpd NOx, 30.8 tpd of VOC, and 2.75 tpd SO2 . See TSD, section II.H, and CARB StaffReport on the 2007 South Coast AQMP, Appendix A. However, CARB's mobile source

measures do not provide sufficient NOx reductions to meet one year's worth of RFP; therefore, post-attainment-year emissions reductions cannot be used to
meet the CAA contingency measure requirement.

3. Proposed Action on the Contingency Measures

The South Coast 2007 AQMP includes suggestions for several measures that do
not meet the CAA's minimum requirements (e.g., no additional rulemaking, surplus to attainment and RFP needs). The AQMP, however, indicates that the measures proposed by the District are not adopted, and does
not quantify the expected emissions reductions in order to gauge whether 

### 71311

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71311 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

they provide reductions equivalent to

oneyear's worth ofRFP. Forthe reasons stated above, we are proposingto disapprove the District's contingency

measure provisions in the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2. 5. G.Motor VehicleEmissionsBudgets for Transportation Conformity Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) ofthe CAA. Our transportation conformity rule (codified in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A)requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do so. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations,

worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment ofthe national ambient air quality standards or any interim milestone.

Control strategy SIP submittals (such

as RFP and attainment SIP submittals)
must specify the maximum emissions of transportation-related emissions allowed in the RFP years and attainment year, i.e., the motorvehicle emissions budgets ("budgets"). The submittal must also demonstrate that these emissions levels, when considered with emissions from all other sources, are consistent with RFP or attainment ofthe NAAQS, whichever is applicable. In order for us to find these emissions levels or "budgets" adequate and/or approvable, the submittal must meet the conformity adequacy provisions of40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). Additionally, motor vehicle emissions budgets cannot be approved until EPA completes a detailed review ofthe entire SIP and determines that the SIP and the budgets will achieve their intended purpose (i.e., RFP, attainment or maintenance). For more information on the transportation conformity requirement and applicable policies onbudgets, please visitour transportation conformity Web site at: http:// www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ transconf/in dex.htin.
As submitted on November 28, 2007, the 2007 South Coast AQMP included a set ofPM2. 5 budgets for RFP years 2009 and 2012, the attainment year 2014, and analysis years 2023 and 2030. See CARB Resolution 07-05, which revised the budgets in the 2007 South Coast AQMP

as adopted by the District, andwhich

was included in the November 28, 2007 submittal. We refer herein to these budgets as the "original" budgets. On April 30, 2008, CARB submitted a SIP revision that replaces the original set of PM2. 5 budgets with two new sets of budgets (herein, "replacement" budgets). One set ofthe replacement budgets is referred to as "SIP-based" budgets, and the other set is referred to as "baseline" budgets. In its April 30, 2008 submittal, CARB requests that EPA give primary consideration to the "SIP-based" budgets and only find the "baseline" budgets to be adequate ifEPA cannot find the "SIPbased" budgets adequate in their entirety.

The replacement budgets submitted

onApril 30, 2008 differ from the originalbudgets in that they reflect the EPA-approved EMFAC2007 motor vehicle emissions factor model (See 73 FR 3464, January 18, 2008) rather than District's CEPA emission factor model, which hadbeen used for the original budgets. The "SIP-based" budgets reflect emissions reductions from rules adopted by October 2006 and also from control measures CARB expects to adopt in regulatory form in the future. The "baseline" budgets differ from the "SIPbased" budgets by excluding emission reductions from control measures in the 2007 State Strategy thathad not been adopted in regulatory formby October
2006.28 Moreover, the "baseline" budgets are only established for RFP years 2009 and 2012 whereas the "SIPbased" budgets are established for the RFP years, the attainment year, and analysis years 2023 and 2030. The two
sets of PM 2 .

5 budgets (i.e., the replacement budgets) are shown in Tables 10 and 11, below.

TABLE 10-"SIP-BASED" PM 2.5 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS [Annual average tons per day]

Budget year VOC NOx PM 2. 5

2009 196 413 38 2012 139 276 37 2014 122 201 33 2023 89 131 37 2030 75 121 39

TABLE 11-"BASELINE" 2.5 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS [Annual average tons per day]

Budget year VOC NOx PM 2. 5

2009 196 413 38 2012 163 337 38

On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted

a SIP revision thatupdates certain portions ofthe 2007 State Strategy to account for emission reductions from regulations adopted in 2007 and 2008,

some ofwhich relate to on-road sources, such as modifications to the reformulated gasoline program, smog check improvements, and cleaner in-use

28Withrespect to the "SIP-based" budget for RFP
year 2009, however, CARB did exclude the heavy duty trucks. CARB's August 12, 2009 SIP revision did not revise the budgets but documents the extent to which control measures for which credit had been taken in the "SIP-based" budgets, but not in the "baseline" budgets, have now been adopted in regulatory form. EPA generally first reviews budgets submitted with an attainment, RFP, or maintenance plan for adequacy, prior to taking action on the planitself, and did

so with respect to the PM2. 5 budgets in the 2007 South Coast AQMP. The availability ofthe original budgets was announced for public comment on EPA's adequacy Web page on February

emissions reductions from measures not adoptedby for 2009 is the same as the "baseline"PM2.5budget October 2006. Thus, the "SIP-based" PM2.5 budget for that year. 

### 71312

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71312 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

12, 2008 and the availability ofthe replacement (then available in draft form) was announced for public comment on March 27, 2008. EPA received comments from the public in response to both postings.

On May 6, 2008, we found the "SIPbased" PM2. 5budgets for the 2007 South Coast AQMP, as revised on April 30, 2008, to be inadequate for transportation conformity purposes. See the letter and enclosures dated May 6, 2008 from Deborah Jordan, Director, AirDivision, EPA Region IX to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB (acopy of which has been placed in the docketfor this rulemaking). However, in our May 2008 adequacy determination, we found the "baseline" PM 2.5budgets for RFP years 2009 and 2012 tobe adequate. Generally, we found the "SIP-based" budgets tobe 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 foundthe "baseline" PM2. 5budgets to be consistent with the plan's RFP demonstration and
to be based on adopted mobile source regulations thathave already been implemented. Our notice ofadequacy/ inadequacy ofthe budgets was published onMay 15, 2008 at 73 FR 28110 (corrected onJune 18, 2008 at 73 FR 34837), and was effective on May 30, 2008.

The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP'sbudgets are adequate and approvable for conformity purposes
are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). The following paragraphs provide

our review ofthe "SIP-based" and "baseline" PM2. 5budgets for the 2007 South Coast AQMP against our adequacy criteria and provide the basis for our proposed action relative to the budgets. Since the criteria for evaluation purposes are the same for adequacy or inadequacy as for approval or disapproval ofbudgets, we incorporate by reference our earlier determination of adequacy/inadequacy, and focus in the following paragraphs on those considerations that have changed since the time ofour May 2008 adequacy/ inadequacy determination.

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i), we review a submitted plan to determine whether the plan was endorsed bythe Governor (ordesignee) and was subject
to a public hearing. As documented in

our May 2008 adequacy/inadequacy determination, the 2007 South Coast AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, and April 2008 replacement budgets, were all submitted under cover ofletters signedby CARB's Executive Officer, the Governor's designee. Likewise, CARB's August 12, 2009 SIP revision was submitted under cover of a letter sent by CARB's Executive Officer and includes documentation ofa public hearing held

on April 23-24, 2009. Therefore, we propose that the submitted plan and related "SIP-based" and "baseline" budgets meet the criterion under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i).

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii), we review a submitted planto determine whether the plan was developed through consultation with Federal, State and local agencies and whether full implementation plan documentation

was provided to EPA and EPA's stated
concerns, ifany, were addressed. As documented in our May 2008 adequacy/ inadequacy determination, the 2007 South Coast AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, and April 2008 replacement budgets, were all developed through consultation with Federal, State and local agencies and included documentation ofadequate responses to EPA's concerns. Moreover, CARB's August 12, 2009 SIP revision was developed to meet EPA's requests for additional information to aid in our review ofthe 2007 South Coast AQMP and 2007 State Strategy. We propose that the submitted plan, and related "SIP-based" and "baseline" budgets,

were developed through sufficient consultation with Federal, State and local agencies and thereby meet the criterion under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii).

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), we review a submitted planto determine whether the budgets are clearly identified and precisely quantified. Both the "SIP-based" and "baseline"budgets

are clearly identified. As noted in our May 2008 adequacy/inadequacy determination, the budgets are shown in attachments 1 ("SIP-based"budgets) and 2 ("baseline"budgets) to CARB Resolution 08-27, which was included in the SIP revision submitted by CARB

on April 30, 2008. The "SIP-based" budgets are not precisely quantified because the new emission reductions do
not result from adequately specified control measures. In contrast, the "baseline" budgets reflect control

measures that are already implemented and do not include new emission reductions attributed to general commitments; therefore, thesebudgets

are precisely quantified. We propose that the "SIP-based" budgets do not meet the criterion under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii) but the "baseline" budgets do.

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv), we review a submitted planto determine whether the budgets, when considered together with all other emissions
sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance (whicheveris relevant to a given SIP submission). Based on our proposed disapproval ofthe RFP and attainment demonstrations (See sections IV.D and IV.E ofthis document), EPA proposes that all ofthe "SIP-based" and the "baseline" budgets, when considered together with all other emission sources,
are not consistent with the requirement
to demonstrate attainment or RFP ofthe PM2.5NAAQS by 2014.

Because we are proposing to disapprove the RFP demonstrations for years 2009 and 2012, we do encourage CARB to submitrevised budgets to lock in the benefit ofthe new regulations and thereby avoid the chance thatincreases in vehicle activity will increase the overall challenge of attaining the NAAQS. Forthe reasons stated above,

we propose that the "baseline" and "SIPbased" budgets do not meet the criterion under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv).

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v), we review a plan to determine whether the budgets are consistent with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures inthe submitted control strategy plan or maintenance plan. The plan, as supplemented bythe SIP revision dated August 12, 2009, does not show a clear relationship between the "SIP-based" budgets and the emissions inventory and control

measures. The "SIP-based" budgets incorporate new emission reductions from the State's strategy thatresult, in part, from specified control measures that have notbeen adopted inregulatory form (orhave been adequately supported as avoluntary measure). As noted above, more control measures have been adopted byCARB in regulatory form than was the case when the "SIP-based" budgets were adopted and submitted byCARB to EPA, but a portion ofthe emission reductions included in the "SIP-based" budgets remains unsupported by regulations or
as a voluntary measure. In contrast, as discussed further in our May 2008 adequacy/inadequacy determination, the plan does show a clear relationship between the "baseline"budgets, control
measures, and the total emissions inventory. Thus, we propose that the submitted plan's "SIP-based" budgets do not meet this criterion for adequacy and approval and the "baseline"budgets do.

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(vi), we review a submitted plan to determine whether revisions to previously submitted plans explain and document any changes to previously submitted budgets and control measures; impacts

on point and area source emissions; any changes to established safety margins; and reasons for the changes (including 

### 71313

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71313 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

the basis for any changes related to emissions factors or estimates ofvehicle miles traveled and changes in control measures). As noted in our May 2008 adequacy/inadequacy determination, the SIP revision submitted on April 30, 2008 explains and documents all changes topreviously submitted budgets. Thus, we propose that the submitted plan meets this criterion for adequacy and approval withrespect to both the "SIP-based" and "baseline" budgets.

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(5), we review the State's compilation ofpublic
comments and response to comments that are required to be submitted with any SIP revision. As noted in our May 2008 adequacy/inadequacy determination, District compiled public comments submitted during the June 1, 2007 public hearing and during the public comment periods and we reviewed this compilation and found that District's and CARB's responses
were acceptable. No issues that might have affected our adequacy findings remain unanswered. Thus, we propose that the plan meets this criterion for adequacy and approval withrespect to both the "SIP-based" and "baseline" budgets.

For the reasons described in the May 6, 2008 letter from DeborahJordan to James Goldstene, we found that the "SIP-based" budgets for the 2007 South Coast AQMP, as submitted on April 30, 2008, do not meet certain adequacy requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and concluded that they were inadequate for transportation conformity purposes. Now that we have completed a thorough review ofthe entire South Coast PM2.5 SIP, which is described above in this proposal, we have concluded that the "SIP-based" budgets are not precisely quantified because the new emission reductions do
not result from adequately specified control measures, and that the plan as
awhole will not ensure RFP and attainment ofthe PM2. 5NAAQS and does not show a clear relationship between the "SIP-based" budgets and the emissions inventory and control

measures. Thus, we propose to disapprove both the "baseline" and the "SIP-based" PM2.5budgets (shownin Table 11 above) for transportation conformity purposes. SCAG and the U.S. Department ofTransportation are not currently using the "SIP-based" budgets in transportation conformity determinations due to the inadequacy finding made in 2008. Ifthe proposed disapproval ofthe budgets is finalized, then neither the "baseline"nor "SIPbased" budgets could be used in transportation conformity determinations after the effective date of the disapproval.

In summary, for the reasons discussed above, we are nowproposing disapproval ofthe PM2.5budgets that we previously had determined to be inadequate. Because we are proposing to disapprove the RFP demonstration, we
are proposing to disapprove the PM 2.5 budgets we previously found adequate

as well.

L MidCourseReview

Any State that submits to EPA an approvable attainment plan for a PM2.5 nonattainment area justifying an attainment date ofnine orten years from the date ofdesignation also must submit to EPA a mid-course review six years from the date ofdesignation, or by April 2011. 40 CFR 51.1011. The midcourse review for an area must include: (1)Areview ofemissions reductions and progress made in implementing control measures to reduce emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2. 5 attainment plan precursors contributing to PM2. 5 concentrations in the area; (2) an analysis ofchanges in ambient air quality data for the area; (3) arevised air quality modeling analysis to demonstrate attainment; (4) any new or revised control measures adoptedby the State, as necessary to ensure attainment by the attainment date in the approved SIP ofthe nonattainment area. We anticipate receiving this midcourse review from the District and CARB by April 2011.

V. EPA'sProposed Actions
A. EPA'sProposed Approvalsand Disapprovals

For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part California's attainment SIP for the South Coast nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This SIP submittal consists of the portions ofthe District's South Coast 2007 AQMP and the South Coast nonattainment area-specific portions of CARB's revised 2007 State Strategy addressing CAA and EPA regulations for attainment ofthe 1997 PM2.5NAAQS for the South Coast nonattainment area.

EPA is proposing to approve under CAA section 110(k)(3) the following elements ofthe South Coast PM2.5 attainment SIP: 1.The SIP'sbase year and baseline emissions inventories as meeting the requirements ofCAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR §51.1008;

2.the District's commitments for the adoption and implementation schedule for specific control measures listed in Table 7-3 in the South Coast 2007 AQMP to the extent that these commitments have not yet been fulfilled, and to achieve specific aggregate emission reductions of 32 tpd ofNOx, 10 tpd ofVOC, 4 tpd ofdirect PM2.5, and 3tpd of SOxby 2014 as listed in Table 4-10 ofthe South Coast 2007 AQMP and the CARB StaffReport for the South Coast 2007 AQMP, page 17, as SIP-strengthening;

3.CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, as listed on page 23 ofthe 2009 State Strategy Status Report; and to achieve aggregate emission reductions of 152 tpd ofNOx, 9 tpd of direct PM2. 5, 46 tpd ofVOC, and 20 tpd of SOx in the South Coast nonattainment area by 2014 as provided, as SIP-strengthening; and

4. the air quality modeling in the South Coast 2007 AQMP as meeting the requirements ofthe CAA andEPA guidance.

EPA isproposing to disapprove under CAA section 110(k)(3) the following elements ofthe South CoastPM 2.5 attainment SIP: 1.The attainment demonstration for failing to meet the requirements ofCAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1007 due to insufficient adopted and EPAapproved rules needed to support the determination that the South Coast nonattainment area will attain by the State's proposed attainment date. As a result, we are also proposing to disapprove the RACM/RACT demonstration, the State's request for an attainment date extension to April 5, 2015, and the RFP demonstration, because they are dependent on the approval of an attainment demonstration under the PM2. 5 implementation rule (See 40 CFR 51.1009, 51.1010, and 51.1004);

2.The motorvehicle emissions budgets for the RFP milestone years of 2009 and 2012, and for the attainment year,because they are derived from RFP and attainment demonstrations which

we are proposing to disapprove; 3.The contingency measures for failing to meet the requirements ofCAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1012; and

4. The assignment of 10 tpd ofNOx to the federal government.

B. CAA ConsequencesofaFinal Disapproval

EPA is committed to working with the District, CARB and SCAG to resolve the identified problems that make the
current South Coast 2007 AQMP for the South Coast nonattainment area forthe 1997 PM2.5NAAQS not fully approvable under the CAA. We firmlybelieve that such solutions are available and that expeditious attainment ofthe 1997 

### 71314

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71314 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

PM2.5 standards in the South Coast is achievable.

However, should we finalize the disapprovals as proposed here, a conformity freeze would take effect once the action becomes effective (usually30 days after publication ofthe final action in the Federal Register). A conformity freeze means that only projects in the first four years ofthe most recent conforming Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)can proceed. During a freeze, no new RTPs, TIPs or RTP/TIP amendments canbe found to conform. See40 CFR 93.120.

In addition to the effect on conformity, should we finalize the disapprovals proposed here, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply in the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area 18 months after the effective date ofa final disapproval. The highway funding sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) would apply in the

area six months after the offset sanction is imposed. Neither sanction will be imposed ifCalifornia submits and we approve prior to the implementation of the sanctions, SIP revisions that correct the problems identified in EPA'sfinal action on the South Coast 2007 AQMP and applicable portions ofthe revised 2007 State Strategy that are the basis for any disapprovals.

In addition to the sanctions, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA
must promulgate a federal implementation plan addressing the deficient elements in the PM2.5 attainment SIP for the South Coast, two years after the effective date of any disapproval should we not be able to approve a revised SIP revision before that date.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions ofthe Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria ofthe CleanAir Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to partially approve and partially disapprove state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

A. Executive Order12866,Regulatory PlanningandReview

This action is not a "significant regulatory action" under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and istherefore
not subject to review underthe EO.

B. Paperwork ReductionAct
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq., because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D ofthe Clean Air Act will not in-and-ofitself
create any new information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5CFR 1320.3(b).

C.RegulatoryFlexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis ofany rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule willnot have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1)A small business

as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is agovernment of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population ofless than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts oftoday's proposed rule on small entities, Icertify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D ofthe Clean Air Act will not in-andofitselfcreate any new requirements but simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all orpart ofthe rule. The fact that the Clean Air Act prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher offset requirements) may or will flow from this disapproval does not

mean that EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for this action. Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.

We continue to be interested in the potential impacts ofthis proposed rule

on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. UnfundedMandatesReformAct

This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions ofTitle II ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2U.S.C. 1531- 1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector." EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of$100 million ormore to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E.Executive Order13132,Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled "Federalism" (64FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful andtimely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies thathave federalism implications." "Policiesthat have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations thathave "substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment."

This action does not have federalism implications. It will nothave substantial direct effects on the States, onthe relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the distribution ofpower and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F.Executive Order13175, Coordination WithIndian TribalGovernments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing 

### 71315

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71315 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

to disapprove would not apply in Indian country located in the state, andEPA
notes thatit willnot impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order13045,Protectionof ChildrenFromEnvironmentalHealth Risks andSafetyRisks

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only
to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because itis not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D ofthe Clean Air Act will not in-and-ofitself create any new regulations but simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP.

H. Executive Order13211,Actions That Significantly Affect EnergySupply, Distribution,or Use

This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it isnot a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. L NationalTechnologyTransferand AdvancementAct
Section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, andbusiness practices) that are developed or adopted byvoluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA toprovide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

The EPA believes that this action is
not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) ofNTTAA because application of those requirements wouldbe inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

J.Executive Order12898:Federal Actions ToAddressEnvironmental JusticeinMinorityPopulations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part oftheir mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects oftheirprograms, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria ofthe Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under section 110 and subchapter I, part D ofthe Clean Air Act and will not inand-ofitselfcreate any new requirements. Accordingly, itdoes not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898.

List of Subjects in 40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: November 8, 2010. JaredBlumenfeld, Regional Administrator,EPARegionIX.

[FRDoe. 2010-29235 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

### 71316

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71316 2010