71294 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 NAAQS because these 

requirements are linked to approving 

the attainment demonstration under the 

1997 PM2.5 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 PM2.5

contingency measures and the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) for 

the area’s RFP years and attainment 

year. To the extent that the State can 

remedy the shortfall in emissions 

reductions for the attainment 

demonstration, which 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/07aqmp/index.html 

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

sip/sip.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR– 

2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 947–4192, 

tax.wienke@epa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The PM2.5 NAAQS and the South Coast 

PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71295 

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

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

m3. At the same time, we retained the level of the 

annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0 μg/m3. 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 μg/m3 standards by December 14, 2012. In this 

preamble, all references to the PM2.5 NAAQS, 

unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour 

PM2.5 standards of 65 μg/m3 and annual standards 

of 15 μg/m3. 

2See the Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) 

Preliminary Design Value Report dated August 26, 

2010 in the docket for today’s action. 18.8 μg/m3

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)). 

3The South Coast 2007 AQMP is the first South 

Coast Plan to address PM2.5. We have previously 

acted on numerous South Coast air quality plans for 

ozone, PM–10, carbon monoxide, and NO2, 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 PM2.5, we will refer to control 

measures and control measure commitments from 

the 2003 AQMP further in this notice. 

4See November 28, 2007 letter to Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, from James 

N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, with 

enclosures. 

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 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA 

established new national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5, 

particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 

microns or less, including annual 

standards of 15.0 μg/m3 based on a 

3-year average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations, and 24-hour (or daily) 

standards of 65 μg/m3 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 PM2.5 concentrations 

above the levels of these standards. 

Epidemiological studies have shown 

statistically significant correlations 

between elevated PM2.5 levels and 

premature mortality. Other important 

health effects associated with PM2.5

exposure include aggravation of 

respiratory and cardiovascular disease 

(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 PM2.5 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. 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5’’). See 

72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007) 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, EPA is required by 

CAA section 107(d) to designate areas 

throughout the United States as 

attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. 

On January 5, 2005, EPA published 

initial air quality designations for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, based on air quality 

monitoring data for three-year periods of 

2001–2003 or 2002–2004. (70 FR 944). 

These designations became effective on 

April 5, 2005. 

EPA designated the ‘‘Los AngelesSouth Coast Air Basin’’ area (South 

Coast nonattainment area), including 

Orange County, the southwestern twothirds of Los Angeles County, 

southwestern San Bernardino County, 

and western Riverside County as 

nonattainment for both the 1997 24- 

hour and the annual PM2.5 standards. 

The South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment 

area 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 PM2.5

nonattainment area, See 40 CFR 

81.305.1 The local air district with 

primary responsibility for developing a 

plan to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS in this 

area is the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (District). 

Ambient annual PM2.5 levels in the 

South Coast are among the highest 

recorded in the United States at 18.8 

μg/m3 for the 2007–2009 period.2 In the 

South Coast, the levels and composition 

of PM2.5 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 PM2.5

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 PM2.5

NAAQS, these nonattainment SIPs were 

due no later than April 5, 2008. 

California has made several SIP 

submittals to address PM2.5

nonattainment in the South Coast 

nonattainment area. The two principal 

ones are the District’s 2007 PM2.5 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71296 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

5While the attainment date for PM2.5 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.’’ 

6See 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. 

7The 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. 

8See 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. 

9We will also refer to the 2007 State Strategy as 

revised in 2009 as the ‘‘revised 2007 State Strategy.’’ 

2007 AQMP includes a PM2.5 attainment 

demonstration for the South Coast. In 

order to meet relevant CAA 

requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

South Coast 2007 AQMP includes base 

and projected year PM2.5 emissions 

inventories for the South Coast 

nonattainment area; air quality 

monitoring data; short-, medium- and 

long-term District control measures; a 

summary 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 

PM2.5 RFP and for attainment for the 

South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area; 

and a request to extend the attainment 

date for the 1997 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

not only in the South Coast 

nonattainment area but also in 

California’s other nonattainment areas 

such as the San Joaquin Valley and the 

Sacramento area. It also includes 

CARB’s commitments to propose 15 

defined State measures7 and to obtain 

specific amounts of aggregate emissions 

reductions of direct PM2.5, NOX, VOC 

and SOX in the South Coast from 

sources under the State’s jurisdiction, 

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 PM2.5

standards in the South Coast. 

3. Additional SIP Submittal Related to 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

(Budgets) 

In addition to the SIP submittals for 

the 1997 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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(l) require a state to provide 

reasonable public notice and 

opportunity for public hearing prior to 

the adoption and submittal of a SIP or 

SIP revision. To meet this requirement, 

every SIP submittal should include 

evidence that adequate public notice 

was given and 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 

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(l). 

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

EPA to determine whether a SIP 

submittal is complete within 60 days of 

receipt. This section also provides that 

any plan 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 PM2.5

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 PM2.5

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71297 

10 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 PM2.5

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 SO2 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 PM2.5

implementation rule and preamble at 20623–20628, 

40 CFR 51.1002(c), 20619–20620, and 20636, 

respectively. On May 13, 2010, EPA granted the 

petition with respect to the fourth issue. Letter, 

Gina McCarthy, EPA, 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 II.D.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. 

11The District controls sulfur oxides (SOX), 

which includes SO2, and considers the two terms 

interchangeable for emissions purposes. We will 

use SOX in this notice. 

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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 precursors 

must be addressed by the State in its 

PM2.5 attainment SIP, applicable 

attainment dates, and the requirement 

for mid-course reviews.10 We will 

discuss each of these CAA and 

regulatory requirements for attainment 

plans in more detail below. 

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 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5

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 PM2.5 implementation 

rule requires states to include direct 

PM2.5 emissions and emissions of all 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5 includes 

condensable particulate matter. See 40 

CFR 51.1000. PM2.5 precursors are NOX,

SO2, VOC, and ammonia (NH3).11 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 PM2.5 NAAQS in 2005. 40 CFR 

51.1008(b). 

EPA has provided additional 

guidance for PM2.5 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 PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors for 

the South Coast nonattainment area 

together with additional documentation 

for the inventories are found in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71298 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

12Electronic mail from Kathy Hsiao, SCAQMD to 

Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, RE: NH3 numbers for 

SCAB, dated October 29, 2010. 

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 PM2.5 AND PM2.5 PRECURSORS

FOR THE 2005 BASELINE YEAR AND 2014 ATTAINMENT YEAR

[Annual average day emissions in tons per day] a

Emissions inventory category 

NOX VOC PM2.5 SOX NH3

2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014 

Stationary/Areawide Sources ............................................... 87 71 259 260 58 63 22 17 75 68 

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

Off-road Mobile Sources ...................................................... 360 293 208 157 22 18 37 25 n/a n/a 

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

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 III–1–1. 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 

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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71299 

13The 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. 

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 PM2.5

attainment plans and EPA’s guidance 

for it can be found in the PM2.5

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 PM2.5 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 

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 PM2.5 and PM2.5

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 B– 

1 in Appendix B of the TSD for today’s 

action. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71300 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

14CARB 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. 

In addition to the rules adopted for 

2003 AQMP, the District has also made 

new commitments in its South Coast 

2007 AQMP to achieve further 

reductions from VOC, NOX, SOX and 

direct PM2.5 sources in the South Coast 

Area. The District committed to adopt 

and submit measures that will achieve 

the following additional emissions 

reductions: 32 tpd NOX, 10 tpd VOC, 4 

tpd direct PM2.5 and 3 tpd SOX.14See 

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 

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 PM2.5

and SOX in the South Coast area. Tables 

2 and 3 below summarize the status of 

these new rules. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71301 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 

TABLE 3—SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL STATUS OF DISTRICT RULES IN THE 2007 PM2.5 PLAN

Rule 445—Woodburning fireplaces and wood stoves ............................. SIP-approved .................................. 74 FR 27716, 6/11/09. 

Rule 1144—Vanishing oils and rust inhibitors ......................................... SIP-approved .................................. 75 FR 40726, 07/14/10. 

Rule 1143—Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi-Purpose Solvents ....... Not yet submitted—adopted 07/09/ 

10.

New rule; no previous version 

approved into the SIP; District 

is revising rule. 

Rule 1145—Plastic, Rubber, Leather and Glass Coatings ...................... SIP-approved .................................. 75 FR 40726, 07/14/10. 

Rule 1147—NOX reductions from miscellaneous sources ...................... SIP-approved .................................. 75 FR 46845, 08/04/10.

Rule 2002—Further SOX reductions from RECLAIM .............................. Not yet adopted .............................. Most recent approval 08/29/06, 

71 FR 51120. 

Rule 1111—Further NOX reductions from space heaters ....................... SIP-approved .................................. 75 FR 46845, 08/04/10. 

Rule 1110.2—Liquid and gaseous fuels—stationary ICEs ...................... SIP-approved .................................. 74 FR 18995, 4/27/09. 

Rule 1146—NOX from industrial, institutional, commercial boilers, 

steam generators, and process heaters.

Submitted ....................................... Most recent approval—04/08/02, 

67 FR 16640. 

Rule 1146.1—NOX from small industrial, institutional, commercial boilers, steam generators, and process heaters.Submitted ....................................... Most recent approval—09/06/95, 

60 FR 46220. 

Rule 1127—Livestock Waste ................................................................... Submitted to EPA on 10/05/06 ...... Found complete on 10/25/06. 

Refinery Pilot Program ............................................................................. Not yet adopted .............................. N/A. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP22NO10.021</GPH>
71302 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

15More information on this public process 

including presentations from the workshops and 

symposium that proceeded the adoption of the 2007 State Strategy can be found at http:// 

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

TABLE 3—SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL STATUS OF DISTRICT RULES IN THE 2007 PM2.5 PLAN—Continued 

Rule 2301—Indirect Source Review ........................................................ Not yet adopted .............................. N/A. 

Carl Moyer program .................................................................................. No rule associated with this measure.Ongoing. 

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

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

b. CARB’s RACM Analysis and Adopted 

Control Strategy 

Source categories for which CARB has 

primary responsibility for reducing 

emissions in California include most 

new and existing on- and off-road 

engines and vehicles, motor vehicle 

fuels, and consumer products. In 

addition, California has unique 

authority under CAA section 209 

(subject to a waiver by EPA) to adopt 

and implement new emission standards 

for many categories of on-road vehicles 

and engines, and new and in-use offroad vehicles and engines. 

Given the need for significant 

emissions reductions from mobile and 

area sources to meet the NAAQS in 

California nonattainment areas, the 

State of California has been a leader in 

the development of some of the most 

stringent control measures nationwide 

for on-road and off-road mobile sources 

and the fuels that power them. These 

standards have reduced new car 

emissions by 99 percent and new truck 

emissions by 90 percent from 

uncontrolled levels. 2007 State Strategy, 

p. 37. The State is also working with 

EPA on goods movement activities and 

is implementing programs to reduce 

emissions from ship auxiliary engines, 

locomotives, harbor craft and new cargo 

handling equipment. In addition, the 

State has standards for lawn and garden 

equipment, recreational vehicles and 

boats, and other off-road sources that 

require newly manufactured equipment 

to be 80–98% cleaner than their 

uncontrolled counterparts. Id. Finally, 

the State has adopted many measures 

that focus on achieving reductions from 

in-use mobile sources that include more 

stringent inspection and maintenance 

(I/M) or ‘‘Smog Check’’ requirements, 

truck and bus idling restrictions, and 

various incentive programs. Since 1994 

alone, the State has taken more than 45 

rulemaking actions and achieved most 

of the emissions reductions needed for 

attainment in the State’s nonattainment 

areas. See 2007 State Strategy, pp. 

36–40. As is noted in the 2007 State 

Strategy, EPA has approved California’s 

mobile source program as representing 

best available control measures. See 

2007 State Strategy, Appendix G, 69 FR 

5412 (February 4, 2004), 69 FR 30006 

(May 26, 2004) (proposed and final 

approval of San Joaquin Valley PM10

plan). 

CARB developed its proposed 2007 

State Strategy after an extensive public 

consultation process to identify 

potential SIP measures.15 From this 

process, CARB identified and 

committed to propose 15 new defined 

measures. These measures focus on 

cleaning up the in-use fleet as well as 

increasing the stringency of emissions 

standards for a number of engine 

categories, fuels, and consumer 

products. Many, if not most, of these 

measures are being proposed for 

adoption for the first time anywhere in 

the nation. They build on CARB’s 

already comprehensive program 

described above that addresses 

emissions from all types of mobile 

sources and consumer products, 

through both regulations and incentive 

programs. See Appendix A of the TSD. 

Table 4 below lists the new defined 

measures in the 2007 State Strategy that 

include one measure each from the 

California Bureau of Automotive Repair 

and the California Department of 

Pesticide Regulation. 

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

Defined state measure Primary area (SC 

and/or SJV) Adoption year Current status 

Smog Check Improvements ............................... Both .............................. 2007–2008 ................... Elements approved 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 

2010). 

Expanded Vehicle Retirement ............................ Both .............................. 2008–2014 ................... Adopted CARB June 2009; Bureau of 

Automotive Repair September 2010. 

Revisions to Reformulated Gasoline Program ... Both .............................. 2007 ............................. Approved, See 75 FR 26653 (May 2, 

2010). 

Cleaner In-use Heavy Duty Trucks .................... Both .............................. 2008 ............................. Adopted 2008, pending revisions. 

Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Other Clean 

Technologies.

SC ................................ 2007–2008 ................... Adopted December 2007. 

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels ............... SC ................................ Fuel: 2007, Engines: 

2009.

Adopted July 2007. 

Port Truck Modernization .................................... SC ................................ 2007–2008 ................... Adopted December 2007 and December 

2008. 

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Locomotives.Both .............................. 2007–2008 ................... In progress. 

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts ........................ SC ................................ 2007 ............................. Adopted November 2007, revised June 

2010. 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Engines ...................... Both .............................. 2007 ............................. Adopted 2007, pending revisions. 

Cleaner In-Use Agricultural Equipment .............. SJV ............................... 2009 ............................. In progress using incentive funds. 

New Emissions Standards for Recreational 

Boats.

Both .............................. 2009–2010 ................... Partial adoption, 2008; additional regulation in public review. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71303 

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

Continued 

Defined state measure Primary area (SC 

and/or SJV) Adoption year Current status 

Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions Standards.Both .............................. By 2010 ........................ Adopted November 2008. 

Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above Ground 

Storage Tanks.

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

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 CARB 

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 PM2.5

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 

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. 

TABLE 5—EXPECTED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM DEFINED MEASURES IN THE 2007 STATE STRATEGY FOR THE SOUTH

COAST (2014 TONS PER DAY) 

Measure 2014 NOX 2014 VOC 2014 Direct 

PM2.5 2014 SOX

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) [partial] .................................................... 2.0 4.1 ........................ ........................

Modifications to Reformulated Gasoline Program ........................................... ........................ 4.4 ........................ ........................

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks ................................................................. 59.7 5.0 3.5 ........................

Ship Auxiliary Engine Cold Ironing & Clean Technology ................................ 25.4 0.1 0.5 0.3 

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuel [fuel portion only] ................................. 1.3 ........................ 1.9 17.0 

Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft ....................................................................... 2.4 0.1 0.1 ........................

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

Consumer Products Program [partial] ............................................................. ........................ 1.8 ........................ ........................

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

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

are shown here. 

c. The Local Jurisdiction’s RACM 

Analysis 

The 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71304 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

16The guidance is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance_sip.htm and in 

the docket for today’s action. 

17CAMx 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. 

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 PM2.5 implementation rule, 

RACM/RACT are the set of measures 

necessary for expeditious attainment. 

The measures must address emissions of 

PM2.5 and all PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursors that are necessary to result in 

such expeditious attainment. In order 

for a PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 

PM2.5, NOX, VOC, and SOX 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. 

Air quality modeling is used to 

establish emission attainment targets, a 

combination of emissions of PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5

precursors. Future PM2.5 design values 

were estimated by District staff at 

existing monitoring sites throughout the 

South Coast nonattainment area by 

multiplying modeled RRFs for each 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71305 

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.) 

19The CARB Staff Report for the South Coast 

2007 AQMP presents a slightly different emissions 

carrying capacity which relies more heavily on 

reductions of primary PM2.5 and less heavily on 

reductions of precursors to PM2.5. The Staff Report’s 

emission carrying capacity estimates are PM2.5—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). 

20See 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. 

monitor times the observed 

‘‘component-specific design value’’. The 

future PM2.5 design values were then 

compared to the annual and 24-hour 

NAAQS to demonstrate attainment at 

each site. The maximum 2014 predicted 

24-hour PM2.5 design value at any site 

is 56.6 μg/m3; this is lower than the 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS at 65 μg/m3. The 

maximum 2014 predicted PM2.5 annual 

design value is 15.0 μg/m3; a predicted 

design value of 15.04 μg/m3 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 PM2.5 standards 

throughout the South Coast 

nonattainment area by the target 

attainment date of 2014. The estimated 

carrying capacities for the South Coast 

nonattainment area are included in 

Table 7.18 19

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

PM2.5 ATTAINMENT

[Tons/day, based on planning inventory] 

PM2.5 NOX SOX VOC 

87 454 19 469 

3. PM2.5 Precursors Addressed in the 

South Coast 2007 AQMP 

EPA recognizes NOX, SO2, VOCs, and 

ammonia as the main precursor gases 

associated with the formation of 

secondary PM2.5 in the ambient air. 

These gas-phase PM2.5 precursors 

undergo chemical reactions in the 

atmosphere to form secondary 

particulate matter. Formation of 

secondary PM2.5 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 PM2.5 precursor pollutants. 72 

FR 20586, at 20589 and 40 CFR 

§ 51.1008(a)(1). However, the overall 

contribution of different precursors to 

PM2.5 formation and the effectiveness of 

alternative potential control measures 

will vary by area. Thus, the precursors 

that a state should regulate to attain the 

PM2.5 NAAQS could also vary to some 

extent from area to area. 72 FR 20586, 

at 20589. 

In the PM2.5 implementation rule, 

EPA did not make a finding that all 

potential PM2.5 precursors must be 

controlled in each specific 

nonattainment area. See 72 FR 20586, at 

20589. Instead, for the reasons 

explained in the rule, a state must 

evaluate control measures for sources of 

SO2 in addition to sources of direct 

PM2.5 in 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 PM2.5

concentrations in the specific 

nonattainment area. Id. at 40 CFR 

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

the PM2.5 implementation rule that 

states do not need to address VOC and 

ammonia in an area unless the state 

and/or EPA determine that controls on 

such sources would significantly 

contribute to reducing PM2.5

concentrations in the nonattainment 

area. Id. at 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3) and (4). 

‘‘Significantly contributes’’ in this 

context means that a significant 

reduction in emissions of the precursor 

from sources in the area would be 

projected to provide a significant 

reduction in PM2.5 concentrations in the 

area. 72 FR 20586, at 20590. 

In the South Coast nonattainment 

area, PM2.5 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 PM2.5

nonattainment area addresses 

ammonium nitrate and ammonium 

sulfate because they represent a 

dominant fraction of PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 and NOX reductions provide the 

greatest ambient PM2.5 reductions. VOC 

reductions can also contribute to 

improving ambient PM2.5 concentrations 

and will occur concurrently as a result 

of District’s 8-hour ozone strategy.20

Starting in 2011, the PM2.5

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 PM2.5

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

the initial attainment date for PM2.5

nonattainment areas is as expeditiously 

as practicable but not later than April 5, 

2010. For any areas that are granted a 

full five-year attainment date extension 

under section 172, the attainment date 

would be no later than April 5, 2015. 

Section 51.1004 of the PM2.5

implementation rule addresses the 

attainment date requirement. Section 

51.1004(b) requires a State to submit an 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71306 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

21See footnote 3. 

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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 problem in the South Coast 

is complex, caused by both direct PM2.5

and secondary PM2.5, and compounded 

by the topographical and meteorological 

conditions for the area that are very 

conducive to the formation and 

concentration of PM2.5 particles. South 

Coast 2007 AQMP, Chapter 4. 

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

the District’s strategy for attaining the 

PM2.5 standard relies on reductions of 

directly-emitted PM2.5 as well as the 

PM2.5 precursor pollutants NOX, VOC, 

and SOX. The South Coast 

nonattainment area needs significant 

reductions in PM2.5, 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 PM2.5, NOX, VOC, and 

SOX control measures. Moreover, 

attainment in the South Coast 

nonattainment area must also mitigate 

the emissions increases associated with 

the projected increases in population 

and emissions levels for this highgrowth area. 

The direct PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5

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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71307 

22EPA 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 nonwaiver measures have generally all been approved 

by EPA into the SIP. See TSD, Appendix A. 23The 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 

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 PM2.5 or 12 tpd of direct 

PM2.5.

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF MEASURES NEEDED FOR SOUTH COAST’S PM2.5 ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

[tpd] 

NOX VOC PM2.5 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. New local/AQMD reductions ....................................................................................... 28 10 4 3 

H. New State reductions .................................................................................................. 152 46 9 20 

I. Federal reductions ........................................................................................................ 10 .................... .................... ....................

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

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

L. Total reductions (F+K) ................................................................................................. 512 260 16 43 

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

As shown in Table 7, the majority of 

emissions reductions the State projects 

are needed for 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 PM2.5 ATTAINMENT IN

2014 

2014 NOX 2014 VOC 2014 PM2.5 2014 SOX

State Strategy Commitment (tpd) ............................................................................................ 152 ........... 46 ............ 9 23 ........... 20. 

Less Reductions from Adopted Waiver Measures or EPA-approved 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) a.

27.8 tpd ... 6.4 tpd ..... 0.6 tpd ..... 0.3 tpd. 

Remaining State Commitment ................................................................................................. 124.2 ....... 39.6 ......... 8.4 ........... 19.7. 

District Commitment ................................................................................................................. 32 ............. 10 ............ 4 .............. 3. 

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

Remaining District Commitment .............................................................................................. 17.5 ......... 5.7 ........... 2.8 ........... 3. 

Missing 3 tpd PM2.5 (See footnote 23) .................................................................................... .................. .................. 3 ...............

Total remaining commitment (tpd) b ......................................................................................... 151.7 ....... 45.3 .......... 14.2 .......... 22.7. 

Total remaining commitment (%) (compared to Line E of Table 7 above) ............................. 30% ......... 18% ......... 89% c ....... 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. cSee footnote 23. This percentage assumes that total direct PM2.5 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 

majority 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 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71308 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

24Commitments 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. 

25The 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). 

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 

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 

NOX, 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 

PM2.5 attainment in 2014, the remaining 

portion of the enforceable commitments 

represent approximately 30% of the 

needed NOX reductions, 18% of the 

needed VOC reductions, 89% of the 

needed PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 and SOX, relied upon by the 

South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised 

2007 State Strategy are too high and not 

a limited portion 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 and SOX, 

there are still significant reductions that 

must be addressed in order to satisfy the 

commitments. As discussed above, the 

remaining portion 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71309 

26See 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. 

27See 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. 

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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 emissions from these 

engines by as much as 90 percent and 

NOX emissions by as much as 80 

percent when fully implemented. This 

rule sets new emission standards for 

existing locomotives when they are 

remanufactured. The rule also includes 

Tier 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 

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 PM2.5

reductions, and 53 percent of the SOX

emissions reductions currently 

estimated to be required for attainment 

of the 1997 PM2.5 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71310 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 implementation 

rule in 40 CFR 51.1009(f). 

The RFP plan must describe the 

control measures that provide for 

meeting the reasonable further progress 

milestones for the area, the timing of 

implementation 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 PM2.5, 

NOX, VOC, and SOX emissions and uses 

the 2002 annual average inventory as 

the baseline year inventory and 2014 as 

the attainment year. Table 9 below 

summarizes the South Coast PM2.5 RFP 

demonstration. See South Coast 2007 

AQMP, Table 6–3A. 

TABLE 9—SOUTH COAST RFP DEMONSTRATION

Pollutant NOX VOC PM2.5 SOX

2002 baseline inventory (tpd) .......................................................................................... 1,093 844 99 53 

Annual percentage change needed to show linear progress (%) ................................... 4 .87 3 .7 1 .01 5 .35 

2009 target needed to show linear progress (tpd) .......................................................... 720 625 92 33 

2009 remaining emissions with plan (tpd) ....................................................................... 813 578 99 28 

Projected shortfall (tpd) ................................................................................................... 93 0 7 0 

2012 target needed to show linear progress (tpd) .......................................................... 561 532 89 25 

2012 remaining emissions with plan (tpd) ....................................................................... 565 505 92 21 

Projected shortfall (tpd) ................................................................................................... 4 0 3 0 

2014 remaining emissions with plan (tpd) ....................................................................... 459 464 87 19 

As discussed above, the District’s 

modeling demonstration indicated that 

for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, SOX reductions are the most 

effective, followed by directly-emitted 

PM2.5, and then NOX and VOC. 

Therefore, the District’s proposed 

control strategy maximizes reductions of 

direct PM2.5 and SOX to the extent 

possible. The RFP demonstration for 

2009 shows a shortfall of 7 tpd of 

directly-emitted PM2.5 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 PM2.5

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 

PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date (‘‘attainment 

contingency measures’’). These 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71311 

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–01—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 PM2.5 SIPs. There is no 

implementation schedule provided, and 

the AQMP does not quantify the 

reductions associated with this measure. 

For these reasons, this proposed 

measure does not meet CAA 

requirements for contingency measures. 

CTY–03—Banning pre-Tier 3 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-Attainment-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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71312 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

28With respect to the ‘‘SIP-based’’ budget for RFP 

year 2009, however, CARB did exclude the 

emissions reductions from measures not adopted by 

October 2006. Thus, the ‘‘SIP-based’’ PM2.5 budget 

for 2009 is the same as the ‘‘baseline’’ PM2.5 budget 

for that year. 

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 PM2.5. 

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/index.htm. 

As submitted on November 28, 2007, 

the 2007 South Coast AQMP included a 

set of PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 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’’ PM2.5 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS

[Annual average tons per day] 

Budget year VOC NOX PM2.5

2009 196 413 38 

2012 139 276 37 

2014 122 201 33 

2023 89 131 37 

2030 75 121 39 

TABLE 11—‘‘BASELINE’’ 2.5 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS

[Annual average tons per day] 

Budget year VOC NOX PM2.5

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 

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 PM2.5 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71313 

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’’ PM2.5 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’’ PM2.5 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’’ PM2.5 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’’ PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71314 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 budgets that we 

previously had determined to be 

inadequate. Because we are proposing to 

disapprove the RFP demonstration, we 

are proposing to disapprove the PM2.5

budgets we previously found adequate 

as well. 

I. 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 PM2.5 and PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursors contributing to PM2.5

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 PM2.5

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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5

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 

PM2.5, 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 PM2.5, 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 PM2.5

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 PM2.5

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 PM2.5 NAAQS not fully approvable 

under the CAA. We firmly believe that 

such solutions are available and that 

expeditious attainment of the 1997 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71315 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71316 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. 

I. 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 Doc. 2010–29235 Filed 11–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3