[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71294-71316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29235]



[[Page 71293]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Part 52



 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
California; 2007 South Coast State Implementation Plan for 1997 Fine 
Particulate Matter Standards; 2007 State Strategy; 
PM[bdi2]<INF>.</INF>[bdi5]; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 71294]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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; 
PM[ihel2]<INF>.</INF>[ihel5]

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part 
State implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of 
California to provide for attainment of the 1997 annual and 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the 
Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin area (South Coast nonattainment 
area). The submitted SIP revisions are contained in the South Coast 
2007 Air Quality Management Plan (South Coast 2007 AQMP) and portions 
of the 2007 State Strategy as revised in 2009. Specifically, EPA is 
proposing to approve the emissions inventories as meeting the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's fine particulate 
implementing regulations. EPA is also proposing to approve commitments 
to propose specific measures and meet specific aggregate emissions 
reductions by the South Coast Air Quality Management (District) and the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB) because the commitments 
strengthen the SIP. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the air 
quality modeling demonstration as meeting the requirements of the CAA 
and EPA guidance. EPA is proposing to disapprove the attainment 
demonstration because it does not provide sufficient emissions 
reductions from adopted and EPA approved measures to provide for 
attainment of the NAAQS. As a result, EPA is also proposing to 
disapprove the reasonably available control measures/reasonably 
available control technology (RACM/RACT) and reasonable further 
progress (RFP) demonstrations and proposing not to grant California's 
request to extend to April 5, 2015 the deadline for the South Coast 
nonattainment area to attain the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS because 
these requirements are linked to approving the attainment demonstration 
under the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> implementation rule. We are also 
proposing to disapprove the assignment of 10 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF> to 
the federal government. Finally, EPA is proposing to disapprove 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions.
    <bullet> E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a4d0c5dc8ad3cdc1cacfc1e4c1d4c58ac3cbd2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6713061f49100e02090c022702170649000811">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, 
California 95812, and
    <bullet> 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, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7206130a5c051b171c1917321702135c151d04"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b3f2a33653c222e25202e0b2e3b2a652c243d">[email protected]</span></a>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and the South Coast PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Nonattainment Area
II. California's State Implementation Plan Submittals to Address 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Attainment in the South Coast Nonattainment Area
    A. California's SIP Submittals
    1. 2007 South Coast AQMP
    2. 2007 State Strategy
    3. Additional SIP Submittal Related to Motor Vehicle Emissions 
Budgets (Budgets)
    B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP 
Submittals
III. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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. PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursors Addressed in the South Coast 2007 
AQMP
    4. Extension of the Attainment Date

[[Page 71295]]

    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 PM[bdi2]<INF>.</INF>[bdi5] NAAQS and the South Coast 
PM[bdi2]<INF>.</INF>[bdi5] Nonattainment Area

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established new national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM<INF>2.5</INF>, particulate 
matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, including annual 
standards of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of annual mean 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations, and 24-hour (or daily) standards of 65 
[mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 
concentrations. 40 CFR 50.7 EPA established the standards based on 
substantial evidence from numerous health studies demonstrating that 
serious health effects are associated with exposures to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations above the levels of these standards.
    Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant 
correlations between elevated PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels and premature 
mortality. Other important health effects associated with 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> exposure include aggravation of respiratory and 
cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions, 
emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restricted 
activity days), changes in lung function and increased respiratory 
symptoms, as well as new evidence for more subtle indicators of 
cardiovascular health. Individuals particularly sensitive to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> exposure include older adults, people with heart and 
lung disease, and children. See, EPA, Air Quality Criteria for 
Particulate Matter, No. EPA/600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/P-99/002bF, 
October 2004.
    PM<INF>2.5</INF> can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a 
solid or liquid particle (``primary'' or ``direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>'') 
or can be formed in the atmosphere as a result of various chemical 
reactions from precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), 
sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 
ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>) (``secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF>''). See 72 FR 
20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007)
    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required 
by CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the United States 
as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On January 5, 2005, EPA 
published initial air quality designations for the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 Angeles-South Coast Air Basin'' area 
(South Coast nonattainment area), including Orange County, the 
southwestern two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San 
Bernardino County, and western Riverside County as nonattainment for 
both the 1997 24-hour and the annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards. The 
South Coast PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area is home to about 17 
million people, has a diverse economic base, and contains one of the 
highest-volume port areas in the world. For a precise description of 
the geographic boundaries of the South Coast PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area, See 40 CFR 81.305.\1\ The local air district with 
primary responsibility for developing a plan to attain the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in this area is the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District (District).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On October 17, 2006, EPA strengthened the 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 [mu]g/m\3\. At 
the same time, we retained the level of the annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. 71 FR 61144. On November 13, 2009, EPA 
designated areas, including the South Coast, with respect to the 
revised 24-hour NAAQS. 74 FR 58688. California is now required to 
submit an attainment plan for the 35 [mu]g/m\3\ standards by 
December 14, 2012. In this preamble, all references to the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ and annual 
standards of 15 [mu]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambient annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels in the South Coast are among 
the highest recorded in the United States at 18.8 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 
2007-2009 period.\2\ In the South Coast, the levels and composition of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> differ by geographic location, with higher 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations typically occurring in metropolitan Los 
Angeles and in the inland valley areas of San Bernardino and 
metropolitan Riverside Counties. The higher PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations in Los Angeles County are mainly due to secondary 
formation of particulates. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, pages 2-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) Preliminary Design Value 
Report dated August 26, 2010 in the docket for today's action. 18.8 
[mu]g/m\3\ is the highest design value in the South Coast 
nonattainment area. The design value is the three year average of 
annual means of a single monitoring site. (See 40 CFR 50 Appendix N 
Section 1(c)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. California's State Implementation Plan Submissions to Address 
PM[bdi2]<INF>.</INF>[bdi5] Nonattainment in the South Coast 
Nonattainment Area

A. California's SIP Submittals

    Designation of an area as nonattainment starts the process for a 
state to develop and submit to EPA a State implementation plan (SIP) 
under title 1, part D of the CAA. This SIP must include, among other 
things, a demonstration of how the NAAQS will be attained in the 
nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 
the date required by the CAA. Under CAA section 172(b), a State has up 
to three years after an area's designation to nonattainment to submit 
its SIP to EPA. For the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, these 
nonattainment SIPs were due no later than April 5, 2008.
    California has made several SIP submittals to address 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment in the South Coast nonattainment area. 
The two principal ones are the District's 2007 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 71296]]

2007 AQMP includes a PM<INF>2.5</INF> attainment demonstration for the 
South Coast. In order to meet relevant CAA requirements for the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the South Coast 2007 AQMP includes base and 
projected year PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions inventories for the South 
Coast nonattainment area; air quality monitoring data; short-, medium- 
and long-term District control measures; a summary of CARB's control 
measures; transportation control measures (TCMs); a demonstration of 
RFP; a modeled attainment demonstration; a demonstration of RACM/RACT; 
contingency measures for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> RFP and for 
attainment for the South Coast PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area; and 
a request to extend the attainment date for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The South Coast 2007 AQMP is the first South Coast Plan to 
address PM<INF>2.5</INF>. We have previously acted on numerous South 
Coast air quality plans for ozone, PM-10, carbon monoxide, and 
NO<INF>2</INF>, 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 NO<INF>X</INF> as precursors to 
PM<INF>2.5,</INF> we will refer to control measures and control 
measure commitments from the 2003 AQMP further in this notice.
    \4\ See November 28, 2007 letter to Wayne Nastri, Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region 9, from James N. Goldstene, Executive 
Officer, CARB, with enclosures.
    \5\ While the attainment date for PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 2007 State Strategy
    To demonstrate attainment, the South Coast 2007 AQMP relies in part 
on measures in the 2007 State Strategy. The 2007 State Strategy was 
adopted by CARB on September 27, 2007 and submitted to EPA on November 
16, 2007.\6\ It discusses CARB's overall approach to addressing, in 
conjunction with local plans, attainment of both the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 8-hour ozone NAAQS not only in the South Coast 
nonattainment area but also in California's other nonattainment areas 
such as the San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento area. It also 
includes CARB's commitments to propose 15 defined State measures\7\ and 
to obtain specific amounts of aggregate emissions reductions of direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC and SO<INF>X</INF> in the South 
Coast from sources under the State's jurisdiction, primarily on- and 
off-road motor vehicles and engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See CARB Resolution No. 07-28, September 27, 2007 with 
attachments and letter from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, 
CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 
November 16, 2007 with enclosures.
    \7\ The 2007 State Strategy also includes measures to be 
implemented by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (Smog 
Check improvements) and the California Department of Pesticide 
Regulation (VOC reductions from pesticide use). See 2007 State 
Strategy, p. 64-65 and CARB Resolution 7-28, Attachment B, p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In today's proposal, we are evaluating only those portions of the 
2007 State Strategy as revised in 2009 \9\ that are relevant for 
attainment of the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards in the South Coast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We will also refer to the 2007 State Strategy as revised in 
2009 as the ``revised 2007 State Strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Additional SIP Submittal Related to Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 
(Budgets)
    In addition to the SIP submittals for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS mentioned above, on April 4, 2008, the District Governing Board 
approved an alternative approach for transportation conformity motor 
vehicle emission budgets for the South Coast nonattainment area. This 
new approach was based on the 2007 SIP baseline emissions reflecting 
only the regulations adopted as of October 2006 for all milestone years 
up to the attainment years. The CARB Governing Board approved 
Resolution 08-27 itemizing the modifications to the South Coast 
nonattainment area transportation conformity emission budgets. The 
revised PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM[bdi2]<INF>.</INF>[bdi5] 
Attainment SIPs

    EPA is implementing the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS under Title 1, Part 
D, subpart 1 of the CAA, which includes section 172, ``Nonattainment 
plan provisions.'' Section 172(a)(2) establishes the attainment date 
for a PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 71297]]

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 five-year 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. 72 FR 20586, 
codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z (PM<INF>2.5</INF> implementation 
rule). The PM<INF>2.5</INF> implementation rule and its preamble 
address the statutory planning requirements for emissions inventories, 
RACM/RACT, attainment demonstrations including air quality modeling 
requirements, RFP demonstrations, and contingency measures. This rule 
also addresses other matters such as which PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors 
must be addressed by the State in its PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> RACT requirements 
for electric generating units; (2) the deferral of the requirement 
to establish emission limits for condensable particulate matter 
(CPM) until January 1, 2011; (3) revisions to the criteria for 
analyzing the economic feasibility of RACT; and (4) the use of out-
of-area emissions reductions to demonstrate RFP. These provisions 
are found in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Review of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the South Coast Portion of 
the 2007 State Strategy

A. Summary of EPA's Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part those 
portions of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and those portions of the 2007 
State Strategy as revised in 2009 specific to the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS in the South Coast. We are proposing to approve the base year and 
baseline emissions inventories in these SIP revisions as meeting the 
applicable requirements of the CAA and the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
implementation rule. We are also proposing to approve the District's 
and CARB's commitments to propose specific measures and to meet 
specific aggregate emissions reductions in these revisions as 
strengthening the SIP, as well as the District's air quality modeling 
demonstration as meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA 
guidance.
    We are proposing to disapprove the attainment demonstration, RACM/
RACT analysis, RFP demonstration, and California's request to extend 
the attainment date to 2015 as not meeting the applicable requirements 
of the CAA and the PM<INF>2.5</INF> implementation rule because they 
are dependent on the approval of the attainment demonstration (See 40 
CFR 51.1009 and 51.1010). For the attainment demonstration, we are 
proposing to approve the air quality modeling, but we are proposing to 
disapprove the overall demonstration because it relies too extensively 
on commitments to emissions reductions in lieu of fully adopted and 
submitted rules. Rules that have either not been adopted in final form 
or have not been submitted to EPA cannot be credited toward the 
attainment demonstration. We are proposing to disapprove the motor 
vehicle emissions budgets for the RFP milestone years and the 
attainment year, because they are derived from RFP and attainment 
demonstrations which we are proposing to disapprove. Finally, we are 
proposing to disapprove the RFP and attainment contingency measures as 
not meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA and the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> implementation rule. To the extent that the State can 
remedy the shortfall in emissions reductions for the attainment 
demonstration, which is the basis for the proposed disapproval of the 
attainment demonstration, EPA believes that many of the noted 
deficiencies could be addressed.
    EPA's analysis and findings are summarized below and are described 
in more detail in the technical support document (TSD) for this 
proposal, which is available on line at http://www.regulations.gov in 
the docket for this proposal (EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0366), or from the EPA 
contact listed at the beginning of this notice.

B. Emissions Inventories

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories
    CAA section 172(c)(3) requires states to submit a ``comprehensive, 
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the 
relevant pollutant.'' The PM<INF>2.5</INF> implementation rule requires 
states to include direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions and emissions of 
all PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors in this inventory, even if it has 
determined that control of any of these precursors is not necessary for 
expeditious attainment. 40 CFR Sec.  51.1008(a)(2) and 72 FR 20586, at 
20648. Direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> includes condensable particulate matter. 
See 40 CFR 51.1000. PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors are NO<INF>X,</INF> 
SO<INF>2</INF>, VOC, and ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>).\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The District controls sulfur oxides (SO<INF>X</INF>), which 
includes SO<INF>2</INF>, and considers the two terms interchangeable 
for emissions purposes. We will use SO<INF>X</INF> in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A baseline emission inventory is required for the attainment 
demonstration and for meeting RFP requirements. As determined on the 
date of designation, the base year for this inventory should be the 
most recent calendar year for which a complete inventory was required 
to be submitted to EPA. The baseline emission inventory for calendar 
year 2002 or other suitable year should be used for attainment planning 
and RFP plans for areas initially designated nonattainment for the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in 2005. 40 CFR 51.1008(b).
    EPA has provided additional guidance for PM<INF>2.5</INF> emission 
inventories in ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of 
Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulations,'' 
November 2005 (EPA-454/R-05-001).
2. Emissions Inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP
    The baseline planning inventories for direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
all PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors for the South Coast nonattainment area 
together with additional documentation for the inventories are found in

[[Page 71298]]

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors. South Coast 2007 
AQMP, Appendix III, page III-1-23.
    Table 1 is a summary of the average annual day inventories for 
directly-emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF> and for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursors NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, and SO<INF>X</INF> for the baseline 
modeling year of 2005 and the targeted attainment year of 2014 from the 
South Coast 2007 AQMP (derived from Appendix A, Table A-2). It is these 
inventories that provide the basis for the control measure analysis and 
the RFP and attainment demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 AQMP.

 Table 1--South Coast Nonattainment Area Emissions Inventory Summary for PM[ihel2].[ihel5] and PM[ihel2].[ihel5]
                         Precursors for the 2005 Baseline Year and 2014 Attainment Year
                               [Annual average day emissions in tons per day] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        NOX             VOC            PM2.5            SOX             NH3
  Emissions inventory category   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2005    2014    2005    2014    2005    2014    2005    2014    2005    2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary/Areawide Sources.....      87      71     259     260      58      63      22      17      75      68
On-road Mobile Sources..........     526     287     264     159      20      17       4       2      29      15
Off-road Mobile Sources.........     360     293     208     157      22      18      37      25     n/a     n/a
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Electronic mail from Kathy Hsiao, SCAQMD to Wienke Tax, EPA 
Region 9, RE: NH3 numbers for SCAB, dated October 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and all of its attainment plan 
precursors. 40 CFR 51.1002(c).
    For PM<INF>2.5</INF> attainment plans, EPA is requiring a combined 
approach to RACM and RACT under subpart 1 of Part D of the CAA. Subpart 
1, unlike subparts 2 and 4, does not identify specific source 
categories for which EPA must issue control technology documents or 
guidelines, or identify specific source categories for State and EPA 
evaluation during attainment plan development. 72 FR 20586, at 20610. 
Rather, under subpart 1, EPA considers RACT to be part of an area's 
overall RACM obligation. Because of the variable nature of the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> problem in different nonattainment areas, which may 
require States to develop attainment plans that address widely 
disparate circumstances, EPA determined that states should have 
flexibility with respect to RACT and RACM controls but also that in 
areas needing significant emission reductions to attain the standards, 
RACT/RACM controls on smaller sources may be necessary to reach 
attainment as expeditiously as practicable. 72 FR 20586, at 20612, 
20615. Thus, under the PM<INF>2.5</INF> implementation rule, RACT and 
RACM are those reasonably available measures that contribute to 
attainment as expeditiously as practicable in the specific 
nonattainment area. 40 CFR 51.1010; 72 FR 20586, at 20612. 
Specifically, the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 71299]]

RACM/RACT, consider the cumulative impact of implementing the available 
measures and adopt as RACM/RACT any potential measures that are 
reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility 
if, considered collectively, they would advance the attainment date by 
one year or more. Any measures that are necessary to meet these 
requirements that are not already either federally promulgated, part of 
the state's SIP, or otherwise creditable in SIPs must be submitted in 
enforceable form as part of a state's attainment plan for the area. 72 
FR 20586, at 20614.
    A more comprehensive discussion of the RACM/RACT requirement for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> attainment plans and EPA's guidance for it can be 
found in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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--PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment 
Program (``Carl Moyer Program'') provides incentive grants for 
engines, equipment and other sources of pollution that are cleaner 
than required, providing early or extra emission reductions. 
Eligible projects include cleaner on-road, off-road, marine, 
locomotive and stationary agricultural pump engines. The program 
achieves near-term reductions in emissions of NO<INF>X</INF>, PM, 
and VOC or reactive organic gas (ROG) which are necessary for 
California to meet its clean air commitments under the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine which measures would be feasible for the South Coast, 
the District looked at measures implemented in other nonattainment 
areas' plans (including the San Joaquin Valley, the San Francisco Bay 
Area, Sacramento, Ventura, Dallas-Fort Worth, the Houston-Galveston 
area, and by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, or LADCO), and 
held meetings with CARB, technical experts, local government 
representatives, and the public during development of the South Coast 
2007 AQMP. The District sponsored an AQMP summit, which generated 200 
potential control measures. In addition, the District reviewed the list 
of control measures in EPA's PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard assuming a 2015 deadline. 
South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix VI.
    In general, EPA believes that the District's current rules and 
regulations are equivalent to or more stringent with respect to 
emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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, co-composting 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, 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>X</INF> 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.

[[Page 71300]]

    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, NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>X</INF> and direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> sources in the South Coast Area. The District 
committed to adopt and submit measures that will achieve the following 
additional emissions reductions: 32 tpd NO<INF>X</INF>, 10 tpd VOC, 4 
tpd direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 3 tpd SO<INF>X</INF>.\14\ See CARB 
Staff Report on the South Coast 2007 AQMP, page ES-2 to ES-4. The 
District expects to meet its emissions reductions commitments for each 
of the pollutants by adopting new control measures and programs found 
in the Table 4-2A of the South Coast 2007 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emission 
reduction commitments. They include new rules to regulate lubricants, 
consumer products, non-RECLAIM 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ CARB uses the term ROG (reactive organic gases) where we 
use the term VOC. We will use the term ``VOC'' in this notice to 
refer to both ROG and VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
SO<INF>X</INF> in the South Coast area. Tables 2 and 3 below summarize 
the status of these new rules.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 71301]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO10.021

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

           Table 3--Submittal and Approval Status of District Rules in the 2007 PM[ihel2].[ihel5] Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 445--Woodburning fireplaces and   SIP-approved...........  74 FR 27716, 6/11/09.
 wood stoves.
Rule 1144--Vanishing oils and rust     SIP-approved...........  75 FR 40726, 07/14/10.
 inhibitors.
Rule 1143--Consumer Paint Thinners     Not yet submitted--      New rule; no previous version approved into the
 and Multi-Purpose Solvents.            adopted 07/09/10.        SIP; District is revising rule.
Rule 1145--Plastic, Rubber, Leather    SIP-approved...........  75 FR 40726, 07/14/10.
 and Glass Coatings.
Rule 1147--NOX reductions from         SIP-approved...........  75 FR 46845, 08/04/10.
 miscellaneous sources.
Rule 2002--Further SOX reductions      Not yet adopted........  Most recent approval 08/29/06, 71 FR 51120.
 from RECLAIM.
Rule 1111--Further NOX reductions      SIP-approved...........  75 FR 46845, 08/04/10.
 from space heaters.
Rule 1110.2--Liquid and gaseous        SIP-approved...........  74 FR 18995, 4/27/09.
 fuels--stationary ICEs.
Rule 1146--NOX from industrial,        Submitted..............  Most recent approval--04/08/02, 67 FR 16640.
 institutional, commercial boilers,
 steam generators, and process
 heaters.
Rule 1146.1--NOX from small            Submitted..............  Most recent approval--09/06/95, 60 FR 46220.
 industrial, institutional,
 commercial boilers, steam
 generators, and process heaters.
Rule 1127--Livestock Waste...........  Submitted to EPA on 10/  Found complete on 10/25/06.
                                        05/06.
Refinery Pilot Program...............  Not yet adopted........  N/A.

[[Page 71302]]

 
Rule 2301--Indirect Source Review....  Not yet adopted........  N/A.
Carl Moyer program...................  No rule associated with  Ongoing.
                                        this measure.
AB923 Light duty vehicle high emitter  No rule associated with  N/A.
 program.                               this measure.
AB923 Light duty vehicle high emitter  No rule associated with  N/A.
 program.                               this measure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 off-road 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ More 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 4--2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Scheduled for Consideration and Current Status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Primary area (SC  and/or
         Defined state measure                     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      Both.....................  2007....................  Approved, See 75 FR 26653 (May 2, 2010).
 Program.
Cleaner In-use Heavy Duty Trucks......  Both.....................  2008....................  Adopted 2008, pending revisions.
Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Other   SC.......................  2007-2008...............  Adopted December 2007.
 Clean Technologies.
Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels...  SC.......................  Fuel: 2007, Engines:      Adopted July 2007.
                                                                    2009.
Port Truck Modernization..............  SC.......................  2007-2008...............  Adopted December 2007 and December 2008.
Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner     Both.....................  2007-2008...............  In progress.
 Locomotives.
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             Both.....................  2009-2010...............  Partial adoption, 2008; additional regulation in public
 Recreational Boats.                                                                          review.

[[Page 71303]]

 
Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicle  Both.....................  By 2010.................  Adopted November 2008.
 Emissions Standards.
Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above       Both.....................  2007....................  Adopted June 2007.
 Ground Storage Tanks.
Additional Evaporative Emissions        Both.....................  By 2010.................  Partial adoption, 2008.
 Standards.
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, and SO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions reductions from mobile source categories that are that are 
crucial for attainment of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF>, 46 tpd of VOC, 9 tpd of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 20 
tpd of SO<INF>X</INF> (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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    2014 Direct
                     Measure                         2014 NOX        2014 VOC          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                  25.4             0.1             0.5             0.3
 Technology.....................................
Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuel [fuel portion             1.3  ..............             1.9            17.0
 only]..........................................
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

[[Page 71304]]

programs to reduce auto travel and improve traffic flow. South Coast 
2007 AQMP page 6-6 and Appendix IV-C. SCAG also provided reasoned 
justifications for any measures that it did not adopt. Attachment A to 
Appendix IV-C contains an extensive list of TCMs in process and newly 
programmed TCMs. The enforceable commitment from SCAG and the 
transportation agencies was to fund and implement projects in the first 
two years of the 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program 
(RTIP).
3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT and Adopted Control Strategy
    Under the PM<INF>2.5</INF> implementation rule, RACM/RACT are the 
set of measures necessary for expeditious attainment. The measures must 
address emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and all PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
attainment plan precursors that are necessary to result in such 
expeditious attainment. In order for a PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan to 
demonstrate that it provides for RACM/RACT, it must also demonstrate 
that it provides for expeditious attainment. 72 FR 20586, p. 20612-
20623. As discussed further below in section D.5., we are proposing to 
disapprove the PM<INF>2.5</INF> attainment demonstration for the South 
Coast nonattainment area because it relies too heavily on commitments 
to reduce emissions in lieu of fully adopted measures. Absent an 
approvable attainment demonstration, we are unable to propose to 
approve and must instead propose to disapprove the AQMP's RACM/RACT 
demonstration. It appears, however, that the District, State and local 
jurisdictions have identified and otherwise provided for the 
implementation of a comprehensive set of measures that are among the 
most stringent in the nation and, should the State correct the 
deficiencies in the attainment demonstration, we expect to be able to 
propose to approve the plan's RACM/RACT demonstration.
    Because they will strengthen the California SIP, we are proposing 
to approve the District's commitments to the adoption and 
implementation schedule for specific control measures given in Table 7-
3 in the South Coast 2007 AQMP, to the extent that these commitments 
have not yet been fulfilled, and to achieve specific aggregate 
emissions reductions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, 
and SO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, 46 tpd VOC, 9 tpd 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 20 tpd SO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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, PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and 
Regional Haze.'' \16\ A brief description of the modeling used to 
support South Coast's attainment demonstration follows. For more 
detailed information about the modeling, please refer to the TSD 
associated with this rulemaking, which can be found in the docket for 
today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The guidance is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance_sip.htm and in the docket for today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Air quality modeling is used to establish emission attainment 
targets, a combination of emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors that the nonattainment area can accommodate 
without exceeding the NAAQS, and to assess whether the proposed control 
strategy will result in attainment of the NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date. Air quality modeling is performed for a base year and 
compared to air quality monitoring data to determine model performance. 
Once the performance is determined to be acceptable, future year 
emission inventory changes are simulated to determine the relationship 
between emission reductions and changes in ambient air quality 
throughout the nonattainment area.
    The attainment demonstration for the South Coast nonattainment area 
is based on the CAMx model using the ``one atmosphere'' approach 
comprised of the carbon bond IV (CB-IV) gas phased chemistry and a 
static two-mode particle size aerosol.\17\ CAMx annual average 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ CAMx is the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 
extensions, an Eulerian photochemical dispersion model that allows 
for integrated ``one-atmosphere'' assessments of gaseous and 
particulate air pollution (ozone, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, 
air toxics) over many scales ranging from sub-urban to continental.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District's attainment analysis follows EPA's guideline 
technique of applying component-specific relative response factors 
(RRF) to monitored data throughout the South Coast nonattainment area. 
A RRF is the ratio of the model's future to current (baseline) 
predictions at a monitor. Future PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations are 
estimated at existing monitoring sites by multiplying a modeled RRF at 
the grid cell locations of each monitor by the observation-based, 
monitor-specific, ``baseline'' design value. A separate RRF is 
calculated for each of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors. Future 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values were estimated by District staff at 
existing monitoring sites throughout the South Coast nonattainment area 
by multiplying modeled RRFs for each

[[Page 71305]]

monitor times the observed ``component-specific design value''. The 
future PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values were then compared to the annual 
and 24-hour NAAQS to demonstrate attainment at each site. The maximum 
2014 predicted 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> design value at any site is 
56.6 [mu]g/m\3\; this is lower than the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
at 65 [mu]g/m\3\. The maximum 2014 predicted PM<INF>2.5</INF> annual 
design value is 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\; a predicted design value of 15.04 
[mu]g/m\3\ or lower is considered modeled attainment of the annual 
standard.
    EPA guidance also recommends the use of supplemental data analyses 
to support the air quality modeling. The District used air quality 
trends and emission inventory trends as ``weight of evidence'' to 
support the air quality modeling for the attainment demonstration.
    The District used its air quality modeling to establish emissions 
reduction targets to be used in developing the control strategy for the 
nonattainment SIP. Once a proposed control strategy was developed, the 
District then used the photochemical modeling to verify that the 
projected emissions reductions would result in attainment of the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.<SUP>18 19</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ``Carrying capacity'' is defined as the maximum level of 
emissions that enable the attainment and maintenance of an ambient 
air quality standard for a pollutant. (See South Coast 2007 AQMP, 
page 5-27.)
    \19\ The CARB Staff Report for the South Coast 2007 AQMP 
presents a slightly different emissions carrying capacity which 
relies more heavily on reductions of primary PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
less heavily on reductions of precursors to PM<INF>2.5</INF>. The 
Staff Report's emission carrying capacity estimates are 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>--86 tons/day, NO<INF>X</INF>--460 tons/day, 
SO<INF>X</INF>--20 tons/day, and VOC--474 tons/day (See CARB Staff 
Report on the South Coast AQMP, page ES-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

   Table 6--Emissions Carrying Capacity Estimates for the South Coast
           Nonattainment Area for PM[ihel2].[ihel5] Attainment
                 [Tons/day, based on planning inventory]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      PM2.5               NOX                SOX               VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          87                454                19               469
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursors Addressed in the South Coast 2007 AQMP
    EPA recognizes NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, VOCs, and ammonia as 
the main precursor gases associated with the formation of secondary 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the ambient air. These gas-phase PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursors undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere to form 
secondary particulate matter. Formation of secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
depends on numerous factors including the concentrations of precursors; 
the concentrations of other gaseous reactive species; atmospheric 
conditions including solar radiation, temperature, and relative 
humidity; and the interactions of precursors with preexisting particles 
and with cloud or fog droplets. 72 FR 20586, at 20589.
    As discussed previously, a state must submit emissions inventories 
for each of the four PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor pollutants. 72 FR 
20586, at 20589 and 40 CFR Sec.  51.1008(a)(1). However, the overall 
contribution of different precursors to PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation and 
the effectiveness of alternative potential control measures will vary 
by area. Thus, the precursors that a state should regulate to attain 
the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS could also vary to some extent from area to 
area. 72 FR 20586, at 20589.
    In the PM<INF>2.5</INF> implementation rule, EPA did not make a 
finding that all potential PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> in addition to 
sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> in all nonattainment areas. 40 CFR 
Sec.  51.1002(c) and (c)(1). A state must also evaluate control 
measures for sources of NO<INF>X</INF> unless the State and/or EPA 
determine that control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions would not 
significantly reduce PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in the specific 
nonattainment area. Id. at 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(2). EPA has determined in 
the PM<INF>2.5</INF> implementation rule that states do not need to 
address VOC and ammonia in an area unless the state and/or EPA 
determine that controls on such sources would significantly contribute 
to reducing PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in the nonattainment area. 
Id. at 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3) and (4). ``Significantly contributes'' in 
this context means that a significant reduction in emissions of the 
precursor from sources in the area would be projected to provide a 
significant reduction in PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in the area. 
72 FR 20586, at 20590.
    In the South Coast nonattainment area, PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>X</INF>, VOCs, and ammonia. The attainment 
demonstration for the South Coast PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area 
addresses ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate because they represent 
a dominant fraction of PM<INF>2.5</INF> components in this area and are 
formed through secondary reactions of the precursors NO<INF>X</INF>, 
SO<INF>X</INF>, VOC and ammonia. The District's analysis indicates that 
SO<INF>X</INF> reductions followed by directly-emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
and NO<INF>X</INF> reductions provide the greatest ambient 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> reductions. VOC reductions can also contribute to 
improving ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations and will occur 
concurrently as a result of District's 8-hour ozone strategy.\20\ 
Starting in 2011, the PM<INF>2.5</INF> implementation rule requires 
that states must also address condensable particulate matter (CPM), 
including estimates of CPM in emissions inventories, modeling, and 
control strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

4. Extension of the Attainment Date
    CAA section 172(a)(2) provides that an area's attainment date 
``shall be the date by which attainment can be achieved as 
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date 
such area was designated nonattainment * * *, except that the 
Administrator may extend the attainment date to the extent the 
Administrator determines appropriate, for a period no greater than 10 
years from the date of designation as nonattainment considering the 
severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of 
pollution control measures.''
    Because the effective date of designations for the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards was April 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), the initial 
attainment date for PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> implementation rule 
addresses the attainment date requirement. Section 51.1004(b) requires 
a State to submit an

[[Page 71306]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentration 
(ranking only behind the San Joaquin Valley in California for the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards). PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations recorded 
over the last few years at the Riverside and Mira Loma monitoring sites 
continue to read well above the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\21\ The 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> problem in the South Coast is complex, caused by both 
direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and compounded 
by the topographical and meteorological conditions for the area that 
are very conducive to the formation and concentration of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> particles. South Coast 2007 AQMP, Chapter 4.
    As discussed in section IV.C.3. above, the District's strategy for 
attaining the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard relies on reductions of 
directly-emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF> as well as the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursor pollutants NO<INF>X,</INF> VOC, and SO<INF>X</INF>. The South 
Coast nonattainment area needs significant reductions in 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X,</INF> VOC, and SO<INF>X</INF> to 
demonstrate attainment. EPA believes that further reduction of these 
pollutants is challenging, because the State and local air pollution 
regulations already in place include most of the readily available 
PM<INF>2.5,</INF> NO<INF>X,</INF> VOC, and SO<INF>X</INF> 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 high-
growth area.
    The direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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). 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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. 
SO<INF>X</INF> reductions identified in the plan come from District 
rules such as RECLAIM, and State measures related to ships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> implementation rule, EPA cannot grant an extension 
of the attainment date beyond the initial five years provided by 
section 172(a)(2)(A) if the State has not adequately considered and 
evaluated the implementation of RACM and RACT for this area. (See 72 FR 
20586, at 20601) Given the severity of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment problem in the South Coast nonattainment area and the 
substantial progress the District has made to adopt and implement 
reduction strategies, an extension of the attainment date would most 
likely be appropriate and approvable if it were supported by the 
necessary analysis and a part of an attainment plan that meets the 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
5. Attainment Demonstration
    Table 7 below summarizes the measures that are relied upon in the 
South Coast 2007 AQMP's PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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.

[[Page 71307]]



        Table 7--Summary of Measures Needed for South Coast's PM[ihel2].[ihel5] 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               654          528          102           43
 AQMP)......................................................
C. 2014 Attainment target (ARB staff Report for South Coast           460          474           86           20
 2007 AQMP).................................................
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          318          204            0           20
 B).........................................................
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
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) 
reduced emissions by 27.8 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF>, 6.4 tpd of VOC, 0.6 
tpd of PM <INF>2.5</INF> and 0.3 of SO<INF>X</INF> (See Table 8 for a 
summary of these reductions). Emissions reductions from District 
measures approved by EPA since 2007 include 14.5 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF>, 
4.3 tpd of VOC, and 1.2 tpd of PM<INF>2.5.</INF>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ EPA allows emission reduction credit for measures that are 
subject to the CAA section 209 process. See EPA's proposed approval 
of the San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan at 74 FR 33933, 33938 
(July 14, 2009). The State's baseline non-waiver measures have 
generally all been approved by EPA into the SIP. See TSD, Appendix 
A.

  Table 8--Summary of Enforceable Commitments in the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM[ihel2].[ihel5] 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       27.8 tpd..........  6.4 tpd...........  0.6 tpd...........  0.3 tpd.
 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\.
Remaining State Commitment.......  124.2.............  39.6..............  8.4...............  19.7.
District Commitment..............  32................  10................  4.................  3.
Less reductions from EPA approved  14.5..............  4.3...............  1.2...............  0.
 District measures since 2007.
Remaining District Commitment....  17.5..............  5.7...............  2.8...............  3.
Missing 3 tpd PM2.5 (See footnote  ..................  ..................  3.................  .................
 23).
Total remaining commitment (tpd)   151.7.............  45.3..............  14.2..............  22.7.
 \b\.
Total remaining commitment (%)     30%...............  18%...............  89% \c\...........  53%.
 (compared to Line E of Table 7
 above).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\c\ See 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The 2007 State Strategy identifies 9 tpd of directly-
emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> or 12 tpd of direct PM<INF>2.5.</INF>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 71308]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Commitments approved by EPA under section 110(k)(3) of the 
CAA are enforceable by EPA and citizens under, respectively, 
sections 113 and 304 of the CAA. In the past, EPA has approved 
enforceable commitments and courts have enforced these actions 
against states that failed to comply with those commitments: See, 
e.g., American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 
1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, Inc. v. N.Y. State 
Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for 
a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in 
par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for Clean Air v. 
South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist., No. CV 97-6916-HLH, (C.D. Cal. 
Aug. 27, 1999). Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments, 
EPA could make a finding of failure to implement the SIP under CAA 
Section 179(a), which starts an 18-month period for the State to 
correct the non-implementation before mandatory sanctions are 
imposed.
     CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) provides that each SIP ``shall include 
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means 
or techniques * * * as well as schedules and timetables for 
compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the 
applicable requirement of the Act.'' Section 172(c)(6) of the Act, 
which applies to nonattainment SIPs, is virtually identical to 
section 110(a)(2)(A). The language in these sections of the CAA is 
quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any ``means or techniques'' 
that EPA determines are ``necessary or appropriate'' to meet CAA 
requirements, such that the area will attain as expeditiously as 
practicable, but no later than the designated date. Furthermore, the 
express allowance for ``schedules and timetables'' demonstrates that 
Congress understood that all required controls might not have to be 
in place before a SIP could be fully approved.
    \25\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld 
EPA's interpretation of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and 
the Agency's use and application of the three factor test in 
approving enforceable commitments in the 1-hour ozone SIP for 
Houston-Galveston. BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et al., 355 F.3d 
817 (5th Cir. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF>, 45.3 tpd VOC, 11.2 
tpd direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 22.7 tpd SO<INF>X</INF>. When compared 
to the State's current estimate of the emissions reductions needed for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> attainment in 2014, the remaining portion of the 
enforceable commitments represent approximately 30% of the needed 
NO<INF>X</INF> reductions, 18% of the needed VOC reductions, 89% of the 
needed PM<INF>2.5</INF> reductions and 53% of the needed SO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
SO<INF>X</INF>, relied upon by the South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised 
2007 State Strategy are too high and not a limited portion of the total 
emissions reductions needed to meet the statutory requirement for 
attainment in the South Coast nonattainment area.
ii. The State is Capable of Fulfilling Its Commitment
    The second factor to consider for enforceable commitments is 
whether the State and District are capable of fulfilling their 
commitments. As discussed above, following the adoption and submittal 
of the 2007 State Strategy, CARB adopted and submitted the 2009 State 
Strategy Status Report which shows the State's progress in achieving 
its enforceable commitments for the South Coast and several other 
nonattainment areas in California. The revised 2007 State Strategy 
shows that during 2007 and 2008, the State adopted rules for 10 control 
measures identified in the 2007 State Strategy and 3 control measures 
that were not identified in the 2007 State Strategy that will 
contribute to the needed PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>X</INF>, 
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

[[Page 71309]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> reductions to the Federal government. The CAA 
does not authorize a State to assign responsibility to the Federal 
government for meeting SIP requirements. However, we agree that we have 
both the authority and the responsibility under the Act for regulating 
certain nationwide sources of air pollution. The 1990 CAA Amendments 
extended EPA's authority to regulate nonroad vehicles and engines and 
expressly required EPA to evaluate nonroad engine emissions, determine 
whether these emissions contribute significantly to ozone or CO in 
areas which have failed to attain the ozone or CO NAAQS, and regulate 
these emissions categories if found to be significant. EPA agrees with 
the State that national mobile source emissions are increasingly 
significant contributors to PM<INF>2.5</INF> and ozone pollution, 
particularly in the South Coast. The federal government has adopted a 
variety of national measures that have reduced emissions in the South 
Coast and will continue to explore future reduction opportunities. 
South Coast may take credit for these reductions in its attainment 
plans. The District may not, however, assign a reduction target to the 
federal government as it has done in the 2007 AQMP.
    In May 2004, as part of the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule, EPA 
finalized new requirements for nonroad diesel fuel that decreased the 
allowable levels of sulfur in fuel used in locomotives by 99 
percent.\26\ The requirement for locomotives to use ultra-low sulfur 
diesel takes effect in 2012. These fuel improvements have created and 
will continue to result in significant environmental and public health 
benefits by reducing PM<INF>2.5</INF> from existing engines. In 
addition, in March 2008, EPA finalized a three-part program that 
reduces emissions from diesel locomotives of all types--line-haul, 
switch, and passenger rail.\27\ The Locomotive and Marine Diesel Engine 
rule cuts PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions from these engines by as much as 
90 percent and NO<INF>X</INF> 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 newly-built 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 69 FR 38957, ``Control of Emissions of Air Pollution 
from Nonroad Diesel Engines'', also referred to as the ``Clean Air 
Nonroad Diesel Rule'', June 29, 2004.
    \27\ See 73 FR 37095, ``Control of Emissions of Air Pollution 
from Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less than 
30 Liters per Cylinder,'' also referred to as the ``Locomotive and 
Marine Diesel Engine Rule,'' June 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> reductions, 18 percent of 
the VOC reductions, 89 percent of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> reductions, and 
53 percent of the SO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions currently 
estimated to be required for attainment of the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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

[[Page 71310]]

to grant the State's request for the full attainment date extension to 
2015.
    Finally, for PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions and 
each PM<INF>2.5</INF> attainment plan precursor addressed in the plan. 
The steps for determining the benchmark emissions levels to demonstrate 
generally linear progress are given in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
attainment plan precursors. See 40 CFR Sec.  51.1009(c).
2. RFP Demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP
    The RFP demonstration is in Chapter 6 of the South Coast 2007 AQMP. 
The demonstration addresses direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NOX, VOC, and SOX 
emissions and uses the 2002 annual average inventory as the baseline 
year inventory and 2014 as the attainment year. Table 9 below 
summarizes the South Coast PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, SO<INF>X</INF> 
reductions are the most effective, followed by directly-emitted 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and then NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC. Therefore, the 
District's proposed control strategy maximizes reductions of direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>X</INF> to the extent possible. The RFP 
demonstration for 2009 shows a shortfall of 7 tpd of directly-emitted 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 93 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF> while the SO<INF>X</INF> 
and VOC reductions exceed their linear targets. The RFP demonstration 
for 2012 indicates a slight shortfall in meeting the 2012 milestones 
for directly-emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF> and for NO<INF>X</INF>, although 
SO<INF>X</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> targets are not only met but 
surpassed. While the shortfall of 93 tpd for NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> is only about 3% of the 2002 baseline inventory, and 
the shortfall in NO<INF>X</INF> reductions is less than 1%, while 
SO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> in 2009.
3. Proposed Action on the RFP Demonstration
    While we believe the District has demonstrated generally linear 
progress towards attainment by 2015, we are not proposing to approve 
the attainment date extension to 2015 and therefore cannot propose to 
approve the RFP demonstration. We believe, however, that if the 
deficiencies identified with the attainment demonstration are 
addressed, we may then be able to propose to approve the attainment 
date extension and RFP demonstration. See 40 CFR 51.1009.

F. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures
    Under CAA section 172(c)(9), all PM<INF>2.5</INF> attainment plans 
must include contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to 
meet RFP (``RFP contingency measures'') and contingency measures to be 
implemented if an area fails to attain the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by 
the applicable attainment date (``attainment contingency measures''). 
These

[[Page 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, a minimum requirement for contingency measures 
for PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 52.8 tpd 
NO<INF>X</INF>, 30.8 tpd of VOC, and 2.75 tpd SO<INF>2</INF>. 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

[[Page 71312]]

they provide reductions equivalent to one year's worth of RFP. For the 
reasons stated above, we are proposing to disapprove the District's 
contingency measure provisions in the South Coast 2007 AQMP for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>.

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> budgets for RFP years 2009 and 2012, 
the attainment year 2014, and analysis years 2023 and 2030. See CARB 
Resolution 07-05, which revised the budgets in the 2007 South Coast 
AQMP as adopted by the District, and which was included in the November 
28, 2007 submittal. We refer herein to these budgets as the 
``original'' budgets. On April 30, 2008, CARB submitted a SIP revision 
that replaces the original set of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 ``SIP-based'' 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 ``SIP-based'' 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 ``SIP-based'' budgets are established for the 
RFP years, the attainment year, and analysis years 2023 and 2030. The 
two sets of PM<INF>2.5</INF> budgets (i.e., the replacement budgets) 
are shown in Tables 10 and 11, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ With 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'' PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
budget for 2009 is the same as the ``baseline'' PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
budget for that year.

    Table 10--``SIP-Based'' PM[ihel2].[ihel5] 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'' [ihel2].[ihel5] 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 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 ``SIP-based'' PM<INF>2.5</INF> budgets 
for the 2007 South Coast AQMP, as revised on April 30, 2008, to be 
inadequate for transportation conformity purposes. See the letter and 
enclosures dated May 6, 2008 from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 
Division, EPA Region IX to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB (a 
copy of which has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking). 
However, in our May 2008 adequacy determination, we found the 
``baseline'' PM<INF>2.5</INF> budgets for RFP years 2009 and 2012 to be 
adequate. Generally, we found the ``SIP-based'' budgets to be 
inadequate because they reflected control measures not yet adopted in 
regulatory form and thus not adequately quantified or supported by the 
plan. In contrast, we found the ``baseline'' PM<INF>2.5</INF> budgets 
to be consistent with the plan's RFP demonstration and to be based on 
adopted mobile source regulations that have already been implemented. 
Our notice of adequacy/inadequacy of the budgets was published on May 
15, 2008 at 73 FR 28110 (corrected on June 18, 2008 at 73 FR 34837), 
and was effective on May 30, 2008.
    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's budgets are 
adequate and approvable for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 
93.118(e)(4) and (5). The following paragraphs provide our review of 
the ``SIP-based'' and ``baseline'' PM<INF>2.5</INF> budgets for the 
2007 South Coast AQMP against our adequacy criteria and provide the 
basis for our proposed action relative to the budgets. Since the 
criteria for evaluation purposes are the same for adequacy or 
inadequacy as for approval or disapproval of budgets, we incorporate by 
reference our earlier determination of adequacy/inadequacy, and focus 
in the following paragraphs on those considerations that have changed 
since the time of our May 2008 adequacy/inadequacy determination.
    Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i), we review a submitted plan to 
determine whether the plan was endorsed by the Governor (or designee) 
and was subject to a public hearing. As documented in our May 2008 
adequacy/inadequacy determination, the 2007 South Coast AQMP and 2007 
State Strategy, and April 2008 replacement budgets, were all submitted 
under cover of letters signed by CARB's Executive Officer, the 
Governor's designee. Likewise, CARB's August 12, 2009 SIP revision was 
submitted under cover of a letter sent by CARB's Executive Officer and 
includes documentation of a public hearing held on April 23-24, 2009. 
Therefore, we propose that the submitted plan and related ``SIP-based'' 
and ``baseline'' budgets meet the criterion under 40 CFR 
93.118(e)(4)(i).
    Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii), we review a submitted plan to 
determine whether the plan was developed through consultation with 
Federal, State and local agencies and whether full implementation plan 
documentation was provided to EPA and EPA's stated concerns, if any, 
were addressed. As documented in our May 2008 adequacy/inadequacy 
determination, the 2007 South Coast AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, and 
April 2008 replacement budgets, were all developed through consultation 
with Federal, State and local agencies and included documentation of 
adequate responses to EPA's concerns. Moreover, CARB's August 12, 2009 
SIP revision was developed to meet EPA's requests for additional 
information to aid in our review of the 2007 South Coast AQMP and 2007 
State Strategy. We propose that the submitted plan, and related ``SIP-
based'' and ``baseline'' budgets, were developed through sufficient 
consultation with Federal, State and local agencies and thereby meet 
the criterion under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii).
    Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), we review a submitted plan to 
determine whether the budgets are clearly identified and precisely 
quantified. Both the ``SIP-based'' and ``baseline'' budgets are clearly 
identified. As noted in our May 2008 adequacy/inadequacy determination, 
the budgets are shown in attachments 1 (``SIP-based'' budgets) and 2 
(``baseline'' budgets) to CARB Resolution 08-27, which was included in 
the SIP revision submitted by CARB on April 30, 2008. The ``SIP-based'' 
budgets are not precisely quantified because the new emission 
reductions do not result from adequately specified control measures. In 
contrast, the ``baseline'' budgets reflect control measures that are 
already implemented and do not include new emission reductions 
attributed to general commitments; therefore, these budgets are 
precisely quantified. We propose that the ``SIP-based'' budgets do not 
meet the criterion under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii) but the ``baseline'' 
budgets do.
    Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv), we review a submitted plan to 
determine whether the budgets, when considered together with all other 
emissions sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for 
reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance (whichever is 
relevant to a given SIP submission). Based on our proposed disapproval 
of the RFP and attainment demonstrations (See sections IV.D and IV.E of 
this document), EPA proposes that all of the ``SIP-based'' and the 
``baseline'' budgets, when considered together with all other emission 
sources, are not consistent with the requirement to demonstrate 
attainment or RFP of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 ``SIP-based'' 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

[[Page 71314]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP, which is described above in this 
proposal, we have concluded that the ``SIP-based'' budgets are not 
precisely quantified because the new emission reductions do not result 
from adequately specified control measures, and that the plan as a 
whole will not ensure RFP and attainment of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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'' 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 ``SIP-based'' budgets could be used in 
transportation conformity determinations after the effective date of 
the disapproval.
    In summary, for the reasons discussed above, we are now proposing 
disapproval of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> budgets that we previously had 
determined to be inadequate. Because we are proposing to disapprove the 
RFP demonstration, we are proposing to disapprove the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
budgets we previously found adequate as well.

I. Mid Course Review

    Any State that submits to EPA an approvable attainment plan for a 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 mid-course review for an area must include: 
(1) A review of emissions reductions and progress made in implementing 
control measures to reduce emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> attainment plan precursors contributing to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in the area; (2) an analysis of changes 
in ambient air quality data for the area; (3) a revised air quality 
modeling analysis to demonstrate attainment; (4) any new or revised 
control measures adopted by the State, as necessary to ensure 
attainment by the attainment date in the approved SIP of the 
nonattainment area. We anticipate receiving this midcourse review from 
the District and CARB by April 2011.

V. EPA's Proposed Actions

A. EPA's Proposed Approvals and Disapprovals

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve in 
part and disapprove in part California's attainment SIP for the South 
Coast nonattainment area for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. This SIP 
submittal consists of the portions of the District's South Coast 2007 
AQMP and the South Coast nonattainment area-specific portions of CARB's 
revised 2007 State Strategy addressing CAA and EPA regulations for 
attainment of the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for the South Coast 
nonattainment area.
    EPA is proposing to approve under CAA section 110(k)(3) the 
following elements of the South Coast PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 Sec.  
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 NO<INF>X,</INF> 10 tpd of VOC, 4 tpd of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
and 3 tpd of SO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, 9 
tpd of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 46 tpd of VOC, and 20 tpd of 
SO<INF>X</INF> in the South Coast nonattainment area by 2014 as 
provided, as SIP-strengthening; and
    4. the air quality modeling in the South Coast 2007 AQMP as meeting 
the requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.
    EPA is proposing to disapprove under CAA section 110(k)(3) the 
following elements of the South Coast PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 EPA-approved rules needed to support the 
determination that the South Coast nonattainment area will attain by 
the State's proposed attainment date. As a result, we are also 
proposing to disapprove the RACM/RACT demonstration, the State's 
request for an attainment date extension to April 5, 2015, and the RFP 
demonstration, because they are dependent on the approval of an 
attainment demonstration under the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> to the federal 
government.

B. CAA Consequences of a Final Disapproval

    EPA is committed to working with the District, CARB and SCAG to 
resolve the identified problems that make the current South Coast 2007 
AQMP for the South Coast nonattainment area for the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS not fully approvable under the CAA. We firmly 
believe that such solutions are available and that expeditious 
attainment of the 1997

[[Page 71315]]

PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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-and-of 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

[[Page 71316]]

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 
in-and-of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it does not 
provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as 
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, 
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>