+(,121/,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 of California to

provide for attainment of the 1997

annual and 24-hour PM 2.

5 national

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)

in the Los Angeles-South Coast Air

Basin area (South Coast nonattainment

area). The submitted SIP revisions are

contained in the South Coast 2007 Air

Quality Management Plan (South Coast

2007 AQMP) and portions of the 2007

State Strategy as revised in 2009.

Specifically, EPA is proposing to

approve the emissions inventories as

meeting the requirements of the 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 of the CAA and EPA

guidance. EPA is proposing to

disapprove the attainment

demonstration because it does 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS because these

requirements are linked to approving

the attainment demonstration under the

1997 PM 2.5 implementation rule. We are

also proposing to disapprove the

assignment of 10 tpd of NOx to the

federal government. Finally, EPA is

proposing to disapprove PM 2.

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 is the basis for

the proposed disapproval of the

attainment demonstration, EPA believes

that many of the 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 of the

following methods:

* Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line

instructions.

* E-mail: tax.wienke@epa.gov.

* Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office

of Air Planning (AIR-2), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105.

Instructions: All comments will be

included in the public docket without

change and may be made available

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

including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

or other information whose disclosure is

restricted by statute. Information that

you consider CBI or otherwise protected

should be clearly identified as such and

should not be submitted through http://

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The

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

an "anonymous access" system, and

EPA will not know your identity or

contact information unless you provide

it in the body of your comment. If you

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

address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the public

comment. If EPA cannot read your

comments due to technical difficulties

and cannot contact you for clarification,

EPA may not be able to consider your

comment.

Docket: The index to the docket for

this action is available electronically on

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

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California 94105. While all documents

in the docket are listed in the index,

some information may be publicly

available only at the hard copy location

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

may not be publicly available at either

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

copy materials, please schedule an

appointment during normal business

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section

below.

Copies of the SIP materials are also

available for inspection at the following

locations:

* California Air Resources Board,

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 of Contents

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 of the South Coast 2007 AQMP

and the South Coast Portion of the

Revised 2007 State Strategy

A. Summary of EPA's Proposed Actions

B. Emission Inventories

1. Requirements for Emission Inventories

2. Emission Inventories in the South Coast

2007 AQMP

3. Proposed Action on the 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 in the SIP a. District's RACM/RACT Analysis and

Adopted Control Strategy

b. CARB's RACM Analysis and Adopted

Control Strategy

c. The Local Jurisdiction's RACM Analysis

3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT

Demonstration and Adopted Control

Strategy

D. Attainment Demonstration

1. Requirements for Attainment

Demonstration

2. Air Quality Modeling in the South Coast

2007 AQMP

3. PM2.5 Precursors Addressed in the South

Coast 2007 AQMP

4. Extension of the Attainment Date

71294

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71294 2010
Federal 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 of Required Reductions

ii. The State Is Capable of Fulfilling Its

Commitment

iii. The Commitment Is for a Reasonable

and Appropriate Period of Time

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 of a 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 PM 2.5,

particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5

microns or less, including annual

standards of 15.0 pg/ms based on a

3-year average of annual mean PM 2.

5

concentrations, and 24-hour (or daily)

standards of 65 pg/m 3 based on a 3-year

average of the 98th percentile of 24-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 PM 2.

5 concentrations

above the levels of these standards.

Epidemiological studies have shown

statistically significant correlations

between elevated PM 2.

5 levels and

premature mortality. Other important

health effects associated with PM 2.

5

exposure include aggravation of

respiratory and cardiovascular disease

(as indicated by increased hospital

admissions, emergency room visits,

absences from school or work, and

restricted activity days), changes in lung

function and increased respiratory

symptoms, as well as new evidence for

more subtle indicators of cardiovascular

health. Individuals particularly

sensitive to PM 2.5 exposure include

older adults, people with heart and lung

disease, and children. See, EPA, Air

Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter,

No. EPA/600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/

P-99/002bF, October 2004.

PM 2.5 can be emitted directly into the

atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle

("primary" or "direct PM2 .

5") or can be

formed in the atmosphere as a result of

various chemical reactions from

precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides

(NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2 ), volatile

organic compounds (VOC) and

ammonia (NH3) ("secondary PM 2.5"). 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 PM 2.

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 of Los Angeles County,

southwestern San Bernardino County,

and western Riverside County as

nonattainment for both the 1997 24-

hour and the annual PM 2.5 standards.

The South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment

area is home to about 17 million people,

has a diverse economic base, and

contains one of the highest-volume port

areas in the world. For a precise

description of the geographic

boundaries of the South Coast PM 2.

5

nonattainment area, See 40 CFR

81.305.1 The local air district with

primary responsibility for developing a

plan to attain the PM 2.

5 NAAQS in this

area is the South Coast Air Quality

Management District (District).

Ambient annual PM 2.5 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 In the

South Coast, the levels and composition

1 On October 17, 2006, EPA strengthened the 24-

hour PM2 .5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 pg/

M3. At the same time, we retained the level of the

annual PM 2.5 standard at 15.0 pg/m 3. 71 FR 61144.

On November 13, 2009, EPA designated areas,

including the South Coast, with respect to the

revised 24-hour NAAQS. 74 FR 58688. California is

now required to submit an attainment plan for the

35 pg/m 3 standards by December 14, 2012. In this

preamble, all references to the PM2 .5 NAAQS,

unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour

PM 2 5 standards of 65 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 in the docket for today'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 of annual means of a single monitoring

site. (See 40 CFR 50 Appendix N Section 1(c)(1)).

of PM 2.5 differ by geographic 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 PM 2.5

concentrations in Los Angeles County

are mainly due to secondary formation

of particulates. See South Coast 2007

AQMP, pages 2-13.

II. California's State Implementation

Plan Submissions to Address PM2 .

5

Nonattainment in the South Coast

Nonattainment Area

A. California's SIP Submittals

Designation of an 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 of the CAA. This SIP must

include, among other things, a

demonstration of how the NAAQS will

be attained in the nonattainment area as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later

than the date required by the 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. For the 1997 PM 2.

5

NAAQS, these nonattainment SIPs were

due no later than April 5, 2008.

California has made several SIP

submittals to address PM 2.

5

nonattainment in the South Coast

nonattainment area. The two principal

ones are the District's 2007 PM 2.

5 Plan

(South Coast 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." 3 This

Plan was adopted by the District on June

1, 2007 and submitted to CARB on

October 24, 2007. 4 The South Coast

3

The South Coast 2007 AQMP is the first South

Coast Plan to address PM 2 .5- We have previously

acted on numerous South Coast air quality plans for

ozone, PM-10, carbon monoxide, and NO 2, such as

the 1997/1999 AQMP. We approved the ozone

portion of the 1997 South Coast AQMP, as amended

in 1999, on April 10, 2000 (See 65 FR 18903). Our

most recent action on a SIP addressing the CAA

requirements for the South Coast ozone

nonattainment area was our partial approval and

partial disapproval of the 2003 AQMP (See 74 FR

10176, March 10, 2009). Because the District

prepares integrated plans that address multiple

pollutants, and also controls VOC and NOx as

precursors to PM2 ., we will refer to control

measures and control measure commitments from

the 2003 AQMP further in this notice.

4 See November 28, 2007 letter to Wayne Nastri,

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, from James

N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, with

enclosures.

71295

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

2007 AQMP includes a PM 2.

5 attainment

demonstration for the South Coast. In

order to meet relevant CAA

requirements for the PM 2.5 NAAQS, the

South Coast 2007 AQMP includes base

and projected year PM 2.

5 emissions

inventories for the South Coast

nonattainment area; air quality

monitoring data; short-, medium- and

long-term District control measures; a

summary of CARB's control measures;

transportation control measures (TCMs);

a demonstration of RFP; a modeled

attainment demonstration; a

demonstration of RACM/RACT;

contingency measures for the 1997

PM 2.

5 RFP and for attainment for the

South Coast PM 2.

5 nonattainment area;

and a request to extend the attainment

date for the 1997 PM 2.

5 NAAQS 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 of the

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 of both the

1997 PM 2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS

not only in the South Coast

nonattainment area but also in

California's other nonattainment areas

such as the San Joaquin Valley and the

Sacramento area. It also includes

CARB's commitments to propose 15

defined State measures 7 and to obtain

specific amounts of aggregate emissions

reductions of direct PM 2.5, NON, VOC

and SOx in the South Coast from

sources under the State's jurisdiction,

5 While the attainment date for PM 2.5 areas with

a full five-year extension would be April 5 2015,

reductions must be implemented by 2014 to achieve

attainment by that date. See 40 CFR 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 with attachments 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 of Pesticide

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.

On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted

the "Status Report on the State Strategy

for California's 2007 State

Implementation Plan (SIP) and

Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting

Implementation of the 2007 State

Strategy", dated March 24, 2009,

adopted April 24, 2009 ("2009 State

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 of the 2007 State

Strategy as revised in 2009 9 that are

relevant for attainment of the 1997 PM 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 PM 2.

5 NAAQS mentioned

above, on April 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 PM 2.

5 motor 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 and Administrative

Requirements for SIP Submittals

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

110(1) require a state to provide

reasonable public notice and

opportunity for public hearing prior to

the adoption and submittal of a SIP or

SIP revision. To meet this requirement,

every SIP submittal should include

evidence that adequate public notice

was given and 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 of the 2009 State Strategy Status

Report are submitted as a SIP revision. The balance

of the report is for informational purposes only. See

Attachment A to CARB Resolution No. 09-34.

9 We will also refer 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 of the 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 on June 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

on the plan. See CARB Resolution No.

07-41.

CARB conducted public workshops,

provided public comment periods, and

held a public hearing prior to the

adoption of the 2007 State Strategy on

September 27, 2007. (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.

See CARB Resolution 09-34, April 24,

2009.

The SIP submittals include proof of

publication for notices of the District

and CARB public hearings, as evidence

that all hearings were properly noticed.

We therefore find that the 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 also provides 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 of law. EPA's SIP

completeness criteria are found in 40

CFR part 51, Appendix V.

The South Coast 2007 AQMP became

complete by operation of law on May

28, 2008. The November 16, 2007

submission of the 2007 State Strategy

and the 2009 revisions to the Strategy

became complete by operation of law on

May 16, 2008 and February 12, 2010,

respectively.

III. CAA and Regulatory Requirements

for PM2 .

5 Attainment SIPs

EPA is implementing the PM 2.

5

NAAQS under Title 1, Part D, subpart

1 of the 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

of an area's attainment date based on the

severity of the area's nonattainment and

71296

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71296 2010
Federal 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 than April 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.

5 NAAQS. 72 FR

20586, codified at 40 CFR part 51,

subpart Z (PM2.

5 implementation rule).

The PM 2.

5 implementation 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 2.5 precursors

must be addressed by the State in its

PM 2.5 attainment SIP, applicable

attainment dates, and the requirement

for mid-course reviews. 10 We will

discuss each of these CAA and

regulatory requirements for attainment

plans in more detail below.

1

o In June 2007, a petition to the EPA

Administrator was filed on behalf of several public

health and environmental groups requesting

reconsideration of four provisions in the PM2.

implementation rule. See EarthJustice, Petition for

Reconsideration, "In the Matter of Final 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 of the

requirement to establish emission limits for

condensable particulate matter (CPM) until January

1, 2011; (3) revisions to the criteria for analyzing the

economic feasibility of RACT; and (4) the use of

out-of-area emissions reductions to demonstrate

RFP. These provisions are found in the PM 2.

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, to David Baron and Paul Cort,

Earthjustice, May 13, 2010. EPA is currently

considering the other issues raised in the petition.

Neither the District nor the State relied on the

first, third, or fourth of these provisions in

preparing the South Coast 2007 AQMP or 2007

State Strategy. The District has deferred CPM limits

in its rules. EPA does not believe that this deferral

adversely affects the Plan's RACT or expeditious

attainment demonstrations. See section ILD.3 of the

TSD for this proposal. EPA will evaluate any rule

adopted or revised by the District after January 1,

2011 to assure that it appropriately addresses CPM.

IV. Review of the South Coast 2007

AQMP and the South Coast Portion of

the 2007 State Strategy

A. Summary of EPA's Proposed Actions

EPA is proposing to approve in part

and disapprove in part those portions of

the South Coast 2007 AQMP and those

portions of the 2007 State Strategy as

revised in 2009 specific to the 1997

PM 2.

5 NAAQS in the South Coast. We

are proposing to approve the base year

and baseline emissions inventories in

these SIP revisions as meeting the

applicable requirements of the CAA and

the PM 2.5 implementation 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 of the 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 of the CAA

and the PM 2.5 implementation rule

because they are dependent on the

approval of the attainment

demonstration (See 40 CFR 51.1009 and

51.1010). For the attainment

demonstration, we are proposing to

approve the air quality modeling, but

we are proposing to disapprove the

overall demonstration because it relies

too extensively on commitments to

emissions reductions in lieu of fully

adopted and submitted rules. Rules that

have either not been adopted in final

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 from RFP 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

of the CAA and the PM 2.

5

implementation rule. To the extent that

the State can remedy the shortfall in

emissions reductions for the attainment

demonstration, which is the basis for

the proposed disapproval of the

attainment demonstration, EPA believes

that many of the 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 this proposal,

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 of this notice.

B. Emissions Inventories

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 of the relevant

pollutant." The PM 2.

5 implementation

rule requires states to include direct

PM 2.5 emissions and emissions of all

PM 2.5 precursors in this inventory, even

if it has determined that control of any

of these precursors is not necessary for

expeditious attainment. 40 CFR

§ 51.1008(a)(2) and 72 FR 20586, at

20648. Direct PM 2.5 includes

condensable particulate matter. See 40

CFR 51.1000. PM 2.

5 precursors are NOx,

SO 2, VOC, and ammonia (NH 3 ). A Id.

The inventories should meet the data

requirements of EPA'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).

A baseline emission inventory is

required for the attainment

demonstration and for meeting RFP

requirements. As determined on the

date of designation, the base year for

this inventory should be the most recent

calendar year for which a complete

inventory was required to be 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS in 2005. 40 CFR

51.1008(b).

EPA has provided additional

guidance for PM 2.

5 emission inventories

in "Emissions Inventory Guidance for

Implementation of Ozone 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 PM 2.

5 and all PM 2.5 precursors for

the South Coast nonattainment area

together with additional documentation

for the inventories are found in

11 The District controls 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 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

Appendix III of the 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

("baseline measures"). South Coast 2007

AQMP, page 3-1. The District also

provided both summer and winter

planning inventories for PM2 .5 and

PM2 .

5 precursors. South Coast 2007

AQMP, Appendix III, page III-1-23.

Table 1 is a summary of the average

annual day inventories for directlyemitted PM2 .5 and for the PM2 .5

precursors NOx, VOC, and SOx for the

baseline modeling year of 2005 and the

targeted attainment year of 2014 from

the South Coast 2007 AQMP (derived

from Appendix A, Table A-2). It is these

inventories that provide the basis for the

control measure analysis and the RFP

and attainment demonstrations in the

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 NH3

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

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

a Numbers may not add due to rounding.

As a starting point for the South Coast

2007 AQMP's inventories, the District

used CARB's 2002 base year inventory.

An example of this inventory and

CARB's documentation for its

inventories can be found in Appendices

A and F, respectively, of the 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. Both base 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 .5 implementation rule, and EPA's

guidance. We find that the base year and

projected baseline year inventories are

comprehensive, accurate, and current

inventories of actual or projected

emissions of PM2 .

5 and PM2 .5 precursors

in the South Coast nonattainment area

12 Electronic mail from Kathy Hsiao, SCAQMD to

Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, RE: NH 3 numbers for

SCAB, dated October 29, 2010.

as of the date of their submittal. We

therefore propose to approve these

inventories as meeting the requirements

of CAA 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. of the TSD for this

proposal.

C. Reasonably Available Control

Measures (RACM)/Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) and

Adopted Control Strategy

1. Requirements for RACM/RACT

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that

each attainment plan "provide for the

implementation of all reasonably

available control measures as

expeditiously as practicable (including

such reductions in emissions from

existing sources in the area as may be

obtained through the adoption, at a

minimum, of reasonably available

control technology), and shall provide

for attainment of the national primary

ambient air quality standards." 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 of its attainment plan precursors.

40 CFR 51.1002(c).

For PM 2.

5 attainment plans, EPA is

requiring a combined approach to

RACM and RACT under subpart 1 of

Part D of the 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 of the

variable nature of the PM 2.5 problem 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 may be

necessary to reach attainment as

expeditiously as practicable. 72 FR

20586, at 20612, 20615. Thus, under the

PM 2.5 implementation 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 PM 2.5 implementation

rule requires that attainment plans

include the list of measures the state

considered and information sufficient to

show that a state met all requirements

for the determination of what

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 of measures must be adopted as

71298

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

RACM/RACT, consider the cumulative

impact of implementing 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

or more. Any measures that are

necessary to meet these requirements

that are not already either federally

promulgated, part of the state's SIP, or

otherwise creditable in SIPs must be

submitted in enforceable form as part of

a state's attainment plan for the area. 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. of the

TSD for this proposal.

2. RACM/RACT Demonstration in the

SIP

CARB and the District have

rulemaking processes for development,

adoption and implementation of RACM/

RACT that have been in place for

decades. Many of the 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 of the State's, District's,

and the Southern California Association

of Governments' (SCAG's) new

stationary, area and mobile sources

measures that have been adopted since

the base year and those that are being

committed to for adoption in the future.

See CARB Staff Report, "Proposed 2007

State Implementation Plan for the South

Coast Air Basin-PM2.

5 Annual 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 of the 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 of the South Coast

2007 AQMP.

Since the 1970s, the District has

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 District began

using economic incentive approaches

with programs such as the Regional

Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM)

and the Carl Moyer program. 13 While

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's jurisdiction. In

developing the South Coast 2007

AQMP, the District conducted a process

to identify RACM for the South Coast

that involved public meetings to solicit

input, evaluation of EPA 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 (including the 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 of the

South Coast 2007 AQMP. The District

sponsored an AQMP summit, which

generated 200 potential control

measures. In addition, the District

reviewed the list of control measures in

EPA's PM 2 .5 implementation rule. The

District also reevaluated all 82 District

rules and regulations. The District then

screened the identified measures and

rejected those that affected few or no

sources in the South Coast, had already

been adopted as rules, or were in the

process of being adopted. The remaining

measures were evaluated using baseline

inventories, available control

technologies, and potential emission

13 The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality

Standards Attainment Program ("Carl Moyer

Program") provides incentive grants for engines,

equipment and other sources of pollution that 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. The program

achieves near-term reductions in emissions of NOx,

PM, and VOC or reactive organic gas (ROG) which

are necessary for California to meet its 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 of lowering

emission limits and increasing levels of

control in order to promote cleaner

stationary source technologies; lowering

the VOC content of coatings and

solvents; establishing standards and test

methods for generic equipment and

lowering release or leak thresholds;

improving leak detection, repair,

inspection and maintenance; and

adding best management practices to

rules.

Based on its RACM/RACT evaluation

for stationary and area sources under its

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 staff did 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 of the AQMP in 2007, the

District has completed action on the

majority of these 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 gas production 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 of these rules, which are

included in the baseline emissions

estimates for the South Coast 2007

AQMP, is provided in Table 1-2 of the

South Coast 2007 AQMP. See South

Coast 2007 AQMP, Chapter 1, Table 1-

2 and Chapter 4, page 4-6, and Table B1 in Appendix B of the TSD for today's

action.

71299

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71299 2010
Federal 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 PM 2.

5 sources in the South Coast

Area. The District committed to adopt

and submit measures that will achieve

the following additional emissions

reductions: 32 tpd NOx, 10 tpd VOC, 4

tpd direct PM 2.

5 and 3 tpd SOx 14 See

CARB Staff Report on the South Coast

2007 AQMP, page ES-2 to ES-4. The

District expects to meet its emissions

reductions commitments for each of the

pollutants by adopting new control

measures and programs found in the

Table 4-2A of the South Coast 2007

14 CARB uses the term ROG (reactive organic

gases) where we use the term VOC. We will use the

term "VOC" in this notice to refer to both ROG and

VOC.

AQMP (See South Coast 2007 AQMP,

page 4-10 and CARB Staff Report on

South Coast 2007 AQMP, p. 18) and

from additional actions summarized in

the CARB Staff Report on the South

Coast 2007 AQMP (See CARB Staff

Report on South Coast 2007 AQMP, p.

17). The new control measures and

additional actions are estimated to

achieve more of the 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 of the Carl Moyer program.

The South Coast 2007 AQMP also

identifies 22 measures (beyond the new

control measures and additional actions

just discussed) for further review 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 of each

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 of the South Coast 2007

AQMP, the District has already adopted

and submitted several new rules that

help fulfill the District's enforceable

commitments for additional emission

reductions of NOx, VOC, direct PM 2.

5

and SOx in the South Coast area. Tables

2 and 3 below 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.

R ule 1127- Livestock W aste ...................................................................

R efin e ry P ilot P ro g ra m .............................................................................

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

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

Not yet submitted-adopted 07/09/

10.

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

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

Not yet adopted ..............................

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

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

Subm itted .......................................

Subm itted .......................................

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

Not yet adopted ..............................

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 2010
Federal 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 yet adopted .............................. N/A.

Carl M oyer program .................................................................................. No rule associated with this m eas- O ngoing.

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.

u re.

b. CARB's RACM Analysis and Adopted EPA on goods movement activities and approval of San Joaquin 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 ro e 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 of engine

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, if not most, of these

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 of the emissions reductions needed for emissions from all types of mobile

the development of some of the 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 of the TSD.

and the fuels that power them. These Strategy, EPA has approved California's Table 4 below 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 of Automotive 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 o th ..............................

B o th ..............................

S C ................................

S C ................................

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 More information 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.

S C ................................

B o th ..............................

S JV ...............................

B o th ..............................

2 0 0 7 .............................

2 0 0 7 .............................

2 0 0 9 .............................

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 of the 2007 State Strategy can be found at http://

www.arb.ca.gov/planninglsip/2o07sip/2OO7sip.htm.

71302

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

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

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 of the TSD includes a list

of all 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 of Federal

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

of the San Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone

plan at 74 FR 33933, 33938 (July 14,

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 for meeting

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 of the 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 of VOC, 9 tpd of direct

PM2 .

5 , and 20 tpd of SOx (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

of reductions from any specific measure.

See 2007 State Strategy, p. 58. A

summary of the estimates from the

proposed measures is provided in Table

5 below.

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 5 below lists these defined

measures. As shown in this table, the

State has adopted many of the measures.

2007 STATE STRATEGY FOR THE SOUTH

Measure 2014 NOx 2014 VOC 2014 Direct 2014 SOx PM2.

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

C lean U p Existing H a rbo r C raft ....................................................................... 2 .4 0 .1 0 .1 ........................

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment (> 25hp) ................................................ 10.5 2.7 2.6 ........................

C o nsum e r P rod ucts P rog ra m [pa rtia l] ............................................................. ........................ 1 .8 ........................ ........................

T o ta ls ............................................................................................................... 1 0 1 .3 1 8 .2 8 .6 1 7 .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 local jurisdiction'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 its results are

described in Appendix IV-C of the

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,

described beginning on page 49 of

Appendix IV-C of the South Coast 2007

AQMP, resulted in extensive local

government commitments to implement

71303

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71303 2010
Federal 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 of TCMs 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

of the 2006 Regional Transportation

Improvement Program (RTIP).

3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT

and Adopted Control Strategy

Under the PM 2.

5 implementation rule,

RACM/RACT are the set of measures

necessary for expeditious attainment.

The measures must address emissions of

PM 2.5 and all PM 2.5 attainment plan

precursors that are necessary to result in

such expeditious attainment. In order

for a PM 2.

5 plan to demonstrate that it

provides for RACM/RACT, it must 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 PM 2.5 attainment

demonstration for the South Coast

nonattainment area because it relies too

heavily on commitments to reduce

emissions in lieu of fully adopted

measures. Absent an approvable

attainment demonstration, we are

unable to propose 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 of a comprehensive set

of measures 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 to propose 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 of direct

PM 2.5, NOx, VOC, and Sex by specific

years as given in Table 4-10 of the

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 of the

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. Attainment Demonstration

1. Requirements for Attainment

Demonstrations

CAA section 172 requires a State to

submit a plan for each of its

nonattainment areas that demonstrates

attainment of the applicable ambient air

quality standard as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than the

specified attainment date. Under the

PM2 .

5 implementation rule, this

demonstration should consist of four

parts:

(1) Technical analyses that locate,

identify, and quantify sources of

emissions that are contributing to

violations of the PM2 .5 NAAQS;

(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) of the CAA.

See 40 CFR 51.1007; 72 FR 20586, at

20605.

The requirements for the first two

parts are described in the sections on

emissions inventories and RACM/RACT

above and in the sections on air quality

modeling, PM2 .

5 precursors, 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 of the PM2 .

5 NAAQS as part

of an attainment SIP are contained in

EPA's "Guidance on the Use of Models

and Other Analyses for Demonstrating

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for the

8-Hour Ozone and PM2 .5 NAAQS and

Regional Haze." 16 A brief description 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 can be found in the docket for

today's action.

16 The guidance is available at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance sip.htm and in

the docket for today's action.

Air quality modeling is used to

establish emission attainment targets, a

combination of emissions of PM 2.

5 and

PM 2.5 precursors that the nonattainment

area can accommodate without

exceeding the NAAQS, and to assess

whether the proposed control strategy

will result in attainment of the 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 is based

on the CAMx model using the "one

atmosphere" approach comprised of the

carbon bond IV (CB-IV) gas phased

chemistry and a static two-mode

particle size aerosol.17 CAMx annual

average PM 2.5 modeling simulations

were generated for 2005 and 2014

baseline emissions scenarios and for a

2014 controlled emissions scenario by

the District. District staff compared the

base year model output to speciated

particulate data measured in 2005 as

part of the Multiple Air Toxics 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 of specific 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

of the model's future to current

(baseline) predictions at a monitor.

Future PM 2.5 concentrations are

estimated at existing monitoring sites by

multiplying a modeled RRF at the grid

cell locations of each monitor by the

observation-based, monitor-specific,

"baseline" design value. A separate RRF

is calculated for each of the PM 2.

5

precursors. Future PM 2.5 design values

were estimated by District staff at

existing monitoring sites throughout the

South Coast nonattainment area by

multiplying modeled RRFs for each

17 CAMx is the Comprehensive Air Quality Model

with extensions, an Eulerian photochemical

dispersion model that allows for integrated "oneatmosphere" assessments of gaseous and particulate

air pollution (ozone, PM2 .5, PM10 , air toxics) over

many scales ranging from sub-urban to continental.

71304

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

monitor times the observed

"component-specific design value". The

future PM 2.5 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 is lower than the 24-

hour PM 2.

5 NAAQS at 65 pg/ms. The

maximum 2014 predicted PM 2.

5 annual

design value is 15.0 pg/m3; a predicted

design value of 15.04 pg/ms or lower is

considered modeled attainment of the

annual standard.

EPA guidance also recommends the

use of supplemental 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 to be 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 of the 1997 PM 2.5 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 of the CAA and EPA

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 of emissions that enable the attainment and

maintenance of an ambient air quality standard for

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

27.)

19 The CARB Staff Report for the South Coast

2007 AQMP presents a slightly different emissions

carrying capacity which relies more heavily on

reductions of primary PM 2.5 and less heavily on

reductions of precursors to PM 2.5. The Staff Report'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 PM 2.

5 in the ambient air.

These gas-phase PM 2.

5 precursors

undergo chemical reactions in the

atmosphere to form secondary

particulate matter. Formation of

secondary PM 2.

5 depends on numerous

factors including the concentrations of

precursors; the concentrations of other

gaseous reactive species; atmospheric

conditions including solar radiation,

temperature, and relative humidity; and

the interactions of precursors 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 four PM 2.

5 precursor pollutants. 72

FR 20586, at 20589 and 40 CFR

§ 51.1008(a)(1). However, the overall

contribution of different precursors to

PM 2.

5 formation and the effectiveness of

alternative potential control measures

will vary by area. Thus, the precursors

that a state should regulate to attain the

PM 2.

5 NAAQS could also vary to some

extent from area to area. 72 FR 20586,

at 20589.

In the PM 2.

5 implementation rule,

EPA did not make a finding that all

potential PM 2.

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

PM 2.

5 in all nonattainment 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 of NOx emissions

would not significantly reduce PM 2.

5

concentrations in the specific

nonattainment area. Id. at 40 CFR

51.1002(c)(2). EPA has determined in

the PM 2.

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 PM 2.

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 would be

projected to provide a significant

reduction in PM 2.

5 concentrations in the

area. 72 FR 20586, at 20590.

In the South Coast nonattainment

area, PM 2.

5 can be directly emitted, such

as from road dust, diesel soot,

combustion products, and other sources

("primary particles"), or formed through

atmospheric chemical reactions of

precursor chemicals ("secondary

particles"). Examples of secondary

particles include sulfates, nitrates, and

complex carbon compounds formed

from reactions of NOx, SOx, VOCs, and

ammonia. The attainment

demonstration for the South Coast PM 2.

5

nonattainment area addresses

ammonium nitrate and ammonium

sulfate because they represent a

dominant fraction of PM 2.

5 components

in this area and are formed through

secondary reactions of the precursors

NOx, SOx, VOC and ammonia. The

District's analysis indicates that SOx

reductions followed by directly-emitted

PM 2.

5 and NOx reductions provide the

greatest ambient PM 2.

5 reductions. VOC

reductions can also contribute to

improving ambient PM 2.

5 concentrations

and will occur concurrently as a result

of District's 8-hour ozone strategy. 20

Starting in 2011, the PM 2.

5

implementation rule requires that states

must also address condensable

particulate matter (CPM), including

estimates of CPM in emissions

inventories, modeling, and control

strategies.

4. Extension of the 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 5 years

from the date such area was designated

nonattainment * * *, except that the

Administrator may extend the

attainment date to the extent the

Administrator determines appropriate,

for a period no greater than 10 years

from the date of designation as

nonattainment considering the severity

of nonattainment and the availability

and feasibility of pollution control

measures."

Because the effective date of

designations for the 1997 PM 2.5

standards was April 5, 2005 (70 FR 944),

the initial attainment date for PM 2.

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 of the PM2.

5

implementation rule addresses the

attainment date requirement. Section

51.1004(b) requires a State to submit an

20 See page 5-17 of Chapter 5 of the South Coast

2007 AQMP. We approved the South Coast RACT

SIP on December 18, 2008 (See 73 FR 76947) as

complying with the relevant CAA requirements for

RACT SIPs for 8-hour ozone.

71305

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71305 2010
Federal 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 of the

attainment date under CAA section

172(a)(2) must provide sufficient

information to show that attainment by

April 5, 2010 is impracticable due to the

severity of the 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 are being

implemented to bring about attainment

of the standard by the most expeditious

alternative date practicable for the area.

72 FR 20586, at 20601. Thus, the proper

evaluation of RACM/RACT controls is

an integral part of justifying an

extension of the 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 PM 2.5 standards).

PM2 .5 concentrations recorded over the

last few years at the Riverside and Mira

Loma monitoring sites continue to read

well above the 1997 PM2 .

5 NAAQS.21

The PM 2.

5 problem in the South Coast

is complex, caused by both direct PM 2.

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 of PM 2.

5 particles. South

Coast 2007 AQMP, Chapter 4.

As discussed in section IV.C.3. above,

the District's strategy for attaining the

PM 2.5 standard relies on reductions of

directly-emitted PM 2.

5 as well 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 of these

pollutants is challenging, because the

State and local air pollution regulations

already in place include most of the

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 PM 2.

5 reductions are

achieved primarily from open burning

and residential wood combustion

control measures. These types of control

measures present special

implementation challenges (e.g., the

large number of individuals 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 at both the State and local level.

SOx reductions identified in the plan

come from District rules such as

RECLAIM, and State measures related to

ships.

Because of the necessity of obtaining

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 of the 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 of the required control

technologies. Finally, we believe that it

is not feasible at this time to 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 in Chapter 4 of the

South Coast 2007 AQMP, and in section

IV.C.2 above.

In addition, the State has adopted

standards for many categories of on-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 of the mid-course

review of the 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 to be feasible in the

future.

As discussed in section IV.C.6 above,

however, we are not in a position at this

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 of the

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) Given the severity

of the PM 2.

5 nonattainment problem in

the South Coast nonattainment area and

the substantial progress the District has

made to adopt and implement reduction

strategies, an extension of the

attainment date would most likely be

appropriate and approvable if it were

supported by the necessary analysis and

a part of an attainment plan that meets

the applicable statutory and regulatory

requirements.

5. Attainment Demonstration

Table 7 below summarizes the

measures that are relied upon in the

South Coast 2007 AQMP's PM 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. See CARB Staff Report 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 2010
Federal 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/A Q M D reductions ....................................................................................... 28 10 4 3

H . N ew S tate red uctions .................................................................................................. 152 46 9 20

I. F e d e ra l re d u ctio n s ......................................................................................................10 .................... ..................... . ...... . . . . . .

J. Additional local/AQMD reductions ............................................................................... 4 ............... . ....................

K. Total "new " reductions (G +H+I+J) .............................................................................. 194 56 16 23

L. T otal red uctions (F+ K ) ................................................................................................. 5 12 260 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 PM2 .5 attainment in the

South Coast nonattainment area by 2015

come from baseline reductions, i.e.,

from adopted measures that have

generally been approved by EPA either

through the SIP or the CAA section 209

waiver process. See Appendices A and

B of the TSD. The remaining reductions

needed for attainment are to be achieved

through the District's and CARB's

commitments to reduce emissions in the

South Coast and from a federal

assignment which EPA cannot approve,

as discussed below. Since the submittal

of the 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. For the 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 of NOx, 6.4 tpd of VOC, 0.6

tpd of PM 2.5 and 0.3 of SOx (See Table

8 for a summary of these reductions).

Emissions reductions from District

measures approved by EPA since 2007

include 14.5 tpd of NOx, 4.3 tpd of

VOC, and 1.2 tpd of PM2 .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 C om m itm ent (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.

R em a ining S tate C o m m itm ent ................................................................................................. 124 .2 ....... 39 .6 ......... 8 .4 ........... 19 .7 .

D istrict C om m itm ent ................................................................................................................. 32 ......... 10 .... . ... 4 .......... 3.

Less reductions from EPA approved District measures since 2007 ....................................... 14.5 ......... 4.3 ........... 1.2 ........... 0.

R em aining D istrict C om m itm ent .............................................................................................. 17 .5 ......... 5 .7 ........ 2 .8 ........ 3.

M issing 3 tpd P M 2.5 (S e e fo otn o te 2 3 ) .................................................................................... ................... .................. 3 ...............

T otal rem aining com m itm ent (tpd) b ......................................................................................... 15 1.7 ....... 45.3 .......... 14.2 .......... 22 .7.

Total remaining commitment (%) (compared to Line E of Table 7 above) ............................. 30% ......... 18% ......... 89% ° ....... 1 53%.

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. b Includes federal assignment of 10 tpd NOx.

I See footnote 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 (both prior to and pursuant to the

South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised

2007 State Strategy) provide the

22 EPA allows emission reduction credit for

measures that are subject to the CAA section 209

process. See EPA's proposed approval of the San

Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan at 74 FR 33933,

33938 (July 14, 2009). The State's baseline nonmajority of emission reductions needed

to demonstrate attainment in the

nonattainment SIP as designed for this

area. The balance of the needed

reductions is in the form of enforceable

commitments by CARB. This approach

waiver measures have generally all been approved

by EPA into the SIP. See TSD, Appendix A. 2 3 The 2007 State Strategy identifies 9 tpd of

directly-emitted PM2 .5 as the aggregate State

commitment by the 2015 attainment date (See 2009

State Strategy Status Report, page 20) but the CARB

is consistent with past practice because

the CAA allows approval of enforceable

commitments that are limited in scope

where circumstances exist that warrant

the use of such commitments in place

staff report for the South Coast 2007 AQMP

indicates a 12 tpd commitment. (See 2007 staff

report, page ES-3) It is unclear whether the State's

commitment is for 9 tpd PM 2.5 or 12 tpd of direct

PM2 .

5 .

71307

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

of adopted measures. 24 Once EPA

determines that circumstances warrant

consideration of an enforceable

commitment, EPA considers three

factors in determining whether to

approve the CAA requirement that relies

on the enforceable commitment: (a)

Does the commitment address a limited

portion of the CAA requirement; (b) is

the State capable of fulfilling its

commitment; and (c) is the commitment

for a reasonable and appropriate period

of time.25

We believe that, in acting on the

South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised

2007 State Strategy, circumstances

warrant the consideration of enforceable

commitments as part of the attainment

demonstrations for this area. As shown

in Table 8 above, the majority of

emission reductions needed to

demonstrate attainment and all of the

emission reductions needed to

demonstrate RFP come from rules and

regulations that were adopted prior to

the AQMP's submittal in November

2007, i.e., they come from the baseline

measures.

As a result of these already-adopted

State and District efforts, most sources

24 Commitments approved by EPA under section

110(k)(3) of the CAA are enforceable by EPA and

citizens under, respectively, sections 113 and 304

of the 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., American Lung

Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J.

1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC,

Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp.

848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for a Better Env't v.

Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in

par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for

Clean Air v. South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist., No.

CV 97-6916-HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999).

Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments,

EPA could make a finding of failure to implement

the SIP under CAA Section 179(a), 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 may be necessary or appropriate to meet the

applicable requirement of the Act." Section

172(c)(6) of the 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 or techniques" that EPA determines are

"necessary or appropriate" to meet CAA

requirements, such that the area will attain as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the

designated date. Furthermore, the express

allowance for "schedules and timetables"

demonstrates that Congress understood that all

required controls might not have to be in place

before a SIP could be fully approved.

25 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

upheld EPA's interpretation of CAA sections

110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and the Agency's use and

application of the three factor test in approving

enforceable commitments in the 1-hour ozone SIP

for Houston-Galveston. BCCA Appeal Group et al.

v. EPA et aL., 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003).

in the South Coast nonattainment area

were already subject to stringent rules

prior to the development of the 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 and the

revised 2007 State Strategy, the District

and CARB identified potential control

measures that could achieve the

additional emissions reductions needed

for attainment (See CARB Staff Report

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 of the South

Coast's attainment plan. As discussed

above and below, 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 of adopted measures are

approvable.

i. The Commitments Do Not Represent

a Limited Portion of Required

Reductions

First, we look to see if the

commitment addresses a limited portion

of a statutory requirement, such as the

amount of emissions reductions needed

in a nonattainment area. The remaining

portion of the 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

of the emissions reductions needed for

PM 2.

5 attainment in 2014, the remaining

portion of the enforceable commitments

represent approximately 30% of the

needed NON reductions, 18% of the

needed VOC reductions, 89% of the

needed PM 2.5 reductions and 53% of the

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

of the San Joaquin Valley PM-10 SIP at

69 30005 (May 26, 2004), approval of

the San Joaquin 1-hour ozone plan at 75

FR 10420 (March 8, 2010), and approval

of the 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 and Fuel

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. It is possible that the

reductions from these measures and

several outstanding District rules will

reduce the percentage of the remaining

portion of the emissions reductions

attributed to enforceable commitments

to below 10% of the total needed

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 of enforceable

commitments for NOx, VOC, direct

PM 2.5 and SOx, relied upon by the

South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised

2007 State Strategy are too high and not

a limited portion of the total emissions

reductions needed to meet the statutory

requirement for attainment in the South

Coast nonattainment area.

ii. The State is Capable of Fulfilling 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 of the 2007 State Strategy,

CARB adopted and submitted the 2009

State Strategy Status Report which

shows the State's progress in achieving

its enforceable commitments for the

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 PM 2.5 reductions. 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

of NOx, VOC, direct PM 2.5 and SOx,

there are still significant reductions that

must be addressed in order to satisfy the

commitments. As discussed above, the

remaining portion of the enforceable

commitments is anywhere from 18-89%

for the relevant pollutants. The revised

2007 State Strategy includes a table with

estimates of the measures that may

fulfill the whole commitment. See 2009

Status Report on State Strategy, p. 17.

While the percentage of remaining

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 2010
Federal 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 of meeting their enforceable

commitments to achieve the necessary

reductions in the South Coast

nonattainment area by 2014.

iii. The Commitment Is for a Reasonable

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 time to achieve the

committed reductions by 2014. As we

noted previously, many of the

scheduled measures have been adopted.

See Tables 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. See District 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 is not 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 tons per 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 or CO

in areas which have failed to attain the

ozone or CO NAAQS, and regulate these

emissions categories if found to be

significant. EPA agrees with the State

that national mobile source emissions

are increasingly significant contributors

to PM 2.5 and ozone pollution,

particularly in the South Coast. The

federal government has adopted a

variety of national measures that have

reduced emissions in the South Coast

and will continue to explore future

reduction opportunities. South Coast

may take credit for these reductions in

its attainment plans. The District may

not, however, assign a reduction target

to the federal government as it has done

in the 2007 AQMP.

In May 2004, as part of the Clean Air

Nonroad Diesel Rule, EPA finalized new

requirements for nonroad diesel fuel

that decreased the allowable levels of

sulfur in fuel used in 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 PM 2.5 from existing

engines. In addition, in March 2008,

EPA finalized a three-part program that

reduces emissions from diesel

locomotives of all types-line-haul,

switch, and passenger rail.27 The

Locomotive and Marine Diesel Engine

rule cuts PM 2.5 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 3 emission 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 of high-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 Coast by 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

2 6 See 69 FR 38957, "Control of Emissions of Air

Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines", also

referred to as the "Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule",

June 29, 2004.

27 See 73 FR 37095, "Control of Emissions of Air

Pollution from Locomotives and Marine

Compression-Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters

per Cylinder," also referred to as the "Locomotive

and Marine Diesel Engine 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 of the South Coast 2007 AQMP.

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 of the State's current estimate of

the total emissions reductions needed in

this area. See Table 8. While EPA has

previously accepted enforceable

commitments in lieu of adopted 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 of enforceable

commitments. We also believe that both

the State and the District have

demonstrated their capability to meet

their commitments. However, the

commitments do not constitute a

limited portion of the required

emissions reductions, and are not for an

appropriate timeframe. The State's and

District's unfulfilled commitments

currently represent 30 percent of the

NOx reductions, 18 percent of the VOC

reductions, 89 percent of the PM 2.

5

reductions, and 53 percent of the SOx

emissions reductions currently

estimated to be required for attainment

of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the South

Coast nonattainment area. These

percentages are well above the 10

percent figure of total reductions needed

for attainment generally accepted by

EPA to approve an attainment

demonstration that relies in part on

enforceable commitments. The

timeframe of 2014 is not currently

appropriate since we are not proposing

71309

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71309 2010
Federal 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 of the 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 in the

relatively near term, before we take final

action. We look forward to working with

the State and District in the coming

months.

E. RFP Demonstration

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 of the relevant air pollutant

as are required by this part or may

reasonably be required by the

Administrator for the purpose of

ensuring attainment of the applicable

[NAAQS] by the applicable date."

The PM2 .5 implementation rule

requires submission of a specific RFP

demonstration at the same time as the

attainment demonstration for any area

for which the State justifies an

extension of the attainment date beyond

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 will be at a level

consistent with generally linear progress

in reducing emissions between the base

year and the attainment year. See 40

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 PM 2.

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 of those 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 is in Chapter

6 of the South Coast 2007 AQMP. The

demonstration addresses direct PM 2.5,

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 PM 2.5 RFP

demonstration. See South 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

P roje cte d sh o rtfa ll (tpd ) ................................................................................................... 9 3 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

P roje cte d sh o rtfa ll (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 of the 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 7 tpd 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 only met but surpassed.

While the shortfall of 93 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% of the 2002 baseline

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 that the RFP

demonstration for 2012 meets the

"generally linear" test for RFP

requirements for 2012 and addresses the

shortfall of NOx in 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 if the 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 if an area fails to meet RFP

("RFP contingency measures") and

contingency measures to be

implemented if an area fails to attain the

PM 2 .5 NAAQS by the applicable

attainment date ("attainment

contingency measures"). These

71310

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71310 2010
Federal 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 in the

plan to demonstrate RFP or attainment

and should provide SIP-creditable

emissions reductions equivalent to one

year of RFP. Finally, the SIP should

contain trigger mechanisms for the

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 of those 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 if the 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 of the South Coast 2007

AQMP and discussed in more detail in

Appendix IV-A, section 2 of the AQMP.

They are described below.

The South Coast 2007 AQMP

describes the contingency measures in

the following way, "Although

implementation of these measures is

expected to reduce emissions, there are

issues that limit the viability of these

measures as AQMP control measures at

this time. Issues surrounding these

measures include, but are not limited to

availability of District resources to

implement and enforce the measure,

cost-effectiveness of the measure,

potential adverse environmental

impacts, potential economic impacts,

effectiveness of emissions reductions,

and availability of methods to quantify

emissions reductions." South Coast 2007

AQMP, page 9-1. The contingency

measures do not meet the requirements

of the 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 of emissions reductions

demonstrating the equivalent of one

year of RFP.

CTY-O1-Offsetting potential

emissions increase due to change in

natural gas specifications-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 may be 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 is no defined

implementation schedule. For these

reasons, this proposed measure does not

meet CAA requirements for contingency

measures.

CTY-02-Clean Air Act Emission

Fees for Major Stationary Sources-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 of Rule 317 is

triggered by a failure of the South Coast

to attain the 1-hour standard by its

applicable attainment date (which can

occur no earlier than November 15,

2010) and not by any failure to make

RFP or to attain the PM2.

5 NAAQS, a

minimum requirement for contingency

measures for PM 2.

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 off road

diesel engines on High Pollution

Advisory (HPA) days-This proposed

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 of pre-Tier 3 off-road diesel

engines after 2023 on HPA 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 is not currently

adopted. It also would be implemented

too late in time to provide for RFP or

contingency reductions for PM2 .5 RFP or

attainment. In addition, 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-04-Accelerated

implementation of CARB's mobile

source measures-This proposed

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 of the remaining

control measures that have not been

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 a few months of a

failure to make RFP or to attain. This

proposed contingency measure would

require additional rulemaking at the

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-A ttainmen t- Year Emissions

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 PM2 .5 attainment year. There is no

calculation of the 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 of RFP to be

1.08 tpd PM2 .5 , 52.8 tpd NOx, 30.8 tpd

of VOC, and 2.75 tpd SO2 . See TSD,

section II.H, and CARB Staff Report 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 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

they provide reductions equivalent to

one year's worth of RFP. For the reasons

stated above, we are proposing to

disapprove the District's contingency

measure provisions in the South Coast

2007 AQMP for PM 2 .

5 .

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for

Transportation Conformity

Transportation conformity is required

by section 176(c) of the 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 of the 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 motor vehicle 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 of the 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 of 40 CFR

93.118(e)(4) and (5). Additionally, motor

vehicle emissions budgets cannot be

approved until EPA completes a

detailed review of the 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 on budgets,

please visit our transportation

conformity Web site at: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/in dex.h tin.

As submitted on November 28, 2007,

the 2007 South Coast AQMP included a

set of PM 2.

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, and which

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

PM 2.

5 budgets with two new sets of

budgets (herein, "replacement" budgets).

One set of the 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 if EPA cannot find the "SIPbased" budgets adequate in their

entirety.

The replacement budgets submitted

on April 30, 2008 differ from the

original budgets 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 had been 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 that had not been

adopted in regulatory form by 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 PM2 .

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 1 1-"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 that updates certain

portions of the 2007 State Strategy to

account for emission reductions from

regulations adopted in 2007 and 2008,

some of which relate to on-road sources,

such as modifications to the

reformulated gasoline program, smog

check improvements, and cleaner in-use

28 With respect 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 plan itself, and did

so with respect to the PM 2.

5 budgets in

the 2007 South Coast AQMP. The

availability of the original budgets was

announced for public comment on

EPA's adequacy Web page on February

emissions reductions from measures not adopted by for 2009 is the same as the "baseline" PM 2.5 budget

October 2006. Thus, the "SIP-based" PM2.5 budget for that year.

71312

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

12, 2008 and the availability of the

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" PM 2.

5 budgets 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, Air Division,

EPA Region IX to James Goldstene,

Executive Officer, CARB (a copy of

which has been placed in the docket for

this rulemaking). However, in our May

2008 adequacy determination, we found

the "baseline" PM 2.

5 budgets for RFP

years 2009 and 2012 to be adequate.

Generally, we found the "SIP-based"

budgets to be inadequate because they

reflected control measures not yet

adopted in regulatory form and thus not

adequately quantified or supported by

the plan. In contrast, we found the

"baseline" PM 2.

5 budgets to be consistent

with the plan's RFP demonstration and

to be based on adopted mobile source

regulations that have already been

implemented. Our notice of adequacy/

inadequacy of the budgets was

published on May 15, 2008 at 73 FR

28110 (corrected on June 18, 2008 at 73

FR 34837), and was effective on May 30,

2008.

The criteria by which we determine

whether a SIP's budgets are adequate

and approvable for conformity purposes

are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and

(5). The following paragraphs provide

our review of the "SIP-based" and

"baseline" PM 2.

5 budgets 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 of budgets, 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 of our 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 by the

Governor (or designee) 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 of letters

signed by 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 of a 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 plan to 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, if any, 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 of adequate 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 of the 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 plan to 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, these budgets

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 plan to determine

whether the budgets, when considered

together with all other emissions

sources, are consistent with applicable

requirements for reasonable further

progress, attainment, or maintenance

(whichever is relevant to a given SIP

submission). Based on our proposed

disapproval of the RFP and attainment

demonstrations (See sections IV.D and

IV.E of this document), EPA proposes

that all of the "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 of the

PM 2.5 NAAQS by 2014.

Because we are proposing to

disapprove the RFP demonstrations for

years 2009 and 2012, we do encourage

CARB to submit revised budgets to lock

in the benefit of the new regulations and

thereby avoid the chance that increases

in vehicle activity will increase the

overall challenge of attaining the

NAAQS. For the 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 in the submitted

control strategy plan or maintenance

plan. The plan, as supplemented by the

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 that result, in

part, from specified control measures

that have not been adopted in regulatory

form (or have been adequately

supported as a voluntary measure). As

noted above, more control measures

have been adopted by CARB in

regulatory form than was the case when

the "SIP-based" budgets were adopted

and submitted by CARB to EPA, but a

portion of the 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 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 224/Monday, November 22, 2010/Proposed Rules

the basis for any changes related to

emissions factors or estimates of vehicle

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 to previously submitted

budgets. Thus, we propose that the

submitted plan meets this criterion for

adequacy and approval with respect to

both the "SIP-based" and "baseline"

budgets.

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(5), we review

the State's compilation of public

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 with respect to

both the "SIP-based" and "baseline"

budgets.

For the reasons described in the May

6, 2008 letter from Deborah Jordan 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 of the

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

a whole will not ensure RFP and

attainment of the PM 2.

5 NAAQS 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.

5 budgets (shown in

Table 11 above) for transportation

conformity purposes. SCAG and the

U.S. Department of Transportation are

not currently using the "SIP-based"

budgets in transportation conformity

determinations due to the inadequacy

finding made in 2008. If the proposed

disapproval of the 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 now proposing

disapproval of the PM 2.

5 budgets 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 Mid Course Review

Any State that submits to EPA an

approvable attainment plan for a PM2.5

nonattainment area justifying an

attainment date of nine or ten years

from the date of designation also must

submit to EPA a mid-course review six

years from the date of designation, or by

April 2011. 40 CFR 51.1011. The midcourse review for an area must include:

(1) A review of emissions reductions

and progress made in implementing

control measures to reduce emissions of

direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.

5 attainment plan

precursors contributing to PM 2.

5

concentrations in the area; (2) an

analysis of changes in ambient air

quality data for the area; (3) a revised air

quality modeling analysis to

demonstrate attainment; (4) any new or

revised control measures adopted by the

State, as necessary to ensure attainment

by the attainment date in the approved

SIP of the nonattainment area. We

anticipate receiving this midcourse

review from the District and CARB by

April 2011.

V. EPA's Proposed Actions

A. EPA's Proposed Approvals and

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 PM 2.

5

NAAQS. This SIP submittal consists of

the portions of the 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 of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS for

the South Coast nonattainment area.

EPA is proposing to approve under

CAA section 110(k)(3) the following

elements of the South Coast PM 2.5

attainment SIP:

1. The SIP's base year and baseline

emissions inventories as meeting the

requirements of CAA 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

of NOx, 10 tpd of VOC, 4 tpd of direct

PM 2.5, and 3 tpd of SOx by 2014 as

listed in Table 4-10 of the South Coast

2007 AQMP and the CARB Staff Report

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 of the 2009 State Strategy Status

Report; and to achieve aggregate

emission reductions of 152 tpd of NOx,

9 tpd of direct PM 2.

5, 46 tpd of VOC, 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 of the CAA and EPA

guidance.

EPA is proposing to disapprove under

CAA section 110(k)(3) the following

elements of the South Coast PM 2.5

attainment SIP:

1. The attainment demonstration for

failing to meet the requirements of CAA

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 PM 2.

5

implementation rule (See 40 CFR

51.1009, 51.1010, and 51.1004);

2. The motor vehicle 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 of CAA

section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1012;

and

4. The assignment of 10 tpd of NOx

to the federal government.

B. CAA Consequences of a Final

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 for the

1997 PM 2.

5 NAAQS not fully approvable

under the CAA. We firmly believe that

such solutions are available and that

expeditious attainment of the 1997

71314

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71314 2010
Federal 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 (usually 30

days after publication of the final action

in the Federal Register). A conformity

freeze means that only projects in the

first four years of the 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 can be

found to conform. See 40 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 of a 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 if California submits and we

approve prior to the implementation of

the sanctions, SIP revisions that correct

the problems identified in EPA's final

action on the South Coast 2007 AQMP

and applicable portions of the 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 of the Act and applicable

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP

submissions, EPA's role is to approve

state choices, provided that they meet

the criteria of the Clean Air Act.

Accordingly, this action merely

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 Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

This action is not a "significant

regulatory action" under the terms of

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore

not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this

proposed SIP disapproval under section

110 and subchapter I, part D of the

Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself

create any new information collection

burdens but simply disapproves certain

State requirements for inclusion into the

SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR

1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

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 a government of a

city, county, town, school district or

special district with a population of less

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 of today's proposed rule on

small entities, I certify 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 of the Clean Air Act will not in-andof itself create 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 or part of the 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 a substantial number of small

entities.

We continue to be interested in the

potential impacts of this proposed rule

on small entities and welcome

comments on issues related to such

impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This action contains no Federal

mandates under the provisions of Title

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.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 or more

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 Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

"Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications." "Policies that have

federalism implications" is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have "substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government."

This action does not have federalism

implications. It will not have substantial

direct effects on the States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, because it

merely disapproves certain State

requirements for inclusion into the SIP

and does not alter the relationship or

the distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132

does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination

With Indian Tribal Governments

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

to disapprove would not apply in Indian

country located in the state, and EPA

notes that it will not impose substantial

direct costs on tribal governments or

preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive

Order 13175 does not apply to this

action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only

to those regulatory actions that concern

health or safety risks, such that the

analysis required under section 5-501 of

the EO has the potential to influence the

regulation. This action is not subject to

EO 13045 because it is not an

economically significant regulatory

action based on health or safety risks

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed

SIP disapproval under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

will not in-and-of itself create any new

regulations but simply disapproves

certain State requirements for inclusion

into the SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

This proposed rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,

May 22, 2001) because it is not a

significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866.

L National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 ("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, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus standards

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide

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) of NTTAA because application of

those requirements would be

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal

Actions To Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations 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 of their

mission by identifying and addressing,

as appropriate, disproportionately high

and adverse human health or

environmental effects of their programs,

policies, and activities on minority

populations and low-income

populations in the United States.

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 of the 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 of the Clean Air Act and will not inand-of itself create any new

requirements. Accordingly, it does not

provide EPA with the discretionary

authority to address, as appropriate,

disproportionate human health or

environmental effects, using practicable

and legally permissible methods, under

Executive Order 12898.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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.

Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

71316

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 71316 2010