Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33933 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0693; FRL–8929–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans: 1-Hour Ozone 

Extreme Area Plan for San Joaquin 

Valley, CA 

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 

meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements applicable to the San 

Joaquin Valley, California 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (SJV area). These 

requirements apply to the SJV area 

following its April 16, 2004 

reclassification from severe to extreme 

for the 1-hour ozone national ambient 

air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is 

proposing to approve the SIP revisions 

for the SJV area as meeting applicable 

CAA requirements for the attainment 

demonstration, rate-of-progress 

demonstration and related contingency 

measures, and other control measures. 

EPA is also proposing to disapprove the 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain. In addition, EPA is proposing to 

approve the SJV Air Pollution Control 

District’s Rule 9310, ‘‘School Bus 

Fleets.’’ Finally, EPA is withdrawing its 

previous proposal (73 FR 61381; 

October 16, 2008) to fully approve the 

SJV SIP revisions. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 

August 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2008–0693, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Agency Web site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. EPA prefers 

receiving comments through this 

electronic public docket and comment 

system. Follow the on-line instructions 

to submit comments. 

2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

3. E-mail: wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

4. Mail or deliver: Ms. Marty Robin, 

Office of Air Planning (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

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 the 

agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or 

e-mail. The agency Web site and 

eRulemaking portal are anonymous 

access systems, 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 comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for Clarifications, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. 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 in 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Wicher, U.S. EPA Region 9, 

415–972–3957, wicher.frances@epa.gov 

or 31http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/ 

actions. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ mean U.S. EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The History of San Joaquin Valley 

1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area and 

Its Extreme Area Ozone Plan 

A. The San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

B. SJV 2004 SIP, SJV Portion of 2003 State 

Strategy and 2008 Clarifications 

C. EPA’s 2008 Proposed Approval of the SJV 

Extreme 1-Hour Ozone Plan and 2003 

State Strategy 

II. Revocation of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard 

and Anti-Backsliding Requirements 

III. Review of the 2004 SIP, the SJV Portion 

of the 2003 State Strategy and the 2008 

Clarifications 

A. Control Measures 

B. Emission Inventories 

C. Rate of Progress Demonstrations 

D. Attainment Demonstration 

E. Contingency Measures 

F. Proposed Findings on Other Requirements 

for Extreme Nonattainment Areas 

IV. SJVAPCD Rule 9310 School Bus Fleets 

V. Proposed Actions 

A. Summary 

B. Effect of Finalizing These Proposed 

Actions 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The History of San Joaquin Valley 1- 

Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area and 

its Extreme Area Ozone Plan 

A. The San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour 

Ozone Nonattainment Area 

Eight counties comprise the San 

Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment 

area (SJV area). From north to south, 

these counties are San Joaquin, 

Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, 

Kings, Tulare, and the valley portion of 

Kern. 40 CFR 81.305. The local air 

district is the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or 

District). 

The SJV area was initially classified 

under the CAA, as amended in 1990, as 

a serious area for the 1-hour ozone 

standard. 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 

1991). Under the amended CAA, the 

attainment deadline for serious 1-hour 

ozone areas was no later than November 

15, 1999. CAA section 181(a)(1). 

In 2001, we found that the SJV area 

had failed to attain the 1-hour ozone 

standard by the required deadline. 66 

FR 56476 (November 8, 2001). As a 

result of this finding, the area was 

reclassified by operation of law to 

severe with a new attainment deadline 

of no later than November 15, 2005. 

CAA section 181(a)(1). After 

determining that sufficient controls 

could not be implemented in time for 

the area to attain by the severe area 

deadline, California requested a 

voluntary reclassification of the area to 

extreme as allowed under CAA section 

181(a)(5). See SJVAPCD Resolution 03– 

12–10 ‘‘Requesting the [EPA] to Classify 

the [SJV] Air Basin as Extreme 

Nonattainment for the Federal 1-Hr 

Ozone [] Standards,’’ December 18, 

2003. We granted California’s request in 

2004. 69 FR 20550 (April 16, 2004). As 

a result, the SJV area is currently 

classified as an extreme area for the 1- 

hour ozone standard with an attainment 

date of as expeditiously as practicable 

but no later than November 15, 2010. 

CAA section 181(a)(1). 

B. 2004 SIP, SJV Portion of 2003 State 

Strategy and 2008 Clarifications 

The SJVAPCD adopted its ‘‘Extreme 

Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan’’ 

on October 8, 2004 and amended it on 

October 20, 2005 to, among other things, 

substitute a new ‘‘Chapter 4: Control 

Strategy.’’ The State submitted the plan 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33934 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1Chapter 8 ‘‘California Clean Air Act Triennial 

Progress Report and Plan Review’’ was included in 

the plan to meet a State requirement to report every 

three years on the area’s progress toward meeting 

California’s air quality standards. Nothing in the 

chapter was intended to address federal Clean Air 

Act requirements. 

2On February 13, 2008, ARB withdrew from EPA 

consideration certain commitments related to the 

South Coast Air Basin in the ‘‘Final 2003 State and 

Federal Strategy for the California State 

Implementation Plan.’’ These withdrawals do not 

change the 2003 Strategy’s provisions that apply to 

the SJV area. Letter from James N. Goldstene, ARB, 

to Wayne Nastri, EPA, February 13, 2008. 

3Comment letters were received from 

Earthjustice; the Center for Race, Poverty and the 

Environment; and the National Association of 

Home Builders. These letters can be found in the 

docket for this proposal. 

4 In 2008 we lowered the 8-hour ozone standard 

to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

The references in this proposed rule to the 8-hour 

standard are to the 1997 standard as codified at 40 

CFR 50.10. 

(with the exception of Chapter 8 1) and 

amendment on November 15, 2004 and 

March 6, 2006, respectively. See letters 

from Catherine Witherspoon, California 

Air Resources Board (ARB), to Wayne 

Nastri, EPA, November 15, 2004 and 

March 6, 2006. The plan and 

amendment, collectively, will be 

referred to as the ‘‘2004 SIP’’ in this 

proposed rule. The 2004 SIP addresses 

CAA requirements for extreme 1-hour 

ozone areas including control measures, 

rate-of-progress (ROP) and attainment 

demonstrations, and contingency 

measures. 

For the reductions needed to 

demonstrate attainment and ROP, the 

2004 SIP relies in part on the ‘‘2003 

State and Federal Strategy for the 

California State Implementation Plan.’’ 

This strategy document identifies ARB’s 

regulatory agenda to reduce ozone and 

particulate matter in California and 

includes defined statewide control 

measures that were to be reflected in 

future SIPs and provisions specific to air 

quality plans for the San Joaquin Valley. 

On October 23, 2003, ARB adopted the 

‘‘2003 State and Federal Strategy for the 

California State Implementation Plan,’’ 

which consists of two elements: (1) the 

Proposed 2003 State and Federal 

Strategy for the California State 

Implementation Plan (released August 

25, 2003); and (2) ARB Board Resolution 

03–22 which approves the Proposed 

2003 State and Federal Strategy with the 

revisions to that Strategy set forth in 

Attachment A. On January 9, 2004, ARB 

submitted to EPA the ‘‘2003 State and 

Federal Strategy for the California State 

Implementation Plan.’’ Letter from 

Catherine Witherspoon, ARB, to Wayne 

Nastri, EPA, January 9, 2004.2

In this proposed rule we refer to the 

two documents comprising the ‘‘Final 

State and Federal Strategy for the 

California State Implementation Plan’’ 

as the ‘‘2003 State Strategy’’ or 

individually as the ‘‘State Strategy’’ and 

‘‘ARB Resolution 03–22,’’ respectively. 

On August 21, 2008, the SJVAPCD 

adopted ‘‘Clarifications Regarding the 

2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration Plan’’ (2008 

Clarifications). The State submitted the 

2008 Clarifications on September 5, 

2008. Letter from James N. Goldstene, 

ARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, with 

enclosures, September 5, 2008. The 

2008 Clarifications provide updates to 

the 2004 SIP related to reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) 

measures adopted by the SJVAPCD, the 

ROP demonstration, and contingency 

measures. 

CAA section 110(k)(1) requires EPA to 

determine whether a SIP submission is 

complete within 60 days of receipt. This 

section also provides that any plan that 

has not been affirmatively determined to 

be complete or incomplete shall become 

complete within 6 months by operation 

of law. EPA’s completeness criteria are 

found in 40 CFR part 51, subpart V. 

The 2004 SIP, comprised of the 

original November 15, 2004 plan and 

May 6, 2006 amendment, was deemed 

complete by operation of law on May 

15, 2005 and September 6, 2006. On 

February 18, 2004, we determined the 

Final 2003 State Strategy to be 

complete. Letter from Deborah Jordan, 

EPA, to Catherine Witherspoon, ARB, 

February 18, 2004. We found the 2008 

Clarifications complete on September 

23, 2008. Letter from Deborah Jordan, 

EPA, to James N. Goldstene, ARB, 

September 23, 2008. 

C. EPA’s 2008 Proposed Approval of the 

2004 SIP, SJV Portion of the 2003 State 

Strategy and the 2008 Clarifications 

This is the second time we have 

proposed action on the 2004 SIP, the 

SJV portion of the 2003 State Strategy 

and the 2008 Clarifications. On October 

16, 2008, we proposed full approval of 

these SIP submittals and received three 

comment letters during the public 

comment period.3 73 FR 61381. After 

considering these comments, we are 

withdrawing our October 16, 2008 

proposed rule and reproposing action 

on these SIP submittals. As a result, we 

are not responding to the comments we 

received on that proposed action at this 

time. Commenters wishing to again raise 

issues raised in comments on that 

proposal should resubmit applicable 

comments to the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

II. Revocation of the 1-Hour Ozone 

Standard and Anti-Backsliding 

Requirements 

In 1979, we set the health-based 

NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per 

million (ppm) averaged over one hour. 

See 44 FR 8220 (February 9, 1979). In 

1997, we revised this ozone standard by 

lowering the level to 0.08 ppm and 

extending the averaging time to eight 

hours.4 See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). 

In 2004, EPA designated and 

classified most areas of the country 

under the 8-hour ozone standard. 69 FR 

23858 (April 30, 2004). At the same 

time, we issued the ‘‘Final Rule to 

Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 

1’’ (Phase 1 rule or 8-hour 

implementation rule). 69 FR 23951 

(April 30, 2004). Among other matters, 

the Phase 1 rule revoked the 1-hour 

ozone standard in the SJV area (as well 

as in most other areas of the country), 

effective June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR 

50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 and 70 FR 44470 

(August 3, 2005). 

The Phase 1 rule also set forth antibacksliding principles to ensure 

continued progress toward attainment of 

the 8-hour ozone standard by 

identifying which 1-hour ozone 

standard requirements remain 

applicable in an area after revocation of 

that standard. 40 CFR 51.900(f). The 

Phase 1 rule also identified several CAA 

requirements, such as contingency 

measures in CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 

182(c)(9), that would not continue to 

apply after revocation. See § 51.905(e). 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit 

subsequently vacated the provisions of 

the Phase 1 rule that waived the 

requirements under the revoked 1-hour 

ozone standard for, among other things, 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain or to make reasonable further 

progress toward attainment of the 1- 

hour ozone standard. See South Coast 

Air Quality Management District, et al., 

v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006), 

rehearing denied 489 F.3d 1245 (2007) 

(clarifying that the vacatur was limited 

to the issues on which the court granted 

the petitions for review) (collectively 

referred to below as South Coast). On 

January 16, 2009, EPA proposed to 

remove the contingency measure 

exemption in 40 CFR 51.905(e) for these 

requirements and to list contingency 

measures as applicable requirements 

under § 51.900(f). 74 FR 2936. 

As a general matter, the planning and 

control requirements that remain 

applicable following the revocation of 

the 1-hour ozone standard derive from 

CAA sections 110, 172, and 182. CAA 

sections 110 and 172 contain general 

planning and control requirements 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33935 

5See chapter 3 (page 38) of the ‘‘Air Resources 

Board’s Proposed State Strategy for California’s 

2007 State Implementation Plan,’’ Revised Draft 

(Release date: April 26, 2007) (2007 State Strategy) 

and ‘‘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,’’ ARB, 

April 24, 2009. 

applicable to all nonattainment areas. 

CAA section 182 contains more specific 

requirements applicable to ozone 

nonattainment areas, including 

requirements in section 182(e) that 

apply to areas classified as extreme, 

such as the SJV area. 

In 1992, EPA issued a General 

Preamble describing our preliminary 

views on how we intended to review 1- 

hour ozone plans submitted to meet 

these CAA’s requirements. See ‘‘General 

Preamble for Implementation of Title I 

of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990.’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). 

The General Preamble as well as other 

EPA guidance documents related to 1- 

hour ozone plans continue to guide our 

review of the 1-hour ozone requirements 

that remain applicable following 

revocation of that standard. 

Under the Phase 1 rule, areas remain 

subject to the 1-hour requirements until 

they attain the 8-hour ozone standard. 

Once an area is redesignated to 

attainment for the 8-hour standard, it 

may shift the applicable requirements to 

contingency measures (consistent with 

the CAA sections 110(l) and 193). See 

Phase 1 rule at 23955 and 40 CFR 

51.905(b). 

III. Review of the 2004 SIP, the SJV 

Portion of the 2003 State Strategy and 

the 2008 Clarifications 

A. Control Measures 

1. Requirements for Control Measures 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires 

nonattainment area plans to provide for 

the implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) 

including RACT. RACM is not listed 

separately in 40 CFR 51.900(f) as an 

applicable requirement following 

revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard; 

however, EPA interprets the RACM 

requirement to be a component of an 

area’s attainment demonstration. See 

General Preamble at 13560. 

EPA has previously provided 

guidance interpreting the RACM 

requirement in the General Preamble at 

13560 and a memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on the Reasonably Available 

Control Measure Requirement and 

Attainment Demonstration Submissions 

for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,’’ John 

Seitz, Director, OAQPS to Regional Air 

Directors, November 30, 1999 (Seitz 

memo). In summary, EPA guidance 

provides that States, in addressing the 

RACM requirement, should consider all 

potential measures for source categories 

in the nonattainment area to determine 

whether they are reasonably available 

for implementation in that area and 

whether they would advance the area’s 

attainment date by one or more years. 

Under the CAA, RACT is required for 

major sources of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and for all VOC 

source categories for which EPA has 

issued Control Techniques Guideline 

(CTG) documents. In addition, EPA has 

issued Alternative Control Techniques 

(ACT) documents to help States in 

making RACT determinations. CAA 

sections 172(c)(1), 182(a)(2)(A), 

182(b)(2), and 183(a) and (b). CAA 

section 182(f) requires that RACT also 

apply to major stationary sources of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX). In extreme areas, 

a major source is a stationary source that 

emits or has the potential to emit 10 

tons of VOC or NOX per year. CAA 

section 182(e). The RACT requirement 

in 182(b)(2), the major source threshold 

in section 182(e) as it applies to RACT, 

and the application of RACT to major 

sources of NOX are all applicable 

requirements under the Phase 1 rule. 40 

CFR 51.905(a)(1)(i) and 51.900(f)(1), (3) 

and (12). 

The CAA also requires that SIPs 

‘‘shall include enforceable emission 

limitations, and such other control 

measures, means or techniques * * * as 

well as schedules and timetables for 

compliance, as may be necessary or 

appropriate to provide for 

attainment * * * by the applicable 

attainment date.* * *’’ CAA section 

172(c)(6). CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) 

contains almost identical language. 

2. Control Measures in the 2004 SIP and 

2003 State Strategy 

a. RACM Demonstration 

To determine which measures would 

be feasible for the SJV area, the District 

looked at measures implemented in 

other areas (including the South Coast 

Air Basin, the San Francisco Bay Area, 

and the Houston-Galveston area), 

documents produced by ARB, as well as 

measures suggested by the public at 

local workshops. The District then 

screened the identified measures and 

rejected those that affected few or no 

sources in the SJV area, 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 expedite 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard. 2004 SIP, section 4.2.1. 

Based on this evaluation, the District 

developed an expeditious rule adoption 

schedule listing 21 measures involving 

adoption of eight new rules and 

revisions to over 20 existing rules. 2004 

SIP, Table 4–1. Since submittal of the 

SIP in 2004, the District has completed 

action on these rules and submitted 

them to EPA for approval. Table 1 in the 

2008 Clarifications and Table 2 below. 

In addition to the District’s efforts, the 

eight San Joaquin Valley Regional 

Transportation Planning Agencies 

(RTPAs) conducted a RACM evaluation 

for transportation sources. This 

evaluation, described in section 4.6.3. of 

the 2004 SIP, resulted in extensive local 

government commitments to implement 

programs to reduce auto travel and 

improve traffic flow. 2004 SIP, section 

4.6 and Appendix C. The local 

governments also provide reasoned 

justifications for any measures that they 

did not adopt. See 2004 SIP, Appendix 

C. 

Finally, the 2004 SIP relies on the 

2003 State Strategy to address mobile 

and area source categories not under the 

District’s jurisdiction. 2004 SIP, section 

4.7. Table I–1 in the 2003 State Strategy 

shows the impressive list of both mobile 

and area source measures that have been 

adopted by California between 1994 and 

2003, along with the mobile source rules 

that have been adopted by EPA during 

this period. Table I–2 in the 2003 State 

Strategy lists proposed new State 

measures, most of which have already 

been adopted.5 This list of new State 

measures was developed through a 

public process intended to identify and 

refine new emission reductions 

strategies for California. 2003 State 

Strategy, page ES–5. 

b. RACT Demonstration 

The 2004 SIP includes a brief section 

4.2.5 discussing the RACT obligation 

and specific source categories where 

further analysis and potential future 

controls would need to be adopted in 

order to ensure that RACT levels of 

control are applied to sources down to 

the 10 tons per year (tpy) level. The 

State subsequently formally withdrew 

the RACT portion of the 2004 SIP, 

specifically section 4.2.5. See 2008 

Clarifications, page 3. On January 21, 

2009, we made a finding that California 

failed to submit the required RACT 

demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 

standard and initiated sanction and 

Federal implementation plan (FIP) 

clocks under CAA sections 179(a) and 

110(c). 74 FR 3442. 

During the last several years, the 

District has also adopted and revised its 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33936 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

6The negative number here indicates that 

emissions increased in the source categories under 

the District’s authority to control. The increase is 

mainly from growth in livestock operations. ARB 

Staff report, table III–6. 

7California’s Department of Pesticide Regulations 

(DPR) limits total pesticide emissions in the San 

Joaquin Valley. However, the attainment 

demonstration in the 2004 SIP does not assume any 

DPR regulatory limits on pesticide emissions. See 

2003 State Strategy, p. III–C–3. 

8 66 FR 5001 (January 18, 2001). ARB estimates 

that interstate trucks registered outside of California 

represent over 50 percent of the heavy duty trucks 

in California. See Table III–1 in ‘‘Staff Report: Initial 

Statement of Reason for Proposed Rulemaking, 

Proposed Regulation for In-Use, On-road Diesel 

Vehicles,’’ California Air Resources Board (October 

2008). 

9Tier 2 and 3 non-road engines standards, 63 FR 

56968 (October, 23, 1998); Tier 4 diesel non-road 

engine standard, 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004). 

10 63 FR 18978 (May 16, 1998) and 73 FR 37045 

(June 30, 2008). 

RACT demonstration plan for the 8-hour 

ozone standard. On January 31, 2007, 

California submitted the District’s initial 

RACT plan for the 8-hour ozone 

standard to EPA. The District adopted a 

revised 8-hour ozone standard RACT 

plan on April 16, 2009 and the State 

submitted the revised plan on June 17, 

2009. In addition to addressing 

comments on the initial plan, The 

District intends this revised plan to 

address the failure to submit finding for 

the 1-hour ozone RACT demonstration 

and to assure that its rules cover sources 

in the SJV area down to the extreme area 

major source threshold of 10 tpy. See 

letter from Andrew Steckel, EPA, to 

George Heinen, SJVAPCD, May 6, 2008. 

We are currently reviewing the revised 

RACT plan for future action. 

c. Enforceable Limitations and Other 

Control Measures 

The 2004 SIP’s modeling analysis, 

discussed further below, determined 

that attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard required reducing 2000 

baseyear emissions from 556.8 tons per 

day (tpd) NOX and 443.5 tpd VOC to 

343.5 tpd NOX and 314.4 tpd VOC. 2004 

SIP at 3–7 through 3–11 and 5–9 

through 5–12 and ‘‘Proposed 2004 State 

Implementation Plan for Ozone in the 

San Joaquin Valley,’’ September 28, 

2004, Air Resources Board Staff Report 

(ARB Staff Report) at Table III–6. 

As shown in Table 1 below, we have 

divided the control measures in the 

2004 SIP’s attainment demonstration 

among three categories: Baseline 

measures, interim measures, and control 

strategy measures. As the term is used 

here and in the ARB Staff Report, 

baseline measures are rules and 

regulations adopted prior to September, 

2002 (i.e., prior to 2004 SIP’s 

development) that provide continuing 

reductions through and after 2010. We 

have defined interim measures as those 

rules adopted between September, 2002 

and the 2004 SIP’s adoption date in 

October, 2004. See Table III–7 in the 

ARB Staff Report. Finally, control 

strategy measures are the new rules, rule 

revisions, and commitments included in 

the 2004 SIP and 2003 State Strategy 

that will ensure that the additional 

increment of emission reductions 

needed beyond the baseline and interim 

measures is achieved in time to 

demonstrate attainment by November 

2010. See Tables III–6 and III–8 in the 

ARB Staff Report. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF EMISSION

REDUCTIONS IN THE 2004 SIP 

[Tons per summer day] 

VOC NOX

2000 baseyear emissions 443.5 556.8 

2010 baseline emissions .. 365.1 396.8 

2010 Attainment emissions target ................... 314.4 343.5 

Reductions needed for attainment ........................ 129.1 213.3 

Baseline Measures: 

SJVAPCD .................. 6¥8.5 18.9 

State .......................... 79.3 97.2 

Federal ...................... 7.6 43.9 

Total ................... 78.4 160 

Percent from 

Baseline Measures ................. 61% 75% 

Interim Measures: 

SJVAPCD adopted 

rules ....................... 2.4 12.2 

Percent from Interim 

Measures ............... 2% 6% 

Control Strategy Measures: 

SJVAPCD (includes 

long-term measures) ....................... 33.3 21.1 

State .......................... 15 20 

Total ................... 48.3 41.1 

Percent from 

Control Strategy Measures 38% 19% 

ARB Staff Report, table III–6. 

Percentage may not sum to 100% because 

of rounding. 

i. Baseline and Interim Measures 

As shown in Table 1, the majority of 

the emission reductions needed to 

demonstrate attainment by November 

2010 come from baseline and interim 

measures. These reductions come from 

a combination of Federal, State, and 

District measures. 

A. SJVAPCD Measures—SJVAPCD 

currently has adopted more than 50 

prohibitory rules that limit emissions of 

either VOC or NOX. These rules include 

controls for boilers, oil field and 

refinery equipment, a variety of surface 

coatings operations, and open burning. 

We have provided a list of SJVAPCD 

NOX and VOC rules together with 

information on their SIP approval status 

in the technical support document 

(TSD) for this proposal. 

B. State measures—California has 

adopted standards for many categories 

of on- and off-road vehicles and engines, 

gasoline and diesel fuels, and numerous 

categories of consumer products. The 

State’s baseline measures fall within 

two categories: measures for which the 

State has obtained or has applied to 

obtain a waiver of Federal pre-emption 

under CAA section 209 (section 209 

waiver measures or waiver measures) 

and those for which the State is not 

required to obtain a waiver (non-waiver 

measures). 

Section 209 waiver measures. A 

waiver under section 209 is, in general, 

required for most on- and non-road 

vehicle or engine standards. Examples 

of State waiver measures are: low 

emission vehicle program, heavy duty 

bus standards, and small off-road 

engines. A list of California’s waiver 

measures can be found in the TSD. We 

discuss in more detail the CAA section 

209 waiver provisions and how we 

intend to treat reductions from these 

measures in attainment and ROP 

demonstrations in section C.3.b. below. 

Non-waiver measures. These 

measures include: improvements to 

California’s inspection and maintenance 

(I/M) program, SmogCheck; cleaner 

burning gasoline and diesel regulations; 

and limits on the VOC content and 

reactivity of consumer products.7 A list 

of these non-waiver measures can be 

found in the TSD. 

Federal measures. These measures 

include EPA’s national emission 

standards for heavy duty diesel trucks,8

certain new construction and farm 

equipment,9 and locomotives.10 States 

are allowed to rely on reductions from 

Federal measures in attainment and 

ROP demonstrations. 

ii. Control Strategy Measures 

A. SJVAPCD’s commitments and rule 

adoption. In the 2004 SIP, the District 

committed to adopt specific rules or 

rule revisions by specified dates, to 

submit the rules within one month of 

adoption to ARB for submittal to EPA, 

and to achieve from each measure 

specified reductions by 2010. 2004 SIP 

at Table 4–1 and SJVAPCD Resolution 

No. 5–10–12 (October 20, 2005), p. 4, 

item 9. This information is updated in 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33937 

Table 1 of the 2008 Clarifications which 

shows not only the original commitment 

in the 2004 SIP but also the date on 

which the District adopted the rule 

associated with each commitment and 

the actual emissions reductions 

achieved by each rule. A summary of 

the information found in Table 1 in the 

2008 Clarifications is presented in our 

Table 2 below. Table 2 also gives the 

date and cite for EPA’s approval or 

proposed approval of the rule or the 

date of signature on the proposed 

approval. 

TABLE 2—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2004 PLAN SPECIFIC RULE COMMITMENTS

Rule No., description and commitment ID from 2004 SIP 

2004 SIP 

commitment 

(2010-tpd) 

Achieved 

emission 

reductions 

(2010-tpd) 

Local 

adoption 

Approval cite/date or proposed 

approval cite/date 

NOX Control Measures 

9310 Fleet School buses (C) ........................................................ 0.1 0.6 11 9/21/06 NPR signed 6/30/09. 

9510 Indirect Source Mitigation (D) .............................................. 4.0 .................... 12/15/05 See note below. 

4307 Small Boilers (2–5 MMBTU) (E) .......................................... 1.0 5.1 4/20/06 72 FR 29887 (5/30/07). 

4352 Solid fuel boilers (G) ............................................................ 0.0 0.0 5/18/06 Proposed 72 FR 29901 (5/30/ 

07). 

4702 Stat. IC engines (H) ............................................................. 8.0 16.8 1/18/07 73 FR 1819 (1/10/08). 

4309 Commercial Dryers (I) ......................................................... 1.0 0.7 12/15/05 72 FR 29887 (5/30/07). 

4308 Water Heaters 0.075 (N) ..................................................... 0.2 0.8 10/20/05 72 FR 29887 (5/30/07). 

4103 Open Burning (Q) ................................................................ 1.1 1.7 5/17/07 Proposed 74 FR 30485 (6/26/

09). 

4703 Sta. Gas Turbines (S) ......................................................... 0.6 1.9 8/17/06 NPR signed 6/22/07. 

Long-term measures ....................................................................... 5.0 .................... .................... See discussion below. 

NOX Total ................................................................................. 21.1 27.6 

Rule No. and description 

2004 SIP 

commitment 

(2010-tpd) 

Achieved 

emission 

reductions 

(2010-tpd) 

Local 

adoption 

Submittal date or approval cite/ 

date 

VOC Control Measures 

4409 Oil & Gas Fug. (A) ............................................................... 4.7 5.1 4/20/05 71 FR 14653 (3/23/06). 

4455 Ref. & Chem. Fug. (B) ........................................................ 0.2 0.3 4/20/05 71 FR 14653 (3/23/06). 

4694 Wineries (F) ......................................................................... 0.7 .................... 12/15/05 See note below. 

4565 Composting/Biosolids (J) ..................................................... 0.1 .................... 3/15/07 See note below. 

4612 Automotive Coating (incorporates Rule 4602)(K) ............... 0.1 1.0 9/20/07 Proposed 74 FR 28467 (6/16/ 

09). 

4570 CAFO Rule (L) ..................................................................... 15.8 17.7 6/15/06 NPR signed 6/30/09. 

4662 Org. Solvent Degreasing (M) .............................................. .................... .................... .................... Proposed 74 FR 27084 (June 8, 

2009). 

4663 Org. Sol. Cleaning (M) ........................................................ 1.3 3.1 9/20/07 Proposed 74 FR 27084 (June 8,

2009). 

4603 Metal Parts/Products (M) ..................................................... .................... .................... .................... Proposed 74 FR 28467 (June 

16, 2009). 

4604 Can and Coil Coating (M) ................................................... .................... .................... .................... Proposed 74 FR 28467 (6/16/ 

09). 

4605 Aerospace Coating (M) ....................................................... .................... .................... .................... NPR signed 6/30/09. 

4606 Wood Products Coating (M) ................................................ .................... .................... .................... NPR signed 6/26/09. 

4607 Graphic Arts (M) .................................................................. .................... .................... .................... NPR signed 6/26/09. 

4612 Automotive Coating (M) ....................................................... .................... .................... .................... Proposed 74 FR 28467 (6/16/ 

09). 

4653 Adhesives (M) ...................................................................... .................... .................... .................... NPR signed 6/26/09. 

4684 Polyester Resin Operation (M) ............................................ .................... .................... .................... NPR signed 6/30/09. 

4401 Steam-Enhanced Oil-well (O) .............................................. 1.4 0.3 12/14/06 NPR signed 6/30/09. 

4651 Soil Decontamination (P) ..................................................... < 0.05 0.0 9/20/07 NPR signed 6/22/09. 

4103 Open Burning (Q) ................................................................ 2.9 3.9 5/17/07 Proposed 74 FR 30485 (6/26/

09). 

4682 Polymeric Foam Mfg. (R) .................................................... 0.1 .................... 9/20/07 See note below. 

4621 & 4624 Gasoline storage & trans. (T & U) .......................... 0.9 1.9 12/20/07 NPRs signed 6/22/09 and 6/26/ 

09. 

Long-term measures ....................................................................... 5 .................... .................... See discussion below. 

VOC total ................................................................................. 33.3 33.3 

Note: This rule has been adopted and submitted. EPA is currently reviewing the rule for SIP action. Numbers may not add to totals because of 

rounding. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33938 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

11Table 1 in the 2008 Clarifications erroneously 

gives this reduction as 1.6 tpd. See e-mail, Jessi 

Hafer, SJVAPCD, to Frances Wicher, EPA, February 

18, 2009, ‘‘Reductions from 1-hour SIP 

clarifications.’’ 

12 The 2003 State Strategy makes clear that this 

commitment was intended for immediate inclusion 

in the 2003 PM–10 plan for the SJV area and for 

later inclusion in the 1-hour ozone plan for the SJV 

area. State Strategy, I–23 and I–26. 

13The State uses the term ‘‘reactive organic gases’’ 

(ROG) in its documents. For the purposes of this 

proposed rule, VOC and ROG are interchangeable. 

14In these documents the State’s commitment is 

sometimes referred to as 20 tpd NOX and sometimes 

as 10 tpd NOX. The 20 tpd reference is to ARB’s 

commitment for 10 tpd NOX in the Statewide 

Strategy and ARB’s additional commitment for 10 

tpd NOX in the 2004 SIP at section 4.7 and ARB 

Board Resolution 04–29. See also ARB Staff Report 

for the 2004 SIP at 29. The 10 tpd reference is to 

ARB’s additional commitment for 10 tpd NOX in 

the 2004 SIP at section 4.7 and ARB Resolution 04– 

29. 

As can be seen from Table 2, the 

District also committed to achieve an 

additional 5 tpd NOX and 5 tpd of VOC 

reductions from unidentified long-term 

measures. The status of this aggregate 

commitment is discussed further below. 

In total, the District committed to 

reductions of 33.3 tpd of VOC and 21.1 

tpd of NOX by 2010. See Table 1 above. 

B. State commitments and rule 

adoption. The 2003 State Strategy, 

adopted prior to the 2004 SIP, includes 

a commitment to reduce NOX emissions 

in the SJV area by 10 tpd by 2010.12

2003 State Strategy, I–24 through I–26. 

Possible measures to achieve these 

reductions are described and listed in 

the 2003 State Strategy at I–14 through 

I–26 and ARB Resolution 03–22, 

Attachment A. The 2003 State Strategy 

also states that beyond its emission 

reduction commitment, new 

commitments to achieve further VOC13

and NOX reductions would be needed 

for the future SJV 1-hour ozone plan 

(which the SJVAPCD and ARB 

subsequently adopted as the 2004 SIP) 

and would be considered as part of that 

plan. 2003 State Strategy, I–26. To that 

end, the 2004 SIP incorporates the 2003 

State Strategy as it applies to the area 

and includes an additional commitment 

by the State to achieve by the beginning 

of the 2010 ozone season emissions 

reductions of 10 tpd NOX and 15 tpd 

VOC. 

Although the 2003 State Strategy 

identifies possible control measures that 

could deliver these reductions, the 

State’s commitment is only to achieve 

these NOX and VOC emission 

reductions in the aggregate by the 

beginning of the 2010 ozone season. 

Thus the State’s total enforceable 

commitments in the 2004 SIP are to 

achieve 20 tpd NOX and 15 tpd VOC 

emission reductions in the aggregate by 

2010. See 2003 State Strategy, pages I– 

7 through I–9 and I–26; ARB Board 

Resolution 04–29, October 28, 2004; 

ARB Staff Report, pages 29–30; 2004 SIP 

at section 4.7 (including Table 4–3 

which duplicates Table I–2 in the 2003 

State Strategy).14

3. EPA’s Evaluation of the Control 

Measures in the SIP Submittals 

a. RACM/RACT Demonstration 

As described above, with respect to 

the RACM requirement, the District 

evaluated a range of potentially 

available measures for inclusion in its 

2004 SIP and committed to adopt those 

it found to be feasible for attaining the 

1-hour ozone standard. The process and 

the criteria the District used to select 

certain measures and reject others are 

consistent with EPA’s RACM guidance. 

We also describe above the measure 

evaluation process undertaken by the 

State, the SJV RTPAs and the SJV local 

jurisdictions. This process is also 

consistent with EPA’s RACM guidance. 

See General Preamble at 13560 and 

Seitz memo. 

Based on our review of the results of 

these RACM analyses, the 2003 State 

Strategy and the District’s and 

California’s adopted rules and 

commitments to adopt and implement 

controls, we propose to find that there 

are, at this time, no additional 

reasonably available measures that 

would advance attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone standard in the SJV area. We 

estimate that it would take an additional 

reduction of from 3.7 to 6.2 tpd VOC 

and 13.7 to 17.0 tpd NOX to advance 

attainment by one year in the San 

Joaquin Valley. See TSD, Section V. No 

reasonably available unadopted 

measures identified in the 2004 SIP, 

2003 State Strategy, and revised 8-hour 

ozone RACT demonstration plan, either 

individually or collectively, could 

deliver this level of emission 

reductions. See TSD, Section V for more 

details. 

Therefore, we propose to find that the 

2004 SIP, together with the 2003 State 

Strategy, provides for the 

implementation of RACM as required by 

CAA section 172(c)(1). This proposed 

finding does not affect the District’s 

continuing obligation under the CAA to 

implement RACT pursuant to CAA 

section 182(b)(2) and 40 CFR 

51.905(a)(1)(ii). 

b. Enforceable Limitations and Other 

Control Measures 

i. SJVAPCD Measures 

Every District baseline and interim 

rule has been either approved into the 

SIP or replaced by a SIP-approved 

revision to that rule. See Table 8 in the 

TSD. Emission reductions from these 

rules are fully creditable in attainment 

and ROP demonstrations and may be 

used to meet other CAA requirements, 

such as contingency measures. 

As shown above and discussed 

further below, the 2008 Clarifications 

and Table 2 above demonstrate that the 

District has fulfilled its control strategy 

commitments in the 2004 SIP to adopt 

specific rules. The reductions from 

these adopted rules have exceeded the 

District’s total emission reduction 

commitments, including its 

commitments for reductions from longterm measures. We have either 

approved or proposed to approve all 

measures relied upon to achieve these 

emission reductions; therefore, the 

reductions from these measures are or 

will be, when finally approved, fully 

creditable in attainment and ROP 

demonstrations and may be used to 

meet other CAA requirements. 

To the extent such measures are not 

credited for attainment or ROP, they 

may also be used as contingency 

measures that would be triggered by a 

failure to attain or to make reasonable 

further progress. 

ii. State Measures and Commitments 

A. Section 209 Waiver Measures. 

California’s motor vehicle emissions 

control program predates the first 

Federal statute regulating motor vehicle 

emissions, the Motor Vehicle Air 

Pollution Control Act of 1965 (which 

amended the CAA of 1963). In further 

CAA amendments, referred to as the Air 

Quality Act of 1967 (Pub. L. 90–148), 

Congress allowed the State of California, 

and only California, a waiver of the Air 

Quality Act’s pre-emption of State 

emissions standards for new motor 

vehicles or new motor vehicle engines 

because of California’s pioneering 

efforts and unique problems. This was 

not changed when the statute was 

amended in 1970. The 1977 

amendments to the CAA expanded the 

flexibility granted to California in order 

‘‘to afford California the broadest 

possible discretion in selecting the best 

means to protect the health of its 

citizens and the public welfare.’’ (H.R. 

Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 

301–2 (1977). So long as California 

determines that its motor vehicle 

standards are ‘‘in the aggregate’’ at least 

as protective of public health and 

welfare as applicable Federal standards, 

title II of the CAA requires EPA, unless 

it makes certain findings, to waive the 

Act’s general prohibition on State 

adoption and enforcement of standards 

relating to the control of emissions from 

new motor vehicles or new motor 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33939 

15These fuel regulations do not include the Low 

Carbon Fuel Standards adopted by ARB on April 

24, 2009. 

16 Commitments approved by EPA under section 

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

citizens under, respectively, sections 113 and 304 

of the CAA. In the past, EPA has approved 

enforceable commitments and courts have enforced 

these actions against states that failed to comply 

with those commitments: See, e.g., American Lung 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments, 

EPA could make a finding of failure to implement 

the SIP under CAA Section 179(a), which starts an 

18-month period for the State to correct the nonimplementation before mandatory sanctions are 

imposed. 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) provides that each SIP 

‘‘shall include enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means or techniques * * * 

as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, 

as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirement of the Act.’’ Section 

172(c)(6) of the Act, which applies to 

nonattainment SIPs, is virtually identical to section 

110(a)(2)(A). The language in these sections of the 

CAA is quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any 

‘‘means or techniques’’ that EPA determines are 

‘‘necessary or appropriate’’ to meet CAA 

requirements, such that the area will attain as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later than the 

designated date. Furthermore, the express 

allowance for ‘‘schedules and timetables’’ 

demonstrates that Congress understood that all 

required controls might not have to be in place 

before a SIP could be fully approved. 

17The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

upheld EPA’s interpretation of CAA sections 

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

application of the three factor test in approving 

enforceable commitments in the Houston-Galveston 

ozone SIP. BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et al., 

355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003). 

18This deadline was set pursuant to CAA section 

182(i), when the SJV was reclassified to extreme on 

April 16, 2004 at 69 FR 20550. 

vehicle engines. See CAA section 209(a) 

and (b). 

In the Agency’s review of the 

California SIP and its many revisions, 

EPA has historically allowed emission 

reduction credit for the motor vehicle 

emissions standards that are subject to 

a section 209(b) waiver without 

requiring California to submit the 

standards themselves to EPA for 

approval as part of the California SIP. In 

this respect EPA treated these rules 

similarly to the Federal motor vehicle 

control requirements, which EPA has 

always allowed States to credit in their 

SIPs without submitting the program as 

a SIP revision. CAA section 193, 

enacted as part of the 1990 

Amendments to the CAA, is a general 

savings clause that provides for, among 

other things, EPA statutory 

interpretations that predate those 

amendments to remain in effect so long 

as not inconsistent with the Act. At the 

time it enacted section 193, Congress 

did not insert any language into the 

statute rendering EPA’s treatment of 

California’s motor vehicle standards 

inconsistent with the Act. Thus, in 

section 193, Congress effectively ratified 

EPA’s longstanding pre-1990 practice of 

allowing emission reduction credit for 

California standards subject to the 

waiver process notwithstanding the 

absence of the standards in the SIP 

itself. 

As part of the 1990 Amendments to 

the CAA, Congress enacted subsection 

(e) of section 209. In nearly identical 

language to subsections (a) and (b) of 

section 209, subsection (e) sets forth the 

Federal pre-emption of State emissions 

standards for nonroad vehicles or 

engines but allows the State of 

California, and only California, a waiver 

of pre-emption (with certain exceptions) 

under criteria that mirror the section 

209(b) waiver provisions for motor 

vehicles. Since 1990, EPA has treated 

such nonroad standards in the same 

manner as California motor vehicle 

standards, i.e., allowing credit for 

standards subject to the waiver process 

without requiring submittal of the 

standards as part of the SIP. Congress is 

presumed to be aware of agency 

interpretations and its subsequent 

revision of the statute to add subsection 

(e) without overruling EPA’s 

interpretation with respect to motor 

vehicle standards is further compelling 

evidence that the Agency correctly 

interpreted congressional intent with 

respect to crediting California 

requirements subject to a section 209 

waiver without requiring California to 

submit the standards themselves to EPA 

for approval as part of the California 

SIP. 

B. Non-waiver measures. In separate 

proposed rules, we have proposed to 

approve the latest revisions to the 

gasoline and diesel fuel standards 

(proposed rule signed June 30, 2009 and 

will be published in early July, 2009 15) 

and consumer products rules (74 FR 

30481 (June 26, 2009)). We also will be 

proposing action soon on the State’s 

I/M program. The reductions from these 

measures will be, if finally approved 

into the SIP, fully creditable in 

attainment and ROP demonstrations. To 

the extent such measures are not 

credited for attainment or ROP, they 

may also be used as contingency 

measures that would be triggered by a 

failure to attain or to make reasonable 

further progress. 

C. State commitments. As stated 

above, measures already adopted by the 

District and State (both prior to and 

pursuant to the 2004 SIP) provide the 

majority of emission reductions needed 

to demonstrate attainment. The balance 

of the needed reductions is in the form 

of enforceable commitments by ARB. 

EPA believes, consistent with past 

practice, that the CAA allows approval 

of enforceable commitments that are 

limited in scope where circumstances 

exist that warrant the use of such 

commitments in place of adopted 

measures.16 Once EPA determines that 

circumstances warrant consideration of 

an enforceable commitment, EPA 

considers three factors in determining 

whether to approve the enforceable 

commitment: (a) does the commitment 

address a limited portion of the 

statutorily-required program; (b) is the 

State capable of fulfilling its 

commitment; and (c) is the commitment 

for a reasonable and appropriate period 

of time.17

We believe that, in acting on the 2004 

SIP and 2003 State Strategy, 

circumstances warrant the consideration 

of enforceable commitments. As shown 

in Table 1 and discussed below in 

section III.D., the majority of emission 

reductions needed to demonstrate 

attainment and all of the emission 

reductions needed to demonstrate ROP 

come from rules and regulations that 

were adopted prior to the plan’s 

submittal in November 2004, i.e., they 

come from the baseline and interim 

measures. All of these rules and 

regulations have been approved, 

proposed for approval, granted a waiver, 

or promulgated by EPA. 

As a result of these State and District 

efforts, most sources in the SJV area 

were already subject to stringent rules 

prior to the plan’s development, leaving 

fewer opportunities to reduce 

emissions. In the 2004 SIP and the 2003 

State Strategy, SJVAPCD and ARB 

identified potential control measures 

that could achieve the additional 

emission reductions needed for 

attainment (see 2004 SIP, sections 4.2.4 

and 4.3 and 2003 State Strategy, 

sections II-IV.). However, the timeline 

needed to develop, adopt, and 

implement these measures went well 

beyond the November 15, 2004 deadline 

to submit the SJV’s extreme area plan.18

Given these circumstances, we believe 

that the reliance in the 2004 SIP on 

enforceable commitments was 

warranted. As noted before, SJVAPCD 

has now fully satisfied its 2004 SIP 

commitments, leaving just ARB’s 

commitment remaining. We now 

consider the three factors to determine 

whether ARB’s commitment is 

approvable. 

First, we look to see if the 

commitment addresses a limited portion 

of a statutory requirement. Only the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33940 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

19The State’s current rulemaking agenda for 2009 

can be found at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/ 

2009rulemakingcalendar.pdf. 

attainment demonstration in the 2004 

SIP relies on ARB’s aggregate 

commitment to achieve reductions of 20 

tpd NOX and 15 tpd VOC in the SJV area 

by 2010. Because the District’s rules are 

now anticipated to achieve more 

emission reductions than anticipated in 

the 2004 SIP (see Table 2 above), we 

expect that not all of the reductions 

committed to by ARB will be needed to 

demonstrate attainment. Table 3 below 

shows that the remaining reductions 

from commitments needed to attain the 

1-hour ozone standard will be 13.5 tpd 

NOX or 6.3% and 15 tpd VOC or 11.6 

percent or 8.3 percent of the combined 

NOX and VOC needed for attainment. 

TABLE 3—REMAINING COMMITMENT PORTION OF THE 2004 SIP REDUCTIONS IN TONS PER DAY FOR 2010 

NOX VOC 

Reductions needed to attain .................................................................................................................................. 213.3 129 .1 

Reductions from baseline measures adopted by 9/02 and interim measures ..................................................... 172.2 80 .8 

Reductions needed from commitments in 2004 SIP ............................................................................................. 41.1 48 .7 

Reductions achieved from SJVAPCD rules that are approved or proposed for approval ................................... 27.6 33 .3 

Reductions needed to attain from commitments ................................................................................................... 13.5 15 

Percent of reductions needed to attain from commitments .................................................................................. 6.3 11 .6 

Sources: ARB Staff Report for the 2004 SIP, Table III–6; 2008 Clarifications, Table 1. 

Given the State’s efforts to date, we 

believe this relatively small portion of 

reductions from enforceable 

commitments in the 2004 SIP is 

acceptable. 

Second, we look to see if the State is 

capable of fulfilling its commitment. 

ARB has recently submitted information 

on its efforts to fulfill its commitment in 

the 2004 SIP and 2003 State Strategy. 

See Letter, James Goldstene, ARB, to 

Laura Yoshii, EPA, June 29, 2009. 

Overall, ARB adopted rules between 

July 2003 and October 2007 that are 

expected to achieve 14.1 tpd NOX and 

3.3 tpd VOC. Attached to this letter is 

a list of these measures which includes 

tighter diesel fuel standards and tighter 

consumer product limits which we have 

proposed to approve, and a number of 

waiver measures. These measures 

represent the most stringent regulations 

yet enacted in the country. 

The list, however, does not include a 

number of State programs that may 

reduce emissions between now and the 

2010 attainment deadline (e.g., 

California’s greenhouse gas motor 

vehicle standards and limits on 

pesticide emissions in the SJV area 

adopted by DPR). Moreover, in 2007, 

ARB adopted a revised State Strategy 

that continues its program of 

identifying, evaluating, developing and 

adopting new or tighter controls on 

sources within its jurisdiction.19 See 

2007 State Strategy as revised and 

updated on April 24, 2009. 

Given the evidence of the State’s 

efforts to date and its continuing 

program to adopt controls, we believe 

that the State will be able to meet its 

enforceable commitments to achieve 20 

tpd NOX and 15 tpd VOC by 2010. We, 

therefore, conclude that the second 

factor is satisfied. 

Finally, we look to see if the 

commitment is for a reasonable and 

appropriate period of time. In order to 

meet the commitment to achieve 

reductions of 15 tpd VOC and 20 tpd 

NOX by the beginning of the 2010 ozone 

season, the State projected an ambitious 

rule development, adoption, and 

implementation schedule in the 2003 

State Strategy. This projected schedule 

reasonably anticipated sufficient time to 

achieve the committed reductions by 

2010. See 2003 State Strategy, Tables I– 

7 and I–10. Most projected adoption 

dates for measures that could fulfill the 

commitment were in 2006 or earlier, 

with implementation in 2006 to 2008. 

These dates were all well before the SJV 

area’s required attainment deadline of 

November 15, 2010. They are also 

reasonable given the type of measures 

that were contemplated (e.g., retrofit 

controls for existing heavy-duty off-road 

diesel equipment), measures that 

require significant lead times to achieve 

reductions. Therefore, the State’s 

schedule was reasonable and 

appropriate for achieving its 

commitment, and we conclude that the 

third factor is satisfied. 

For the above reasons, we believe that 

the three factors EPA considers in 

determining whether to approve 

enforceable commitments are 

satisfactorily addressed with respect to 

the State’s commitment. We are 

therefore proposing to approve the 

State’s commitment in the 2004 SIP, 

ARB Board Resolution 04–29 and Final 

2003 State Strategy to achieve 20 tpd 

NOX and 15 tpd VOC reductions by 

2010. Final approval of this 

commitment would make the 

commitment enforceable by EPA and by 

citizens. 

B. Emission Inventories 

We have evaluated the emission 

inventories in the 2004 SIP to determine 

if they are consistent with EPA guidance 

(General Preamble at 13502) and 

adequate to support that plan’s ROP and 

attainment demonstrations. Chapter 3 of 

the 2004 SIP presents the baseline and 

projected emission inventories relied on 

for the attainment and ROP 

demonstrations. This chapter also 

discusses the methodology used to 

determine 1999 emissions and identifies 

the growth and control factors used to 

project emissions for the 2000 baseline 

inventory and the 2008 (ROP milestone) 

and 2010 (attainment) projected year 

inventories. The plan includes weekday 

summer inventories for the base year of 

2000 and projected baseline inventories 

for 2008 and 2010 for all major source 

categories. Emissions are calculated for 

the two major ozone precursors—NOX

and VOC—as well as for the less 

significant precursor, carbon monoxide 

(CO). 2004 SIP at Table 3–1. Motor 

vehicle emissions were based on 

estimates of vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) provided by the regional 

transportation planning agencies and 

the California Department of 

Transportation. The plan uses ARB’s 

EMission FACtor (EMFAC) 2002, 

version 2.2, to calculate the emission 

factors for cars, trucks and buses. At the 

time the 2004 SIP was developed, 

EMFAC 2002 was the mobile source 

model approved for use in California’s 

SIPs 68 FR 15720 (April 1, 2003). 

We have determined that the 2000 

baseyear emission inventory in the 2004 

SIP was comprehensive, accurate, and 

current at the time it was submitted on 

November 15, 2004 and that this 

inventory as well as the 2008 and 2010 

projected inventories were prepared 

consistent with EPA guidance. 

Accordingly, we propose to find that 

these inventories provide an appropriate 

basis for the ROP and attainment 

demonstrations in the 2004 SIP. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33941 

20The ROP demonstration relies on ‘‘the emission 

control program as it existed when the Valley’s 

2004 SIP was submitted * * *’’ 2008 Clarification 

at 6. As discussed in section III.C.2.c.i. above, all 

baseline measures are either federal, SIP-approved, 

proposed for approval, or otherwise creditable in 

ROP demonstrations. 

C. Rate of Progress Demonstrations 

1. Requirements for Rate of Progress 

Demonstrations 

CAA section 172(c) requires 

nonattainment area plans to provide for 

reasonable further progress (RFP) which 

is defined in section 171(1) as such 

annual incremental reductions in 

emissions as are required in part D or 

may reasonably be required by the 

Administrator in order to ensure 

attainment of the relevant ambient 

standard by the applicable date. 

CAA sections 182(c)(2) and (e) require 

that serious and above area SIPs include 

ROP quantitative milestones that are to 

be achieved every 3 years after 1996 

until attainment. For ozone areas 

classified as serious and above, section 

182(c)(2) requires that the SIP must 

provide for reductions in ozone-season, 

weekday VOC emissions of at least 3 

percent per year net of growth averaged 

over each consecutive 3-year period. 

This is in addition to the 15 percent 

reduction over the first 6-year period 

required by CAA section 182(b)(1) for 

areas classified as moderate and above. 

The CAA requires that these milestones 

be calculated from the 1990 inventory 

after excluding, among other things, 

emission reductions from ‘‘[a]ny 

measure related to motor vehicle 

exhaust or evaporative emissions 

promulgated by the Administrator by 

January 1, 1990’’ and emission 

reductions from certain Federal gasoline 

volatility requirements. CAA section 

182(b)(1)(B)–(D). EPA has issued 

guidance on meeting 1-hour ozone ROP 

requirements. See General Preamble at 

13516 and ‘‘Guidance on the Post-1996 

Rate-of-Progress Plan and the 

Attainment Demonstration,’’ EPA–452/ 

R–93–015, OAQPS, EPA, February 18, 

1994 (corrected). 

CAA section 182(c)(2)(C) allows for 

NOX reductions that occur after 1990 to 

be used to meet the post-1996 ROP 

emission reduction requirements, 

provided that such NOX reductions 

meet the criteria outlined in the CAA 

and EPA guidance. The criteria require 

that: (1) the sum of all creditable VOC 

and NOX reductions must meet the 3 

percent per year ROP requirement; (2) 

the substitution is on a percent-forpercent of adjusted base year emissions 

for the relevant pollutant; and (3) the 

sum of all substituted NOX reductions 

cannot be greater than the cumulative 

NOX reductions required by the 

modeled attainment demonstration. See 

General Preamble at 13517 and ‘‘NOX

Substitution Guidance,’’ OAQPS, EPA, 

December 1993. 

Our guidance in the General Preamble 

states that by meeting the specific ROP 

milestones discussed above, the general 

RFP requirements in CAA section 

172(c)(2) will also be satisfied. General 

Preamble at 13518. 

Rate of progress reductions as well as 

the NOX requirements of CAA section 

182(f) remain applicable requirements 

under the 8-hour ozone implementation 

rule for areas that are nonattainment for 

both the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone 

standards. See § 51.905(a)(1)(i) and 

§ 51.900(f)(4) and (12). 

2. Rate of Progress Demonstrations in 

the 2004 SIP and the 2008 Clarifications 

Chapter 7 of the 2004 SIP, updated by 

Table 2 in the 2008 Clarifications, 

provides a demonstration that the SJV 

area meets both the 2008 and 2010 ROP 

milestones. We have summarized this 

ROP demonstration in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—SAN JOAQUIN RATE OF PROGRESS DEMONSTRATIONS

[Summer planning tons per day] 

Base-year Milestone year 

1990 2008 2010 

VOC Calculations 

A. 1990 Baseline VOC ................................................................................................................ 633.2 633.2 633.2 

B. CA Pre-1990 MV standards adjustment ................................................................................. ........................ 120.1 123.8 

C. Adjusted 1990 baseline VOC in the milestone year (Line A–Line B) .................................... ........................ 513.1 509.4 

D. Cumulative VOC reductions needed to meet milestone ........................................................ ........................ 261.7 209.4 

E. Target level of VOC needed to meet ROP requirement (Line C–Line D) ............................. ........................ 251.4 219.0 

F. Projected level (baseline) of VOC in milestone year with adopted controls only .................. 369.4 362.7 

G. VOC ROP shortfall (Line F–Line E) ....................................................................................... ........................ 118.0 143.7 

H. VOC ROP shortfall (% of adjusted baseline) ......................................................................... ........................ 23.0% 28.2% 

NOX Calculations 

A. 1990 Baseline NOX ................................................................................................................. 805.1 805.1 805.1 

B. CA Pre-1990 MV standards adjustment ................................................................................. ........................ 114.0 116.6 

C. Adjusted 1990 baseline NOX in the milestone year (Line A–Line B) .................................... ........................ 691.1 688.5 

D. Projected level (baseline) of NOX in milestone year with adopted controls only .................. 411.0 384.5 

E. Change in NOX since 1990 (Line C–Line D) .......................................................................... ........................ 280.1 304.0 

F. Change in NOX since 1990 (% of adjusted baseline) ............................................................ ........................ 40.5% 44.2% 

G. VOC ROP shortfall ................................................................................................................. ........................ 23.0% 28.2% 

H. % Surplus NOX reductions after offsetting VOC ROP shortfall available for contingency 

measures (Line F–Line G) ....................................................................................................... ........................ 17.5% 16.0% 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33942 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

20The ROP demonstration relies on ‘‘the emission 

control program as it existed when the Valley’s 

2004 SIP was submitted * * *’’ 2008 Clarification 

at 6. As discussed in section III.C.2.c.i. above, all 

baseline measures are either federal, SIP-approved, 

proposed for approval, or otherwise creditable in 

ROP demonstrations. 

21See ‘‘How to calculate non-creditable 

reductions for motor vehicle programs in California 

as required for reasonable further progress (RFP) 

SIPs,’’ EPA, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Transportation and Regional Program 

Division, September 6, 2007. 

22EPA has issued the following guidance 

regarding air quality modeling used to demonstrate 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS: ‘‘Guideline 

for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed 

Model,’’ EPA–450/4–91–013 (July 1991); ‘‘Guidance 

on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate 

Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS,’’ EPA–454/B–95– 

007 (June 1996); ‘‘Guidance for the 1-hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas that Rely on Weight-ofEvidence for Attainment Demonstrations, MidCourse Review Guidance’’ (March 28, 2002); and 

‘‘Guidance for Improving Weight-of-Evidence 

Through Identification of Additional Emission 

Reduction Not Modeled’’ (Nov 99). Copies of these 

documents may be found on EPA’s Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram and in the docket for 

this proposed rule. 

23EPA has not recommended a model for 

attainment demonstrations for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

Because there are insufficient VOC 

reductions to meet the milestones, the 

ROP demonstration relies on NOX

substitution, consistent with EPA’s 

guidance, to show that the area meets 

the emission reduction requirements for 

2008 and 2010. The demonstration does 

not depend on reductions from any 

measures that are not either Federal, 

SIP-approved, proposed for approval or 

State waiver measures or on reductions 

from any measures that are not 

creditable under the terms of section 

182(b)(1).20

3. EPA’s Evaluation of the Rate of 

Progress Demonstrations in the SIP 

Submittals 

The 2008 Clarifications follow EPA’s 

guidance on addressing the pre-1990 

motor vehicle program adjustments, 

using the pre-1990 California motor 

vehicle exhaust and evaporative 

standards in lieu of the national motor 

vehicle control program.21 Because the 

2004 SIP and the 2008 Clarifications 

demonstrate that sufficient emission 

reductions have or will be achieved to 

meet the 2008 and 2010 ROP 

milestones, we propose to approve the 

ROP provisions in these documents as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 182(c)(2). As stated above, if the 

ROP milestones are met, we deem the 

general RFP requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(2) to also have been met. 

Therefore, we also propose to approve 

the ROP provisions as meeting the 

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2). 

D. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Requirements for Attainment 

Demonstrations 

One-hour ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as extreme under CAA section 

181(b)(3) must demonstrate attainment 

‘‘as expeditiously as practicable’’ but 

not later than the date specified in CAA 

section 181(a), November 15, 2010. CAA 

Section 182(c)(2)(A) requires serious, 

severe and extreme areas to use 

photochemical grid air quality modeling 

or an analytical method EPA determines 

to be as effective. 

For areas such as the SJV area that did 

not have a fully approved attainment 

demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 

standard at the time they were 

designated nonattainment for the 8-hour 

ozone standard, the Phase 1 rule 

required the submission of the 1-hour 

ozone attainment demonstration or, 

alternatively, the early submission of an 

8-hour attainment demonstration or an 

early increment of progress toward 

attainment of the 8-hour standard. See 

40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(ii). For the SJV area, 

California submitted an attainment 

demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 

standard. 

2. Air Quality Modeling in the 2004 SIP 

For purposes of demonstrating 

attainment, CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) 

requires extreme areas to use 

photochemical grid modeling or an 

analytical method EPA determines to be 

as effective. EPA guidance identifies the 

features of a modeling analysis that are 

essential to obtain credible results.22

The photochemical grid modeling 

analysis is performed for days when the 

meteorological conditions are conducive 

to the formation of ozone. For purposes 

of developing the information to put 

into the model, the State must select 

days in the past with elevated ozone 

levels that are representative of the 

ozone pollution problem in the 

nonattainment area and a modeling 

domain that encompasses the 

nonattainment area. The State must then 

develop both meteorological data 

describing atmospheric conditions for 

the selected days and an emission 

inventory to evaluate the model’s ability 

to reproduce the monitored air quality 

values. Finally, the State needs to verify 

that the model is properly simulating 

the chemistry and atmospheric 

conditions through diagnostic analyses 

and model performance tests. Once 

these steps are satisfactorily completed, 

the model can be used to generate future 

year air quality estimates to support an 

attainment demonstration. A future-year 

emissions inventory, which includes 

growth and controls through the 

attainment year, is developed for input 

to the model to predict air quality in the 

attainment year. 

For the 1-hour ozone standard, the 

modeled attainment test compares 

model-predicted 1-hour daily maximum 

ozone concentrations in all grid cells for 

the attainment year to the level of the 

standard. For the 1-hour ozone 

standard, a predicted concentration 

above 0.124 parts per million (ppm) 

indicates that the area is expected to 

exceed the standard in the attainment 

year and a prediction at or below 0.124 

ppm indicates that the area is expected 

to attain the standard. 

Attainment is demonstrated when all 

predicted concentrations inside the 

modeling domain are at or below the 

standard or at an acceptable upper limit 

above the NAAQS permitted under 

certain conditions by EPA’s guidance. 

When the predicted concentrations are 

above the standard, a weight of evidence 

determination, which incorporates other 

analyses such as air quality and 

emissions trends, may be used to 

address the uncertainty inherent in the 

application of photochemical grid 

models. 

EPA recommended that States use the 

Urban Airshed Model (UAM) version IV 

as the ozone model of choice for the 

grid-point modeling required by the 

CAA for 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstrations.23 Other models are 

allowed if the State shows that they are 

scientifically valid and they perform as 

well as (i.e., are just as reliable), or 

better than, UAM IV. California selected 

the Comprehensive Air Quality Model 

with Extensions (CAMx) based on 

slightly better performance for the SJV 

area than the other tested models. 

Details on the model and its selection 

can be found in Appendix D to the 2004 

SIP. The meteorological modeling was 

based on a hybrid approach, using the 

Meso-scale Model 5 (MM5) and Calmet 

models, because of the ability of this 

modeling system to reproduce the 

measured design value near the Fresno 

monitoring site. 

Information on how the CAMX 

modeling meets EPA guidance is 

summarized here and detailed in the 

State’s submittals. 2004 SIP at Chapter 

5 and Appendix D. The air quality 

modeling domain extends from the 

Oregon border in the north to Los 

Angeles County in the south, and from 

the Pacific Ocean in the west to Nevada 

in the east. 

EPA’s Guideline on the use of 

photochemical grid models 

recommends that areas model three or 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33943 

24We note that the majority of emission 

reductions needed to demonstrate attainment (63% 

of the VOC and 81% of the NOX) come from 

baseline or interim measures, i.e., from measures 

adopted prior to October, 2004. See Table 2 above. 

more episodes, including the types of 

weather conditions most conducive to 

ozone formation. The final 

photochemical grid modeling submitted 

by California focused on the CAMx 

modeling for one several day episode, 

July 27 to August 2, 2000. This episode 

represents high measured ozone, with a 

peak measured concentration of 151 

parts per billion (ppb) at Bakersfield on 

August 2, 2000. The episode was typical 

of the worst case meteorology (i.e., the 

highest potential for ozone formation) of 

episodes in the San Joaquin Valley. 

The CAMx model was run using the 

MM5/CALMET meteorological 

processor with State emission 

inventories for the 2000 base year and 

with projected emissions representing 

grown and controlled emissions for the 

attainment year. The projected 2010 

emissions inventory was developed for 

modeling simulations and included the 

effects of projected growth and control 

measures adopted prior to September 

2002, as discussed in section II.C. 

below. 

The CAMx simulation for July 30, 

with the emission inventory for the year 

2010, was used to develop targets for 

reduction of VOC and NOX in the 

attainment year. 

EPA has established the following 

guidelines for model performance: 

unpaired peak ratio 0.80–1.2, 

normalized bias +/¥15 percent, and 

gross error less than 35 percent. The 

model performance is presented in 

Appendix D to the 2004 SIP for the 

Fresno and Bakersfield areas, 

representing areas of highest 1-hour 

ozone levels in the SJV area and shows 

that the CAMx model predicts ozone 

within the quality limits recommended 

in EPA guidance on most days for most 

subregions of the modeling domain. On 

those days for which a subregion had 

peak measured ozone concentrations 

above 125 ppb, the model performance 

meets the EPA recommended criteria. 

We conclude that the modeling is 

consistent with the CAA and EPA 

modeling guidance; therefore, we 

propose to find that the modeling 

analysis is adequate to support the 

attainment demonstration in the 2004 

SIP. For more information on EPA’s 

review of the modeling, see the TSD, 

section II. 

3. The Attainment Demonstration in the 

2004 SIP 

The 2004 SIP’s air quality modeling 

identified the SJV area’s 2010 

attainment target as 343.5 tpd NOX and 

314.4 tpd VOC or a reduction of 213.3 

tpd of NOX and 129.1 tpd of VOC from 

the 2000 projected baseline emissions. 

2004 SIP, section 5.6; ARB Staff Report, 

section III.C. See also Table 1 above. 

The 2004 SIP shows that Federal 

rules, rules approved or proposed for 

approval by EPA, the State’s waiver 

measures, and the State’s commitment 

for the SJV area in the 2003 State 

Strategy reduce the 2000 projected 

baseline emissions by 219.8 tpd of NOX

and 129.5 tpd of VOC by the beginning 

of the 2010 ozone season. These levels 

represent a decrease in emissions from 

the 2000 baseline of 38 percent NOX and 

29 percent VOC and are in excess of the 

reductions needed for attainment in the 

SJV area. Table 5 provides a summary 

of the 2004 SIP’s attainment 

demonstration. 

TABLE 5—2004 SIP ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION SUMMARY AS UPDATED BY 2008 CLARIFICATIONS

NOX (tpd) VOC (tpd) 

2000 baseline ...................................................................................................................................................... 556 .8 443 .5 

2010 attainment target ......................................................................................................................................... 343 .5 314 .4 

Total reductions needed to attain in 2010 ................................................................................................... 213 .3 129 .1 

Reductions from creditable baseline measures and interim measures .............................................................. 172 .2 80 .8 

Reductions from SIP-approved (or proposed for approval) rules ....................................................................... 27 .6 33 .3 

Reductions from enforceable State commitment ................................................................................................ 20 15 

Total reductions from Federal rules, measures approved or proposed for approval, waiver measures, 

and enforceable commitments .................................................................................................................. 219 .8 129 .1 

The reductions needed for attainment 

of the 1-hour ozone standard in the SJV 

area derive from ambitious State and 

District rule development projects to 

adopt or amend new regulations to 

tighten controls expeditiously on 

existing sources and to regulate a few 

previously uncontrolled sources.24

Moreover, both agencies set tight 

compliance schedules for their amended 

and newly adopted rules, requiring full 

compliance in most cases within one 

year or less. Attainment reductions also 

come from the benefits of mobile source 

fleet turnover to meet increasingly 

stringent Federal and State emission 

standards. Finally, as discussed 

previously, no other reasonably 

available control measure or set of 

RACMs have been identified that can 

advance attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard in the SJV area. 

Based on our evaluation of the State’s 

submittals, we propose to approve the 

2004 SIP’s demonstration of attainment 

as meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 172 and 181 and 40 CFR 

51.905(a)(1)(ii) that areas classified as 

extreme demonstrate attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than November 15, 2010. 

E. Contingency Measures 

1. Requirements for Contingency 

Measures 

Sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the 

CAA require that SIPs contain 

contingency measures that will take 

effect without further action by the State 

or EPA if an area fails to attain the 

ozone standard by the applicable date 

(section 172(c)(9)) or fails to meet a ROP 

milestone (section 182(c)(9)). 

The Act does not specify how many 

contingency measures are needed or the 

magnitude of emission reductions that 

must be provided by these measures. 

However, EPA provided initial guidance 

interpreting the contingency measure 

requirements in the General Preamble at 

13510. Our interpretation is based upon 

the language in sections 172(c)(9) and 

182(c)(9) in conjunction with the 

control measure requirements of 

sections 172(c), 182(b) and 182(c)(2)(B), 

the reclassification and failure to attain 

provisions of section 181(b) and other 

provisions. In the General Preamble, 

EPA indicated that states with moderate 

and above ozone nonattainment areas 

should include sufficient contingency 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33944 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

25See Memorandum from G.T. Helms, EPA, to 

EPA Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I–X, entitled ‘‘Early 

Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

August 13, 1993. 

26States may use a combination of NOX and VOC 

reductions to meet the 3 percent contingency 

requirement. See General Preamble at 13520, 

footnote 6. 

measures so that, upon implementation 

of such measures, additional emission 

reductions of 3 percent of the emissions 

in the adjusted base year inventory (or 

such lesser percentage that will cure the 

identified failure) would be achieved in 

the year following the year in which the 

failure is identified. The States must 

show that the contingency measures can 

be implemented with minimal further 

action on their part and with no 

additional rulemaking actions. 

In subsequent guidance, EPA stated 

that contingency measures could be 

implemented early, i.e., prior to the 

milestone or attainment date.25 Under 

this policy, States are allowed to use 

excess reductions from already adopted 

measures to meet the CAA sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) contingency 

measures requirement. The key is that 

the CAA requires extra reductions that 

are not relied on for ROP or attainment 

and that will provide a cushion while 

the plan is being revised to fully address 

the failure. Nothing in the CAA 

precludes a State from implementing 

such measures before they are triggered. 

This approach has been approved by 

EPA in numerous SIPs. See 62 FR 15844 

(April 3, 1997); 62 FR 66279 (December 

18, 1997); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001); 

66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 

2001). A recent court ruling upheld this 

approach. See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 

575 (5th Cir. 2004). 70 FR 71611, 71651. 

As discussed in section II above, EPA 

initially determined that contingency 

measures for the 1-hour ozone standard 

would not be required once the standard 

was revoked. See 70 FR 30592 (May 26, 

2005). However, the D.C. Circuit in 

South Coast vacated the provision of the 

Phase 1 rule that waived the 1-hour 

contingency measure requirements. 

Consequently, States subject to the antibacksliding requirements must continue 

to meet the CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 

182(c)(9) requirements. We have 

recently proposed to revise § 51.900(f) 

in order to remove the vacated provision 

and to add language consistent with the 

Court’s holding that contingency 

measures for failure to attain or to make 

reasonable further progress toward 

attaining the 1-hour standard continue 

to apply in such areas. See 74 FR 2936 

(January 16, 2009). 

2. Contingency Measures in the 2004 

SIP and 2008 Clarifications 

Table 2 in the 2008 Clarifications 

provides an updated ROP 

demonstration that shows that, after 

meeting the VOC ROP milestones for 

2008 and 2010 with NOX substitution, 

there are still creditable NOX reductions 

of 17.5 percent of the adjusted baseline 

for the 2008 milestone and 16 percent 

for the 2010 milestones. See also Table 

4 in this proposed rule. The reductions 

shown in Table 2 in the 2008 

Clarifications come from creditable 

measures adopted prior to September 

2002 and not from any interim or 

control strategy measures. 2008 

Clarifications, page 6. 

In addition, Table 3 in the 2008 

Clarifications, which is reproduced as 

Table 6 below, shows that on-road fleet 

turnover will continue to deliver 

substantial reductions in 2011 from 

adopted and creditable measures, i.e., 

an additional 10 tpd NOX and 5 tpd 

VOC beyond the reductions shown in 

Tables 1 and 2 in the 2008 

Clarifications. These reductions are 

available to serve as additional 

contingency reductions in 2011. 

3. EPA’s Evaluation of the Contingency 

Measures in the SIP Submittals 

Table 2 of the 2008 Clarifications and 

Table 4 above show that there are 

significant additional NOX reductions 

beyond the levels needed to meet the 

2008 and 2010 ROP milestones in the 

SJV area. These reductions are more 

than the 3 percent excess reductions 

suggested by EPA’s policy for 

contingency measures and come from 

fully adopted and creditable measures 

and occur in or prior to the milestone 

year. We therefore propose to approve 

the ROP contingency measures 

provisions in the SJV extreme area plan 

as meeting CAA section 182(c)(9). 

For the attainment year, 2010, the 

requirement is to show that there are 

fully adopted contingency measures that 

will achieve emission reductions in 

excess of the levels needed for 

attainment and sufficient to provide 

continued ROP in the year after the 

attainment date, i.e., 3 percent 

reductions from the pre-1990 adjusted 

baseline, if triggered by a failure to 

attain. Consistent with the ROP 

demonstration, an additional 3 percent 

equates to approximately 15.3 tpd of 

VOC or 20.7 tpd of NOX with NOX

substitution.26

Table 4 above shows that there are no 

excess reductions from adopted 

measures in the 2004 SIP’s attainment 

demonstration and that, in addition to 

the adopted measures that make 

significant reductions toward 

attainment, the plan relies on 

commitments to adopt measures to 

achieve the additional reductions 

needed to demonstrate attainment. 

Table 6 below shows that there are 10 

tpd NOX and 5 tpd VOC in reductions 

in 2011 from adopted on-road mobile 

source measures that could serve to 

fulfill a portion of the attainment 

contingency measure requirement. 

However, these amounts collectively 

provide just a 2.4 percent rate of 

progress in 2011, short of the suggested 

3 percent. 

Based on our analysis and the 

information currently available to EPA, 

there are not enough excess reductions 

to satisfy the contingency measure 

requirement for the attainment 

demonstration. We therefore propose to 

disapprove the attainment contingency 

measures provision in the San Joaquin 

Valley extreme area plan as not meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(9). The State may remedy this 

failure by submitting either new 

contingency measures or a 

demonstration that existing creditable 

measures provide, consistent with the 

guidance cited above, sufficient 

emission reductions in 2011. 

F. Proposed Findings on Other 

Requirements for Extreme 

Nonattainment Areas 

1. TCMs To Offset Growth in Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Under CAA Section 

182(d)(1) 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires 

that extreme areas submit transportation 

control measures (TCMs) sufficient to 

offset any growth in emissions from 

growth in VMT or the number of vehicle 

trips, and to provide (along with other 

measures) the reductions needed to 

meet ROP. This VMT offset requirement 

is a continuing applicable requirement 

for 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas 

under EPA’s 8-hour ozone 

implementation rule. See 40 CFR 

51.900(f)(11). EPA interprets this CAA 

provision to allow areas to meet the 

requirement by demonstrating that 

emissions from motor vehicles decline 

each year through the attainment year. 

General Preamble at 13522. 

Information in the 2008 Clarifications 

and reproduced in Table 6 below shows 

that on-road mobile source emissions of 

VOC and NOX decline steadily from 

2000 to 2011. This decline in emissions 

is due to EPA’s and California’s on-road 

mobile source programs. As discussed 

above, these programs are fully 

creditable in attainment and ROP 

demonstrations and therefore can also 

be used to demonstrate compliance with 

CAA section 182(d)(1). Because 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33945 

27Concurrent with the May 30, 2007 proposal, we 

also approved Rule 4352 in a direct final action. See 

72 FR 29887. Because we received adverse 

comments on this direct final action, we withdrew 

it on July 30, 2007 (72 FR 41450). This withdrawal, 

however, left the proposed action in place. 

emissions decline each year for both 

VOC and NOX, the plan need not 

include additional TCMs to offset 

growth; therefore, we propose to find 

that the 2004 SIP as amended by the 

2008 Clarifications meets this CAA 

requirement. 

TABLE 6—BASELINE MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS 2000–2011 

[San Joaquin Valley, Summer Planning, in tons per day] 

Year 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 

VOC ................................................................... 115 107 100 93 88 82 77 72 67 63 59 54 

NOX ................................................................... 223 218 211 201 192 184 176 166 157 148 137 127 

The emission levels in Table 6 are 

derived from the inventory used in the 

modeling analysis for the 2004 SIP and 

are calculated using EMFAC2002, 

version 2.2, and the same transportation 

activity projections used in the 2004 

SIP. 

2. Clean Technology and/or Fuels for 

Boilers 

CAA section 182(e)(3) provides that 

SIPs for extreme areas must require each 

new, modified, and existing electric 

utility and industrial and commercial 

boiler that emits more than 25 tpy of 

NOX to burn as its primary fuel natural 

gas, methanol, or ethanol (or a 

comparably low polluting fuel), or use 

advanced control technology (such as 

catalytic control technology or other 

comparably effective control methods). 

This requirement is a continuing 

applicable requirement for 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas under EPA’s Phase 

1 rule. See 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(i) and 

51.900(f)(7). 

Further guidance on this requirement 

is provided in the General Preamble at 

13523. According to the General 

Preamble, boilers should generally be 

considered as any combustion 

equipment used to produce steam and 

would generally not include a process 

heater that transfers heat from 

combustion gases to process streams. 

General Preamble at 13523. In addition, 

boilers with rated heat inputs less that 

15 million Btu (MMBtu) per hour which 

are oil or gas fired may generally be 

considered not subject to these 

requirements since it is unlikely that 

they will exceed the 25 tpy NOX

emission limit. General Preamble at 

13524. 

The 2004 SIP, which addresses the 

CAA section 182(e)(3) requirements on 

page 4–37, states that District Rules 

4305, 4306, and 4352 address NOX from 

affected boilers and that these rules 

meet the requirements of the CAA. 

Since submittal of the 2004 SIP, Rule 

4305 has been superseded by Rules 

4306, 4307, and 4308. 

Rule 4306 ‘‘Boilers, Steam Generators, 

and Process Heaters—Phase 3’’ as 

revised on September 18, 2003, applies 

to any gaseous fuel or liquid fuel fired 

boiler, steam generator, or process 

heater with a total rated heat input 

greater than 5 million Btu per hour. The 

emission limits in the rule, which range 

from 5 ppm to 30 ppm for gaseous fuels 

and is 40 ppm for liquid fuels, cannot 

be achieved without the use of advance 

control technologies. See ‘‘Alternative 

Control Techniques Document—NOX

Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/ 

Institutional (ICI) Boilers,’’ Emissions 

Standards Division, EPA, March 1994. 

We approved Rule 4306 as a SIP 

revision on May 18, 2004 at 69 FR 

28061. 

Rule 4307 ‘‘Boilers, Steam Generators, 

and Process Heaters—2.0 MMBtu/hr to 

5.0 MMBtu/hr,’’ as revised on April 20, 

2006, applies to any gaseous fuel or 

liquid fuel fired boiler, steam generator, 

or process heater with a total rated heat 

input greater than 2.0 MMBtu per hour 

but less than 5.0 MMBtu per hour. Rule 

4308 ‘‘Boilers, Steam Generators, and 

Process Heaters—0.075 MMBtu/hr to 2.0 

MMBtu/hr,’’ as revised on October 20, 

2005, applies to any gaseous fuel or 

liquid fuel fired boiler, steam generator, 

or process heater with a total rated heat 

input greater than 0.075 MMBtu per 

hour but less than 2.0 MMBtu per hour. 

The limits in these rules, which are 30 

ppm for gaseous fuels and for 40 ppm 

for liquid fuels for units between 2 and 

5 MM Btu/hour and between 30 ppm 

and 77 ppm for units between 0.75 and 

5 MM Btu/ hour, could not be met 

without the use of advance control 

technologies. We approved both rules as 

SIP revisions on May 30, 2007 at 72 FR 

29887. 

Rule 4352 ‘‘Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, 

Steam Generators And Process Heaters,’’ 

as revised May 18, 2006, applies to any 

boiler, steam generator or process heater 

fired on solid fuel at a source that has 

a potential to emit more than 10 tons 

per year of NOX or VOC. In order to 

meet the emission limitations in this 

rule, which are between 115 and 200 

ppm, sources use advance NOX control 

technologies. See ‘‘Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) 

Demonstration and Negative Declaration 

for Two Source Categories Covered By 

EPA Control Techniques Guidelines, 

SJVAPCD, April 2009, p. 4–67. We 

proposed to approve Rule 4352 on May 

30, 2007 at 72 FR 29901.27

Based on our review of the emission 

limitations in SJVAPCD’s rules, we 

propose to find that the SJV area meets 

the clean fuel/clean technology for 

boilers requirement in CAA section 

182(e)(3). 

3. Adequate Resources and Enforcement 

Authority 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires 

that implementation plans provide 

necessary assurances that the State (or 

the general purpose local government) 

will have adequate personnel, funding 

and authority under State law to carry 

out the submitted plan. Under this 

section, a State needs to provide 

assurances of adequate personnel, 

funding and authority for its submitted 

implementation plan. These 

requirements are further defined in 

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart L (authority) and §§ 51.280 

(resources). States and responsible local 

agencies must demonstrate that they 

have the legal authority to adopt and 

enforce provisions of the SIP and to 

obtain information necessary to 

determine compliance. SIPs must also 

describe the resources that are available 

or will be available to the State and 

local agencies to carry out the plan, both 

at the time of submittal and during the 

5-year period following submittal. 

The 2004 SIP and 2003 State Strategy 

do not directly address the resources 

requirement in EPA regulations. 

However, as submitted, the 2004 SIP 

and 2003 State Strategy consist of a 

description of the result of technical 

work already completed by ARB and the 

District to develop emission inventories, 

perform air quality modeling, analyze 

potential controls, and to evaluate the 

effect of those controls on attainment 

and ROP in the SJV nonattainment area. 

The 2004 SIP contains commitments by 

the District to adopt certain rules or rule 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33946 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

28The 2004 SIP also included motor vehicle 

emission budgets (MVEB) for NOX and VOC for the 

milestone year of 2008 and attainment year of 2010. 

We do not address these budgets in this proposal 

because they are no longer required for the 1-hour 

ozone standard. Furthermore, the budgets in the 

revisions and commitments by the 

District and ARB to achieve certain 

emission reductions. At this point in 

time, the District has adopted all the 

rules it committed to adopt. See Table 

2 of this proposal. California has also 

made substantial progress in adopting 

rules to fulfill its commitment and has 

an ambitious rulemaking schedule for 

2009 and 2010. See section III.C.1.c. of 

this proposal. By carrying out their 

commitments in these plans, which 

were submitted in November 2004 

(almost 5 years ago), both the District 

and ARB have demonstrated that they 

have adequate resources. 

The District’s and State’s authorities 

to adopt and enforce plans, rules and 

regulations to achieve and maintain 

Federal air quality standards are listed 

in the resolutions of adoption that 

accompany the plans’ submittals. See 

ARB Resolutions 04–29, October 28, 

2004 (adopting the SJV 1-hour ozone 

plan) and 03–22 (October 23, 2003) 

(adopting the 2003 State Strategy). 

These authorities are found in 

California’s Health and Safety Code 

(HSC) at sections 40000, 40002, 40701, 

40702, and 41650 for the District and 

39002, 39500, 39602, 40469, 41650, and 

part 5 for ARB. These authorities are 

sufficient to meet CAA and EPA 

requirements. 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.111 also 

require that plans describe procedures 

for monitoring compliance, procedures 

for handling violations, and designation 

of the agency responsible for 

enforcement. 

The District has primary 

responsibility under California law to 

adopt and enforce rules controlling air 

pollution from nonvehicular source 

rules. CA HSC 40001. See also ARB 

Resolution 04–29, October 28, 2004. 

ARB has primary responsibility under 

California law to adopt and enforce 

rules controlling air pollution form 

vehicular (including fuels) and 

consumer products. CA HSC 39002, 

39500, part 5, and 41712. 

The 2004 SIP and 2003 State Strategy 

do not describe procedures for 

monitoring compliance and for handling 

violations; however, this information is 

readily available on the Internet. The 

District’s source monitoring and 

enforcement programs, including its 

procedures for handling violations, are 

described on its Web site at http:// 

www.valleyair.org under ‘‘Compliance 

Assistance.’’ ARB’s source monitoring 

and enforcement programs including its 

procedures for handling violations, are 

described at http://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/ 

enf.htm. Specific compliance 

monitoring procedures (such as test 

methods, recordkeeping and/or 

continuous monitoring) are evaluated as 

part of EPA’s action on individual rules. 

See, for example, proposed action on 

several SJVAPCD surface coating rules 

at 74 FR 28467 (June 15, 2009). 

IV. SJVAPCD Rule 9310 School Bus 

Fleets 

On September 21, 2006, SJVAPCD 

adopted Rule 9310, ‘‘School Bus 

Fleets,’’ to regulated NOX, PM, and 

diesel toxic air contaminants from inuse school bus fleets. The rule was 

submitted to EPA by the State on 

December 29, 2006. See letter, Michael 

S. Scheible, ARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, 

December 29, 2006. We found the 

submittal complete on February 13, 

2007. See Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA 

to Catherine Weatherspoon, ARB. A 

copy of the adopted rule and the 

material submitted with it can be found 

in the docket for this proposed action. 

Estimated reductions from the rule for 

2010 are listed in Table 2 above. 

Rule 9310 applies to all school bus 

fleet operators with one or more buses, 

including both public and private 

operators and any contractors who 

provide school bus services. Under 

provisions of the rule, fleet operators 

must replace by no later than January 1, 

2016 any diesel school buses in their 

fleet manufactured before January 1, 

1978 with buses that meet the 

applicable ARB or EPA emission 

standards for the year the bus is 

delivered to the operator. For diesel 

buses manufactured after January 1, 

1978, fleet operators have the option to 

replace them with buses that meet the 

applicable ARB and EPA emission 

standards for the delivery year, retrofit 

them with an Approved Diesel Emission 

Control Strategy (i.e., ARB level 3 

verified technologies to reduce PM and 

or other precursor emissions by at least 

85%), or repower them with an engine 

meeting the ARB or EPA emissions 

standards that are applicable to engines 

produced on and after October 1, 2002. 

Rule 9310, section 5.1.1. 

The rule also requires existing 

alternative or gasoline-fueled school 

buses and any diesel school buses 

manufactured after October 1, 2002 to 

operate per manufacturers’ specification 

and, if replaced, the operator must 

replace with a school bus that meets all 

applicable emissions standards for the 

delivery year. Rule 9310, section 5.1.2. 

New school buses and additions to 

school bus fleets must meet all ARB and 

EPA applicable emissions standards for 

the delivery year. See Rule 9310, section 

5.2. 

Administrative requirements in Rule 

9310 require each operator to provide 

the District with a list identifying 

existing school bus fleets by January 1, 

2007 and to include information 

specific to each affected bus and an 

explanation of how each school bus will 

comply with the requirements of Rule 

9310. See Rule 9310, section 6.1 

Rule 9310 requires operators to 

maintain records for a minimum of five 

years of each school bus annual mileage, 

amount of fuel purchased by fuel type, 

and travel records beginning on and 

after September 21, 2006. These records 

must be made available for inspection 

by the District’s Air Pollution Control 

Officer (APCO) upon request. Rule 9130, 

section 6.4. 

Rule 9310 is enforced by the APCO 

under the authority of the California 

HSC, Sections 40001, 40702, 40752, and 

40753, and by all officers and 

employees empowered by Sections 

40120 and 41510. Enforceability is 

mainly tied to school bus fleet 

operators’ reporting requirements. 

In reviewing a rule for SIP approval, 

EPA looks to assure that the rule is 

enforceable as required by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), is consistent with all 

applicable EPA guidance, and does not 

relax existing SIP requirements as 

required by sections 110(l) and 193. 

We have determined that the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in Rule 9310 are sufficient 

for enforceability. EPA has not issued 

any guidance applicable to rules such as 

Rule 9310. There are no previous 

versions of Rule 9310 and, as such, its 

approval would strengthen the SIP. 

EPA’s approval of Rule 9310 would also 

not interfere with attainment, 

reasonable further progress or any other 

requirement of the CAA. We therefore 

propose to approve SJVAPCD Rule 9130 

under CAA section 110(k)(3) as part of 

California SIP for the SJV area. 

V. Proposed Actions 

A. Summary 

1. EPA is proposing to approve 

pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3), the 

following elements of the 2004 SIP and 

the 2008 Clarifications: 

a. The rate of progress demonstration 

as meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2); 

b. The rate-of-progress contingency 

measures as meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 182(c)(9); and 

c. The attainment demonstration as 

meeting the requirements of 182(c)(2)(A) 

and 181(a).28


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33947 

2004 SIP have been replaced by budgets in the SJV 

plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

As discussed in section II. of this proposal, EPA 

has revoked the 1-hour ozone standard. As a result, 

transportation conformity determinations and thus 

budgets are no longer required for that standard. 

Under our transportation conformity regulations, 8- 

hour ozone MVEBs replace existing 1-hour ozone 

MVEBs once the 8-hour ozone MVEBs are found 

adequate or are approved. See 40 CFR 93.109(e)(1) 

and (2). Although the MVEB budgets from the 2004 

SIP have been used in the initial conformity 

determinations in the SJV area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, these budgets have now been 

replaced by budgets in the SJV 8-hour ozone plan 

which were found adequate on January 8, 2009. See 

Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA to James Goldstene, 

ARB, ‘‘Adequacy Status of San Joaquin Valley 8- 

Hour Ozone Rate of Progress and Attainment Plan 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets’’ and 74 FR 4032 

(January 22, 2009). Thus, because the 1-hour ozone 

budgets will have no further utility, we are not 

proposing action on them here. 

The proposed approval of the 

attainment demonstration is predicated 

in part on emission reductions from a 

number of State and District rules that 

we have proposed to approve in 

separate actions. These proposed-forapproval rules, combined with 

previously approved rules and other 

creditable measures, provide more than 

the minimum reductions needed for 

attainment of the 1-hour standard in the 

SJV area. See Table 5 above. Should we 

be unable to finalize approval of one or 

more of these rules and, as a result, 

there is a shortfall in the needed 

emission reductions, we will not be able 

to finalize our proposed approval of the 

attainment demonstration. 

2. EPA is proposing to find pursuant 

to CAA section 110(k)(3) that the 2004 

SIP and the 2008 Clarifications meet the 

requirements of: 

a. CAA section 182(e)(3) for clean 

fuel/clean technology for boilers; and 

b. CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for TCMs 

sufficient to offset any growth in 

emissions from growth in VMT or the 

number of vehicle trips. 

3. EPA is proposing to approve 

pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3) 

section 4.7 in the 2004 SIP and the 

provisions of the 2003 State Strategy 

and ARB Board Resolution 04–29 that 

relate to aggregate emission reductions 

in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6). 

4. EPA is proposing to approve 

pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3), the 

2004 SIP, the 2003 State Strategy and 

the 2008 Clarifications as meeting the 

RACM (exclusive of RACT) 

requirements of CAA section 172(c). 

5. EPA is proposing to approve 

pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3), 

SJVAPCD Rule 9310 School Bus Fleets 

(adopted September 21, 2006) into the 

San Joaquin Valley portion of the 

California SIP. 

6. EPA is proposing to disapprove 

pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3) the 

attainment contingency measures in the 

2004 SIP and the 2008 Clarifications as 

failing to meet the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(9). 

B. Effect of Finalizing the Proposed 

Disapproval Actions 

If we should finalize our disapproval 

of the attainment contingency measures, 

the offset sanction in CAA section 

179(b)(2) will be applied in the SJV 1- 

hour ozone nonattainment area 18 

months after the effective date of the 

final disapproval. The highway funding 

sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) will 

apply in the area 6 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 

replacement attainment contingency 

measures. 

In addition to the sanctions, CAA 

section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA 

must promulgate a Federal 

implementation plan addressing the 1- 

hour ozone contingency measures in the 

SJV area, two years after the effective 

date of a disapproval should we not be 

able to approve replace attainment 

contingency measures adopted and 

submitted by the State. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

either review by the Office of 

Management and Budget or to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001). 

This action merely proposes to 

approve in part and disapprove in part 

a State-adopted attainment plan and to 

approve a State-adopted rule for the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basin and does not 

impose any additional requirements. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

proposed action does not impose any 

additional enforceable duties, it does 

not contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the plan is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State. It will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

This proposed action also does not 

have Federalism implications because it 

does 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 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This 

proposed action merely proposes to 

approve in part and disapprove in part 

a State-adopted plan and to approve a 

State-adopted rule and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. 

Executive Order 12898 establishes a 

Federal policy for incorporating 

environmental justice into Federal 

agency actions by directing agencies to 

identify and address, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority and low-income 

populations. Today’s action involves a 

proposed approval in disapproval in 

part of a State-adopted plan and 

proposed approval of a State-adopted 

rule. It will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse effects on any 

communities in the area, including 

minority and low-income communities. 

This proposed action also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. The requirements of section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This 

proposed action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–16492 Filed 7–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS