# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 74 Fed. Reg. 33933 2009

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Tue Dec 8 13:53:19 2009

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

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 133/Tuesday, July 14, 2009/Proposed Rules

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 ofCalifornia to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements applicable tothe 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 toextreme 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 controlmeasures. EPA is also proposing to disapprove the contingency measures for failure to attain. In addition, EPA is proposingto 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 submittedby August 13, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09- OAR-2008-0693, by one ofthe following methods: 1.Agency Web site:http:// www.regulations.gov. EPAprefers receiving comments through this electronic public docket and comment system. Follow the on-line instructions
to submit comments.

2. FederaleRulemakingPortal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

3.E-mail:wicher.frances@epa.gov. 4. Mailordeliver:Ms. Marty Robin, Office ofAir 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 maybe made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI)

or otherinformation whose disclosure is restricted bystatute. 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 notknow your identity or contact information unless you provide itin the body of your comment. Ifyou send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part ofthe public comment. IfEPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for Clarifications, EPA may not be able toconsider 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, SanFrancisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information maybe publicly available only at thehard 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 normalbusiness 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/regiono9/air/ actions.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms "we," "us," and "our" mean U.S. EPA.

Table ofContents
I.The History of SanJoaquin Valley 1-HourOzone Nonattainment Area and Its Extreme AreaOzone Plan A. The SanJoaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area B. SJV 2004 SIP, SJV Portion of2003 State Strategy and 2008 Clarifications C.EPA's 2008 Proposed Approval oftheSJV Extreme 1-Hour Ozone Plan and 2003 State Strategy II.Revocation ofthe 1-HourOzone Standard and Anti-Backsliding Requirements III. Review ofthe 2004 SIP, the SJV Portion ofthe 2003 State Strategy and the 2008 Clarifications A. Control Measures B.Emission Inventories C. Rate ofProgress Demonstrations D.Attainment Demonstration E. Contingency Measures F. Proposed Findings on Other Requirements forExtreme Nonattainment Areas IV. SJVAPCD Rule 9310 School Bus Fleets V. Proposed Actions A. Summary B. Effect ofFinalizing These Proposed

Actions VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The History ofSan JoaquinValley 1- HourOzone Nonattainment Area and its Extreme Area Ozone Plan

A. The SanJoaquinValley 1-Hour OzoneNonattainment Area
Eight counties comprise the San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment

area (SJV area). From north to south, these counties are SanJoaquin, 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 (November6, 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 thatthe SJV area had failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard bythe required deadline. 66 FR 56476 (November 8, 2001). As a result ofthis finding, the area was reclassified by operation oflawto

severe with a new attainment deadline ofno later than November 15, 2005. CAA section 181(a)(1). After determining that sufficient controls could not be implemented in timefor the area to attainby the severe area deadline, California requested a voluntary reclassification ofthe 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 theFederal 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 ofas expeditiously aspracticable but no later than November 15, 2010. CAA section 181(a)(1).

B. 2004 SIP,SJVPortionof2003 State Strategyand2008 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 33933

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

(withthe exception ofChapter 81) 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 forthe 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. OnOctober 23, 2003, ARB adoptedthe "2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan," which consists oftwo 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 forthin Attachment A. On January 9, 2004, ARB submitted to EPAthe "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 forthe California State Implementation Plan"

asthe "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

'Chapter 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 Actrequirements.

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. Clarifications). The State submitted the 2008 Clarifications on September 5, 2008. Letter fromJames 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 ofreceipt. This section also provides that any planthat has notbeen affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete shall become complete within 6 months by operation oflaw. EPA's completeness criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51, subpart V.

The 2004 SIP, comprised ofthe original November 15, 2004 plan and May 6, 2006 amendment, was deemed complete by operation oflaw on May 15, 2005 and September 6, 2006. On February 18, 2004, we determined the Final 2003 State Strategy to be complete. Letter from DeborahJordan, EPA, to Catherine Witherspoon, ARB, February 18, 2004. We found the 2008 Clarifications complete on September 23, 2008. Letter from DeborahJordan, EPA, to James N. Goldstene, ARB, September 23, 2008.

C.EPA's2008Proposed Approvalofthe 2004 SIP,SJVPortionofthe2003 State Strategyandthe 2008Clarifications

This is the second time we have proposed action on the 2004 SIP, the SJV portion ofthe 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 thatproposed 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 ofthe 1-Hour Ozone StandardandAnti-Backsliding Requirements

In 1979, we set the health-based NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm)averaged over one hour.

3Commentletters were received from Earthjustice; the Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment; and the National Association of Home Builders. These letters can be foundin the docket forthis proposal. 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 mostareas ofthe 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 1rule or 8-hour implementation rule). 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). Among other matters, the Phase 1rule revoked the 1-hour

ozone standard in the SJV area (as well

as in most other areas ofthe country), effective June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 and 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005).

The Phase 1rule also setforth 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 1rule also identified several CAA requirements, such as contingency

measures in CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), thatwould not continue to apply afterrevocation. See §51.905(e).

The U.S. Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit subsequently vacated the provisions of the Phase 1rule thatwaived the requirements under the revoked 1-hour

ozone standard for, among other things, contingency measures for failure to attain orto make reasonable further progress toward attainment ofthe 1- hour ozone standard. See South Coast AirQualityManagementDistrict,etal.,

v. EPA,472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006), rehearing denied 489 F.3d 1245 (2007) (clarifyingthat the vacatur was limited
to the issues on which the court granted the petitions for review) (collectively referred tobelow 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 listcontingency

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

4In 2008 we lowered the 8-hour ozone standard
to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). Thereferences in this proposedrule to the 8-hour standard are to the 1997 standard as codified at 40
CFR 50.10. 

### 33934

HeinOnline -- 74 Fed. Reg. 33934 2009Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 133/Tuesday, July 14, 2009/Proposed Rules

applicable to all nonattainment areas. CAA section 182 contains more specific requirements applicable to ozone nonattainment areas, including requirements in section 182(e) that applyto 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 ofTitle I ofthe 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 ofthe 1-hour ozone requirements that remain applicable following revocation ofthat standard.

Under the Phase 1rule, areas remain subject to the 1-hourrequirements until they attain the 8-hour ozone standard. Once an area is redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour standard, it may shiftthe applicable requirements to contingency measures (consistentwith the CAA sections 110(1) and 193). See Phase 1rule at 23955 and 40 CFR 51.905(b).
III. Review ofthe 2004 SIP, the SJV Portion ofthe 2003 State Strategy and the 2008 Clarifications

A. ControlMeasures
1.Requirements for Control Measures

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires nonattainment area plans to provide for the implementation ofall reasonably available control measures (RACM) including RACT. RACM isnot listed separately in 40 CFR 51.900(f)as an applicable requirement following revocation ofthe 1-hour ozone standard; however, EPA interprets theRACM requirement tobe a component ofan area's attainment demonstration. See General Preamble at 13560.

EPA haspreviously provided guidance interpreting theRACM 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 toRegional 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 inthat area and whether theywould advance the area's attainment date by one or more years. Under the CAA, RACT isrequired for major sources ofvolatile 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 tohelp 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 thatRACT also apply to major stationary sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx). In extreme areas,

a major source is a stationary source that emits or has thepotential to emit 10
tons ofVOC 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 toRACT, and the application ofRACT to major

sources ofNOx are all applicable requirements under the Phase 1rule. 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, asmay be necessary or appropriate toprovide 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 (includingthe South Coast Air Basin, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Houston-Galveston area), documents produced by ARB, as well as

measures suggestedby the public at local workshops. The District then screened the identified measures and rejected those that affected few orno

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

measures were evaluated using baseline inventories, available control technologies, and potential emission reductions as well as whether the

measure could be implemented on a schedule thatwould expedite attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone standard. 2004 SIP, section4.2.1.

Based on this evaluation, the District developed an expeditious rule adoption schedule listing 21 measures involving adoption ofeight new rules and revisions to over 20 existing rules. 2004 SIP, Table 4-1. Since submittal ofthe SIP in 2004, the District has completed action on these rules and submitted them toEPA for approval. Table 1in the 2008 Clarifications and Table 2below.

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 thatthey 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 underthe District's jurisdiction. 2004 SIP, section 4.7. Table I-1 inthe 2003 State Strategy shows the impressive listofboth mobile and area source measures that havebeen adopted by California between 1994 and 2003, alongwith the mobile source rules that havebeen adoptedby EPA during this period. Table I-2 in the 2003 State Strategy lists proposed new State

measures,most ofwhich have already been adopted.5This listofnew 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 abriefsection 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 toensure 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 ofthe 2004 SIP, specifically section4.2.5. See 2008 Clarifications, page 3.On January 21, 2009, we made a finding that California failed to submit therequired 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

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. 

### 33935

HeinOnline -- 74 Fed. Reg. 33935 2009Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 133/Tuesday, July 14, 2009/Proposed Rules

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 andto assure thatits 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'smodeling analysis, discussed further below, determined that attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone standard required reducing 2000 baseyear emissions from 556.8 tonsper day (tpd)NOx and 443.5 tpdVOC 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 inthe SanJoaquin Valley," September 28, 2004, Air Resources Board Staff Report (ARB StaffReport) at Table III-6.

As shown in Table 1below, 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 theterm isused here and in theARB StaffReport, baseline measures are rules and regulations adopted prior to September, 2002 (i.e.,prior to 2004 SIP's development) thatprovide 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 inthe ARB StaffReport. Finally, control strategy measures are the new rules, rule revisions, and commitments included in the 2004 SIP and 2003 State Strategy that will ensure thatthe additional increment ofemission reductions needed beyond the baseline andinterim

measures is achieved in time to demonstrate attainment by November 2010. See Tables III-6 and III-8 inthe ARB StaffReport. 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 111-6. Percentage may not sum to 100% because of rounding.

i. Baseline and InterimMeasures

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 ofFederal, State, and District measures.

A. SJVAPCDMeasures-SJVAPCD currently has adopted more than 50 prohibitory rules thatlimit emissions of either VOC or NOx. These rulesinclude controls for boilers, oil field and refinery equipment, avariety ofsurface coatings operations, and open burning. We have provided a list ofSJVAPCD NOx and VOC rules togetherwith information on their SIP approval status in the technical support document (TSD)for this proposal.

B. Statemeasures-California has adopted standards for many categories ofon- and off-road vehicles and engines, gasoline and diesel fuels, and numerous categories ofconsumer products. The State's baseline measures fall within

6 The negativenumber here indicates that emissions increased inthe source categories under the District's authorityto control. The increase is mainly from growth in livestock operations. ARB Staffreport,table III-6. two categories: measures for which the State has obtained or has applied to obtain a waiver ofFederal pre-emption under CAA section 209 (section 209 waiver measures or waiver measures) andthose for which the State is not required to obtain a waiver (non-waiver measures). Section209 waivermeasures.A waiver under section 209 is, in general, required for moston- and non-road vehicle or engine standards. Examples ofState waiver measures are: low emissionvehicle program, heavy duty bus standards, and small off-road engines. Alist ofCalifornia's waiver

measures can be found in the TSD. We discuss in more detailthe CAA section 209 waiver provisions and how we intend totreat reductions fromthese

measures in attainment and ROP demonstrations in section C.3.b.below.

Non-waivermeasures.These

measures include: improvements to California's inspection and maintenance (I/M)program, SmogCheck; cleaner burning gasoline and diesel regulations; andlimits on the VOC content and reactivity ofconsumer products. 7Alist ofthese non-waiver measures can be found in the TSD.

Federalmeasures.These measures include EPA's national emission standards for heavy duty diesel trucks,8 certain new construction andfarm 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'scommitments andrule adoption.Inthe 2004 SIP,the District committed to adopt specific rules or rule revisions by specified dates, to submit the ruleswithin 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 isupdated in

7California's Department ofPesticide Regulations (DPR) limits total pesticide emissions inthe San Joaquin Valley. However, the attainment demonstration inthe 2004 SIP does not assume any DPRregulatory limits on pesticide emissions. See 2003 State Strategy,p. III-C-3.

866FR 5001 (January18, 2001). ARB estimates
that interstatetrucks registered outside ofCalifornia represent over 50 percent ofthe heavy duty trucks in California. See TableIII-1 in "Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reason forProposed 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, 69FR 38958 (June29, 2004).

1063 FR 18978 (May 16, 1998) and 73 FR 37045 (June30, 2008). 

### 33936

HeinOnline -- 74 Fed. Reg. 33936 2009Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 133/Tuesday, July 14, 2009/Proposed Rules

Table 1ofthe 2008Clarifications which shows not only the original commitment in the 2004 SIP but alsothe 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 1in the 2008 Clarifications ispresented in our Table 2below. Table 2also gives the date andcite forEPA's approval or proposed approval ofthe rule or the date ofsignature on the proposed approval.

TABLE 2-SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

### 2004 PLAN SPECIFIC RULE COMMITMENTS

2004 SIP Achieved 20.SP emission Local Approval cite/date or proposed Rule No., description and commitment ID from 2004 SIP commitment emission Lo A pproval cite/date (201 0-tpd) reductions adoption approval cite/date (2010-tpd)

NOx Control Measures

9310 Fleet School buses (C)

........................................................ 0.1 0.611 9/21/06 NPR signed 6/30/09. 9510 Indirect Source M itigation (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 Solidfuel 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. GasTurbines (S)

......................................................... 0.6 1.9 8/17/06 NPR signed 6/22/07. Long-term measures

....................................................................... 5.0

.................... . ................... See discussion below

.

N

Ox Total

................................................................................. 21.1 27.6

2004 SIP Achieved Rule No. and dt emission Local Submittal date orapproval cite/ escripion commimen reductions adoption date (2010-tpd) (2010-tpd)

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 (0)

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

### 33937

HeinOnline -- 74 Fed. Reg. 33937 2009Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 133/Tuesday, July 14, 2009/Proposed Rules

As canbe seen fromTable 2,the District also committed to achieve an additional 5tpd NOx and 5tpd ofVOC reductions from unidentified long-term

measures. The status ofthis aggregate commitment is discussed furtherbelow. In total, the District committed to reductions of33.3 tpd ofVOC and 21.1 tpd ofNOx by 2010. See Table 1above.

B. Statecommitments andrule 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, 1-24 through 1-26. Possible measures to achieve these reductions are described and listed in the 2003 State Strategy at 1-14 through 1-26 and ARB Resolution 03-22, Attachment A. The 2003 State Strategy also states thatbeyond its emission reduction commitment, new commitments to achieve further VOC 13
and NOx reductions would be needed for the future SJV 1-hour ozone plan (whichthe SJVAPCD and ARB subsequently adopted as the 2004 SIP) and would be considered as part ofthat plan. 2003 State Strategy, 1-26. 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 ofthe 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 isonly to achieve these NOx and VOC emission reductions in the aggregate by the beginning ofthe 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 I7through I-9 and 1-26; ARB Board Resolution 04-29, October 28, 2004; ARB StaffReport, pages 29-30; 2004 SIP
at section 4.7 (including Table 4-3 which duplicates Table I-2 in the 2003 State Strategy). 14

11Table 1 in the 2008 Clarifications erroneously gives thisreduction as 1.6 tpd. See e-mail,Jessi Hafer, SJVAPCD, to Frances Wicher,EPA, February 18, 2009, "Reductions from 1-hour SIP clarifications."

12The 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 inthe 1-hour ozone plan for the SJV

area. State Strategy, 1-23 and 1-26.

1 3The Stateuses the term "reactive organic gases" (ROG) in its documents. Forthe purposes of this proposed rule, VOC and ROG are interchangeable.

14In these documents the State's commitmentis sometimes referred to as 20 tpd NOx and sometimes

as 10 tpdNOx. The 20 tpd reference is to ARB's 3.EPA's Evaluation ofthe Control Measures in the SIP Submittals

a. RACM/RACT Demonstration

As described above, with respect to the RACM requirement, the District evaluated a range ofpotentially available measures for inclusion in its 2004 SIP and committed to adoptthose 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 SJVlocal jurisdictions. This process is also consistent with EPA's RACM guidance. See General Preamble at 13560 and Seitz memo.

Based on our review ofthe 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 tofind thatthere
are, at this time, no additional reasonably available measures that would advance attainment ofthe 1-hour

ozone standard in the SJV area. We estimate that itwould take an additional reduction offrom 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 ofemission reductions. See TSD, Section V formore details.

Therefore, we propose to find thatthe 2004 SIP, together withthe 2003 State Strategy, provides for the implementation ofRACM 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 intothe SIP or replacedby a SIP-approved

commitment for 10 tpdNOx in the Statewide Strategy and ARB's additional commitment for 10 tpd NOx inthe 2004 SIP atsection 4.7 and ARB Board Resolution 04-29. See also ARB Staff Report for the 2004 SIP at29. The 10 tpdreference is to ARB's additional commitment for 10 tpd NOx in the 2004 SIPat section 4.7 and ARB Resolution 04- 29. revision to thatrule. See Table 8 in the TSD. Emission reductions from these rules are fully creditable in attainment andROP demonstrations andmay be used to meet other CAA requirements, such as contingency measures.

As shown above and discussed further below, the 2008 Clarifications andTable 2above demonstrate thatthe 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 fromlongterm 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 maybe used to meet other CAA requirements.

To the extent such measures are not credited for attainment or ROP, they may alsobe used as contingency

measures that wouldbe triggered by a failure to attain or to make reasonable further progress. ii. State Measures andCommitments

A. Section 209 WaiverMeasures. California's motor vehicle emissions control program predates the first Federal statute regulating motorvehicle emissions, the MotorVehicle 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 ofCalifornia, and only California, a waiver ofthe Air Quality Act'spre-emption ofState emissions standards for new motor vehicles or new motorvehicle engines because ofCalifornia's pioneering efforts and unique problems. Thiswas 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 thebroadest possible discretion in selecting the best

means to protect the health ofits citizens and the public welfare." (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977). So long as California determines thatits motorvehicle standards are "in the aggregate" atleast

asprotective ofpublic health and welfare as applicable Federal standards, title II ofthe CAA requires EPA, unless it makes certain findings, to waive the Act's general prohibition on State adoption and enforcement ofstandards relating to the control ofemissions from

new motor vehicles or new motor 

### 33938

HeinOnline -- 74 Fed. Reg. 33938 2009Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 133/Tuesday, July 14, 2009/Proposed Rules

vehicle engines. See CAA section 209(a) and (b).

In the Agency's review ofthe California SIP and its many revisions, EPA has historically allowed emission reduction credit for the motorvehicle 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 ofthe California SIP. In this respect EPA treated theserules similarly to the Federal motor vehicle control requirements, whichEPA has always allowed Statesto credit in their SIPs without submitting the program as

a SIP revision. CAA section 193, enacted as part ofthe 1990 Amendments to the CAA, is ageneral savings clause thatprovides for, among other things, EPA statutory interpretations thatpredate those amendments to remain in effect so long

asnot inconsistent with the Act.At the time it enacted section 193, Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA'streatment of California's motor vehicle standards inconsistent with theAct. 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 ofthe standards in the SIP itself.

As part ofthe 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) setsforth the Federal pre-emption of State emissions standards for nonroad vehicles or engines but allows the State of California, and only California, a waiver ofpre-emption (withcertain exceptions) under criteria that mirror the section 209(b) waiver provisions for motor vehicles. Since 1990, EPAhas treated suchnonroad standards inthe same

manner as California motorvehicle standards, i.e., allowing credit for standards subject to the waiver process without requiring submittal ofthe standards as part ofthe SIP. Congress is presumed to be aware ofagency interpretations and its subsequent revision ofthe statute to add subsection (e) without overruling EPA's interpretation withrespect to motor vehicle standards is further compelling evidence thatthe Agency correctly interpreted congressional intent with respect to crediting California requirements subject to a section 209 waiver without requiring California to submitthe standards themselves to EPA for approval as part ofthe California SIP. B.Non-waivermeasures.In separate proposed rules, we have proposed to approve the latestrevisions to the gasoline and diesel fuel standards (proposedrule signed June 30, 2009 and will be published in early July, 2009 15) and consumer products rules (74FR 30481 (June 26, 2009)). We alsowill be proposing action soon on the State's I/M program. The reductions from these

measures will be, iffinally approved into the SIP, fully creditable in attainment andROP demonstrations. To the extent such measures are not credited for attainment orROP, they may also be used as contingency

measures that wouldbe triggered by a failure to attain or to make reasonable further progress.

C. Statecommitments.As stated above, measures already adopted bythe District and State (bothprior to and pursuant tothe 2004 SIP) provide the majority ofemission reductions needed to demonstrate attainment. The balance ofthe needed reductions is in the form ofenforceable commitments by ARB. EPAbelieves, consistent withpast practice, that the CAA allows approval ofenforceable commitments thatare limited in scope where circumstances exist that warrant the use of such commitments in place ofadopted

measures. 16 Once EPA determines that

15These fuelregulations do notincludethe Low Carbon Fuel Standards adoptedby ARB on April 24, 2009.

16Commitments approved by EPA under section 110(k)(3) ofthe CAA areenforceable byEPA and citizens under, respectively, sections 113 and 304 ofthe CAA. Inthe past, EPA has approved enforceable commitments and courts have enforced these actions against states that failed to comply with those commitments: See, e.g., AmericanLung Ass'n ofN.J.v.Kean, 670F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cih. 1989); NRDC, Inc.v. N.Y. StateDept. ofEnv.Cons., 668 F. Supp.
848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens fora Better Env't v. Deukmejian,731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for CleanAirv. South Coast Air Quality Mgt.Dist.,No.
CV 97-6916-HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999). Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments, EPA could make a finding offailure 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 maybe necessary orappropriate to meet the applicable requirement ofthe 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 ofthe CAA is quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any "means ortechniques" that EPA determines are "necessary or appropriate" to meet CAA requirements, such that the area will attain as expeditiously as practicable butno later than the designated date. Furthermore, the express allowance for "schedules and timetables" demonstrates that Congress understood that all 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 ofthe statutorily-required program; (b)is the State capable of fulfillingits commitment; and (c) isthe commitment for areasonable and appropriate period oftime.17

We believe that, in acting onthe 2004 SIP and 2003 State Strategy, circumstances warrant the consideration ofenforceable commitments. As shown in Table 1and discussed below in section III.D., the majority ofemission reductions needed to demonstrate attainment and all ofthe emission reductions needed to demonstrate ROP

come from rules andregulations that

were adopted prior to the plan's submittal in November 2004, i.e., they

come from the baseline and interim

measures. All oftheserules and regulations havebeen approved, proposed for approval, granted a waiver,

orpromulgated by EPA.

As a result ofthese State and District efforts, most sources in the SJV area
were already subject to stringentrules prior to the plan's development, leaving fewer opportunities to reduce emissions. In the 2004 SIP andthe 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 and4.3 and 2003 State Strategy, sections IMV.). However, the timeline needed to develop, adopt, and implement these measures wentwell beyond the November 15, 2004 deadline
to submit the SJV's extreme area plan. 18

Given these circumstances, we believe that thereliance in the 2004 SIP on enforceable commitments was warranted. As notedbefore, SJVAPCD has nowfully satisfied its 2004 SIP commitments, leavingjustARB's commitment remaining. We now consider the three factors to determine whether ARB's commitment is approvable.

First, we lookto see ifthe commitment addresses a limited portion ofa statutory requirement. Only the

required controls might nothave to be in place before a SIPcould be fully approved.

17The U.S. Court ofAppeals forthe Fifth Circuit upheld EPA's interpretation ofCAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and the Agency's use and application ofthe three factor test inapproving enforceable commitments inthe Houston-Galveston

ozone SIP. BCCAAppeal Groupetal.v. EPA et al.,
355 F.3d 817 (5th Cih. 2003).

18This deadline was set pursuant to CAA section 182(i), when the SJVwas reclassified to extreme on April 16, 2004 at 69FR 20550. 

### 33939

HeinOnline -- 74 Fed. Reg. 33939 2009Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 133/Tuesday, July 14, 2009/Proposed Rules

attainment demonstration in the 2004 emission reductions than anticipated in from commitments needed to attain the SIP relies on ARB's aggregate the 2004 SIP (see Table 2above), we 1-hour ozone standard willbe 13.5 tpd commitment to achieve reductions of20 expect thatnot all ofthe reductions NOx or 6.3% and 15 tpd VOC or 11.6 tpd NOx and 15 tpd VOC in the SJV area committed to by ARB willbe needed to percent or 8.3 percent ofthe combined by 2010. Because theDistrict's rules are demonstrate attainment. Table 3below NOx and VOC needed for attainment.

now anticipated to achieve more shows thatthe remaining reductions

TABLE 3-REMAINING COMMITMENT PORTION OF THE 2004 

### SIP REDUCTIONS IN TONS PER DAY FOR 

### 2010

NOx VOC

Reductions needed to attain

.................................................................................................................................. 2 13.3 129.1 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 111-6; 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 ifthe State is capable offulfilling its commitment. ARB hasrecently submitted information

onits 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

alist ofthese measures which includes tighter diesel fuel standards andtighter

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 notinclude a number ofState programs that may reduce emissions between now andthe 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 itsprogram of identifying, evaluating, developing and adopting new or tighter controls on

sources within itsjurisdiction.19 See 2007 State Strategy as revised and updated on April 24, 2009.

Given the evidence ofthe State's efforts to date and its continuing program to adopt controls, webelieve that the State will be able to meetits enforceable commitments to achieve 20 tpd NOx and 15 tpd VOC by 2010. We, therefore, conclude thatthe second factor is satisfied.

19

The State's current rulemaking agenda for 2009

can be found at: http://www.arb.ca.govlregactl 2009rulemakingcalendar.pdf. Finally, we look to see ifthe commitment is for a reasonable and appropriate period oftime. In order to meet the commitment to achieve reductions of 15 tpd VOC and 20 tpd NOx bythe beginning ofthe 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 I7and 1-10. 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 ofmeasures that were contemplated (e.g.,retrofit controls for existing heavy-duty off-road diesel equipment), measuresthat require significant lead times to achieve reductions. Therefore, the State's schedule was reasonable and appropriate for achieving its commitment, and we conclude thatthe 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 withrespect 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 ofthis commitment would make the commitment enforceable by EPA and by citizens.
B. EmissionInventories

We have evaluated the emission inventories in the 2004 SIP to determine ifthey are consistent with EPA guidance (General Preamble at 13502) and adequate to support thatplan's ROP and attainment demonstrations. Chapter 3of the 2004 SIP presents the baseline and projected emission inventories relied on for the attainment andROP demonstrations. This chapter also discusses themethodology usedto determine 1999 emissions and identifies the growth and control factors used to project emissions for the 2000baseline inventory and the 2008 (ROP milestone) and 2010 (attainment) projectedyear inventories. The plan includes weekday

summer inventories for thebase year of 2000 and projectedbaseline inventories for 2008 and 2010 for all major source categories. Emissions are calculated for the two major ozone precursors-NOx andVOC-as well as for the less significant precursor, carbon monoxide (CO). 2004 SIP at Table 3-1. Motor vehicle emissions were based on estimates ofvehicle miles traveled (VMT) providedby 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 andbuses. Atthe time the 2004 SIP was developed, EMFAC 2002 was the mobile source model approved for use inCalifornia'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 thetime itwas submitted on November 15, 2004 and thatthis inventory as well as the 2008 and 2010 projected inventories were prepared consistent with EPA guidance. Accordingly, we propose to findthat these inventories provide an appropriate basis for the ROP and attainment demonstrations in the 2004 SIP. 

### 33940

HeinOnline -- 74 Fed. Reg. 33940 2009Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 133/Tuesday, July 14, 2009/Proposed Rules

C.Rate ofProgress Demonstrations

1.Requirements for Rate ofProgress 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 toensure attainment ofthe relevant ambient standard bythe 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 3years 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 ofat least 3 percent peryear net ofgrowth averaged

over each consecutive 3-year period. This is in addition to the 15 percent reduction over the first 6-year period required byCAA section 182(b)(1) for

areas classified as moderate and above. The CAArequires that these milestones be calculated from the 1990 inventory after excluding, among other things, emission reductions from "[a]ny

measure related to motorvehicle 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). EPAhas 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 meetthe 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 ofall creditable VOC and NOx reductions must meet the 3 percent peryear ROPrequirement; (2) the substitution is on a percent-forpercent ofadjusted base year emissions for the relevant pollutant; and (3)the sum ofall 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 thatby 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 ofprogress reductions as well as the NOx requirements ofCAA section 182(f)remain applicable requirements under the 8-hour ozone implementation rule for areas thatare 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 ofProgress Demonstrations in the 2004 SIP and the 2008 Clarifications

Chapter 7ofthe 2004 SIP, updated by Table 2in 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

. C

A Pre-1990 M V 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 neededto 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%

NO× Calculations

A

. 1990 Baseline N O

. ................................................................................................................. 805.1 805.1 805.1 B

. C

A Pre-1990 M V standards adjustment

................................................................................. . ........................ 114.0 116.6 C. Adjusted 1990 baseline NO× in the milestone year (Line A-Line B)

............................................................. 691.1 688.5 D. Projected level (baseline) of NO× in milestone year with adopted controls only

.................. 411.0 384.5 E. Change in NO× since 1990 (Line C-Line D)

.......................................................................... ........................ 280.1 304.0 F.Change in NO× since 1990 (%of adjusted baseline)

............................................................ ........................ 40.5% 44.2% G

. VOC ROP shortfall

....................................... .......................................................................... ........................ 23.0% 28.2% H. % Surplus NO× reductions after offsetting VOC ROP shortfall available for contingency

measures (Line F- Line G)

....................................................................................................... . ........................ 17.5% 16.0%

20The ROP demonstration relies on "the emission
control program as it existed when the Valley's 2004 SIPwas submitted * * " 2008 Clarification at 6.As discussed insection III.C.2.c.i. above, all baseline measures are either federal, SIP-approved, proposed for approval, or otherwise creditable in ROP demonstrations. 

### 33941

HeinOnline -- 74 Fed. Reg. 33941 2009Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 133/Tuesday, July 14, 2009/Proposed Rules

Because there are insufficient VOC reductions tomeet themilestones, the ROP demonstration relies on NON substitution, consistent with EPA's guidance, to show thatthe 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 onreductions from any measures thatare not creditable under the terms ofsection 182(b)(1). 20

3.EPA's Evaluation ofthe 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 ofthe national motor vehicle control program. 21Because the 2004 SIP and the 2008 Clarifications demonstrate that sufficient emission reductions have or willbe achieved to meet the 2008 and 2010 ROP milestones, we propose to approve the ROP provisions in these documents as meeting therequirements ofCAA section 182(c)(2). As stated above, ifthe ROP milestones are met, we deem the general RFP requirements ofCAA section 172(c)(2) to also havebeen met. Therefore, we also propose to approve the ROP provisions asmeeting the requirements ofCAA sections 172(c)(2).

D.AttainmentDemonstration
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 inCAA 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

oran analytical method EPA determines
to be as effective.

For areas such as the SJV area thatdid
not have afully approved attainment demonstration for the 1-hour ozone

20

The ROP demonstration relies on "the emission
control program as itexisted 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 ofTransportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Program Division, September 6, 2007. standard at the time they were designated nonattainment for the 8-hour

ozone standard, the Phase 1rule required the submission ofthe 1-hour

ozone attainment demonstration or, alternatively, the early submission ofan 8-hour attainment demonstration or an early increment ofprogress toward attainment ofthe 8-hour standard. See 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(ii). Forthe SJV area, California submitted an attainment demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard.

2.Air Quality Modeling in the 2004 SIP

For purposes ofdemonstrating 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 ofa 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 ofozone. For purposes ofdeveloping the information to put into the model, the State must select days in the past with elevated ozone levels that are representative ofthe

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 isproperly 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 throughthe attainment year, isdeveloped forinput

22EPA has issued the following guidance regarding air qualitymodeling used to demonstrate attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS: "Guideline for Regulatory Application ofthe Urban Airshed Model," EPA-450/4-91-013 (July 1991); "Guidance

on Use ofModeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment ofthe OzoneNAAQS," EPA-454/B-95- 007 (June 1996); "Guidance for the 1-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas that Rely on Weight-ofEvidence forAttainment Demonstrations, MidCourse Review Guidance" (March 28, 2002); and "Guidance for Improving Weight-of-Evidence Through Identification ofAdditional Emission Reduction Not Modeled" (Nov 99). Copies ofthese documents may befound onEPA's Web site at http://www.epa.govlttnlscramand in the docket for this proposed rule. to the model topredict 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 ofthe 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 aprediction at orbelow 0.124 ppm indicates thatthe area is expected
to attain the standard.

Attainment isdemonstrated when all predicted concentrations inside the modeling domain are at orbelow 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 ofevidence determination, which incorporates other analyses such as air quality and emissions trends, maybe used to address the uncertainty inherent in the application ofphotochemical grid models.

EPA recommended that States use the Urban Airshed Model (UAM)version IV

asthe ozone model ofchoice for the grid-point modeling required bythe CAA for 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations.23 Other models are allowed ifthe State shows thatthey are scientifically valid and theyperform as well as (i.e., are just asreliable), 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 tothe 2004 SIP. The meteorological modeling was based ona hybrid approach, using the Meso-scale Model 5(MM5) and Calmet models, because ofthe ability ofthis modeling system toreproduce the measured design value nearthe Fresno monitoring site.

Information on howthe CAMX modeling meets EPA guidance is summarized here and detailed in the State's submittals. 2004 SIP at Chapter 5and Appendix D. The air quality modeling domain extends from the Oregon borderin 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 theuse of photochemical grid models recommends that areas model three or

2 3EPA has notrecommended a model for attainment demonstrations for the 8-hour ozone standard. 

### 33942

HeinOnline -- 74 Fed. Reg. 33942 2009Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 133/Tuesday, July 14, 2009/Proposed Rules

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 toAugust 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 ofthe 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 ofprojected growth and control

measures adopted prior to September 2002, as discussed in section II.C. below.

The CAMx simulation forJuly 30, with the emission inventory for the year 2010, was used to develop targets for reduction ofVOC 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 ofhighest 1-hour

ozone levels in the SJV area and shows that the CAMx model predicts ozone within the quality limits recommended in EPA guidance onmost days for most subregions ofthemodeling domain. On those days for which a subregion had peak measured ozone concentrations above 125 ppb, the model performance
meets theEPA recommended criteria.

We conclude thatthe modeling is consistent with the CAA and EPA modeling guidance; therefore, we propose to find thatthe modeling analysis is adequate to support the attainment demonstration inthe 2004 SIP. For more information on EPA's review ofthe 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 areduction of213.3 tpd ofNOx and 129.1 tpdofVOC from the 2000 projected baseline emissions. 2004 SIP, section 5.6; ARB StaffReport, section III.C. See also Table 1above.

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 219.8tpd ofNOx and 129.5 tpd ofVOC by the beginning ofthe 2010 ozone season. These levels represent a decrease in emissions from the 2000 baseline of38 percent NOx and 29 percent VOC and are in excess ofthe reductions needed for attainment in the SJV area. Table 5provides a summary ofthe 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 attain ment target

......................................................................................................................................... 343.5 314.4

Total reductions needed to attain in 2010

................................................................................................... 2 13.3 129.1

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 ofthe 1-hour ozone standard in the SJV

area derive from ambitious State and District rule development projects to adopt oramend newregulations to tighten controls expeditiously on existing sources and toregulate a few previously uncontrolled sources. 24 Moreover, both agencies set tight compliance schedules for their amended andnewly adopted rules, requiring full compliance in mostcases within one year orless. Attainment reductions also

come from the benefits ofmobile source fleet turnover to meet increasingly stringent Federal and State emission standards. Finally, as discussed

24Wenote that the majority ofemission reductions needed to demonstrate attainment (63% ofthe VOC and 810%ofthe NOx) come from baseline orinterim measures, i.e.,from measures adopted prior to October, 2004. See Table 2 above. previously, no other reasonably available control measure or set of RACMs have been identified that can advance attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone standard in the SJV area.

Based on our evaluation ofthe State's submittals, we propose to approve the 2004 SIP's demonstration ofattainment

as meeting therequirements ofCAA sections 172 and 181 and 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(ii) that areas classified as extreme demonstrate attainment as expeditiously aspracticable but no later than November 15, 2010.

E.Contingency Measures
1.Requirements for Contingency Measures
Sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) ofthe CAA require that SIPs contain contingency measures that will take effect without further action by the State orEPA ifan area fails to attainthe

ozone standard by the applicable date (section 172(c)(9)) or fails to meet aROP milestone (section 182(c)(9)).

The Act does not specify how many contingency measures are needed or the magnitude ofemission reductions that
must be provided bythese measures. However, EPA provided initial guidance interpreting the contingency measure requirements in the General Preamble at 13510. Our interpretation isbased upon the language in sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) in conjunction withthe 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 

### 33943

HeinOnline -- 74 Fed. Reg. 33943 2009Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 133/Tuesday, July 14, 2009/Proposed Rules

measures so that, upon implementation ofsuch measures, additional emission reductions of3percent ofthe emissions in the adjusted base year inventory (or suchlesser percentage that will cure the identified failure) wouldbe achieved in the year following the year in which the failure isidentified. The States must show thatthe 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 couldbe implemented early, i.e., priorto the milestone or attainment date. 25Under this policy, States are allowed to use

excess reductions from already adopted

measures to meetthe CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) contingency

measures requirement. The key isthat the CAA requires extra reductions that

are not relied on for ROP or attainment and that will provide a cushion while the plan isbeing revised to fully address the failure. Nothing inthe CAA precludes a State from implementing such measures before they are triggered. This approach hasbeen approved by EPA in numerous SIPs. See 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997); 66 FR 30811 (June8, 2001); 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001). A recent court ruling upheld this approach. SeeLEANv. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004). 70 FR 71611, 71651.

As discussed in section II above, EPA initially determined thatcontingency

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 Coastvacated theprovision ofthe Phase 1rule that waived the 1-hour contingency measure requirements. Consequently, States subject to the antibacksliding requirements must continue
to meetthe CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) requirements. We have recently proposed to revise §51.900(f) in order toremove the vacated provision and to add language consistent with the Court's holding thatcontingency

measures for failure to attain or tomake 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 2in the 2008 Clarifications provides an updated ROP demonstration that shows that, after

25See Memorandum from G.T. Helms, EPA, to EPA Air BranchChiefs, Regions I-X, entitled "Early Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)Nonattainment Areas," August 13, 1993. meeting the VOC ROP milestones for 2008 and 2010 with NOx substitution, there are still creditable NOx reductions of 17.5 percent ofthe 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 2in 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 3in 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 5tpd VOC beyond the reductions shown in Tables 1and 2inthe 2008 Clarifications. These reductions are available to serve as additional contingency reductions in 2011.

3.EPA's Evaluation ofthe Contingency Measures in the SIP Submittals

Table 2ofthe 2008Clarifications and Table 4 above show thatthere are significant additional NOx reductions beyond the levels needed tomeetthe 2008 and 2010 ROP milestones in the SJV area. These reductions are more than the 3percent 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 thatthere are fully adopted contingency measures that will achieve emission reductions in

excess ofthe levels needed for attainment and sufficient toprovide continued ROP in theyear after the attainment date, i.e., 3percent reductions from the pre-1990 adjusted baseline, iftriggered by a failure to attain. Consistent with the ROP demonstration, an additional 3percent equates to approximately 15.3 tpd of VOC or 20.7 tpd ofNOx with NOx substitution.26

Table 4 above shows thatthere are no

excess reductions from adopted

measures in the 2004 SIP's attainment demonstration and that, in addition to the adopted measures thatmake significant reductions toward

26 States mayuse a combination ofNOx andVOC reductions to meet the 3 percent contingency requirement. See General Preamble at 13520, footnote 6. attainment, the plan relies on commitments to adopt measuresto achieve the additional reductions needed to demonstrate attainment. Table 6 below shows that there are 10 tpd NOx and 5tpd VOC in reductions in 2011 from adopted on-road mobile

source measures thatcould serve to fulfill aportion ofthe attainment contingency measure requirement. However, these amounts collectively provide justa 2.4 percent rate of progress in 2011, short ofthe suggested 3percent.

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 SanJoaquin Valley extreme area plan as not meeting the requirements ofCAA section 172(c)(9). The State may remedy this failure by submitting either new contingency measures or a demonstration thatexisting creditable

measures provide, consistent withthe guidance cited above, sufficient emission reductions in 2011.

F.Proposed Findingson Other Requirements forExtreme 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 ofvehicle 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 motorvehicles 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 

### 33944

HeinOnline -- 74 Fed. Reg. 33944 2009Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 133/Tuesday, July 14, 2009/Proposed Rules

emissions decline each year forboth growth; therefore, we propose to find 2008 Clarifications meets this CAA VOC and NOx, the plan need not that the 2004 SIP as amended by the requirement. include additional TCMs to offset

TABLE 6-BASELINE MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS 2000-2011 [San Joaquin Valley, Summer Planning, intons 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 thatemits more than 25 tpy of NOx toburn as its primary fuel natural gas, methanol, or ethanol (or a comparably low polluting fuel), or use advanced control technology (suchas 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 1rule. 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 withrated heat inputs less that 15 million Btu (MMBtu) perhour which

are oil or gas fired may generally be considered not subject to these requirements since it isunlikely 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 DistrictRules 4305, 4306, and4352 address NOx from affected boilers and thatthese rules
meet the requirements ofthe CAA. Since submittal ofthe 2004 SIP, Rule 4305 hasbeen superseded by Rules 4306, 4307, and4308.

Rule 4306 "Boilers, Steam Generators, andProcess 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 ratedheat input greater than 5million Btu per hour. The emission limitsin the rule, which range from 5ppm to 30 ppm forgaseous fuels and is 40ppm for liquid fuels, cannot be achieved without the use ofadvance 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 ratedheat 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 ratedheat 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 andfor 40ppm for liquid fuels for units between 2and 5MM Btu/hour and between 30 ppm and 77 ppm for units between 0.75 and 5MM 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 thathas

a potential toemit more than 10 tons per year ofNOxor VOC. In order to meet the emission limitations in this rule, which are between 115 and 200 ppm, sources use advance NOxcontrol 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 ofthe emission limitations in SJVAPCD's rules, we propose tofind thatthe 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 thatthe State (or the general purpose local government) will have adequate personnel, funding and authority under State lawto carry out the submitted plan. Under this section, a State needs to provide

assurances ofadequate 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 ofthe 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 ofsubmittal 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 ofa description ofthe result oftechnical work already completed by ARB andthe District to develop emission inventories, perform air quality modeling, analyze potential controls, and to evaluate the effect ofthose controls on attainment and ROP in the SJV nonattainment area. The 2004 SIP contains commitments by the District to adopt certain rules or rule

27Concurrentwith 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, leftthe proposed action inplace.

### 33945

HeinOnline -- 74 Fed. Reg. 33945 2009Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 133/Tuesday, July 14, 2009/Proposed Rules

revisions and commitments bythe District and ARB to achieve certain emission reductions. Atthis point in time, theDistrict has adopted allthe rules it committed to adopt. See Table 2ofthis 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.l.c. of this proposal. By carrying out their commitments in these plans, which

were submitted in November 2004 (almost 5years ago), both the District andARB have demonstrated thatthey 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 ofadoption 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) (adoptingthe 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 5for ARB. These authorities are sufficient tomeet 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 ofthe agency responsible for enforcement.

The District hasprimary responsibility under California lawto adopt and enforce rules controlling air pollution from nonvehicular source rules. CA HSC 40001. See also ARB Resolution 04-29, October 28, 2004. ARB hasprimary responsibility under California lawto adopt and enforce rules controlling air pollution form vehicular (includingfuels) 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 itsWeb site at http:// www.valleyair.orgunder "Compliance Assistance." ARB's source monitoring and enforcement programs including its procedures for handling violations, are described athttp://www.arb.ca.gov/enfl enf.htm. Specific compliance monitoring procedures (suchas test methods, recordkeeping and/or continuous monitoring) are evaluated as part ofEPA's action onindividual 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
OnSeptember 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 EPAby the State on December 29, 2006. See letter,Michael S. Scheible, ARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, December 29, 2006. We foundthe submittal complete on February 13, 2007. See Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA
to Catherine Weatherspoon, ARB. A copy ofthe adopted rule andthe material submitted with it canbe found in the docket for this proposed action. Estimated reductions from the rule for 2010 are listed in Table 2above.

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 ofthe rule, fleet operators must replace by no later than January 1, 2016 any diesel school buses in their fleet manufactured before January 1, 1978 withbuses thatmeet the applicable ARB or EPA emission standards for the year the bus is delivered to the operator. For diesel buses manufactured afterJanuary 1, 1978, fleet operators havethe option to replace them withbuses thatmeet 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 otherprecursor 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, ifreplaced, the operator must replace with a school bus thatmeets all applicable emissions standards forthe delivery year. Rule 9310, section 5.1.2. New school buses and additions to school bus fleets must meet allARB 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 listidentifying existing school bus fleets byJanuary 1, 2007 and to include information specific toeach affected bus and an explanation ofhow each school bus will comply with the requirements ofRule 9310. See Rule 9310, section 6.1

Rule 9310 requires operators to maintain records for aminimum offive years ofeach school bus annual mileage,
amount offuel purchased by fuel type, andtravel records beginning on and after September 21, 2006. These records
must be made available for inspection by theDistrict's Air PollutionControl Officer (APCO)upon request. Rule 9130, section 6.4.

Rule 9310 is enforced by the APCO under the authority ofthe 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 asrequired by CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), isconsistent with all applicable EPA guidance, and does not relax existing SIP requirements as required by sections 110(1) 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 ofRule 9310 and, as such, its approval would strengthen the SIP. EPA's approval ofRule 9310 would also not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress or any other requirement ofthe 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 isproposing to approve pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3), the following elements ofthe 2004 SIP and the 2008 Clarifications:

a. The rate ofprogress demonstration

asmeeting the requirements ofCAA 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 therequirements of 182(c)(2)(A) and 181(a).28

28The 2004 SIP also included motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) for NOx and VOC forthe milestone year of2008 and attainment year of2010. We do not address thesebudgets in thisproposal because they are no longer required forthe 1-hour

ozone standard. Furthermore, the budgets in the 

### 33946

HeinOnline -- 74 Fed. Reg. 33946 2009Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 133/Tuesday, July 14, 2009/Proposed Rules

The proposed approval ofthe attainment demonstration ispredicated in part on emission reductions from a number ofState 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 ofthe 1-hour standard in the SJV area. See Table 5 above. Should we be unable tofinalize approval ofone or

more ofthese rules and, as aresult, there isa shortfall in the needed emission reductions, we will not be able
to finalize our proposed approval ofthe attainment demonstration.

2.EPA is proposing to find pursuant
to CAA section 110(k)(3) thatthe 2004 SIP and the 2008 Clarifications meet the requirements of:

a. CAA section 182(e)(3) for clean fuel/clean technology forboilers; and

b. CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for TCMs sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT orthe number ofvehicle trips. 3.EPA isproposing to approve pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3) section 4.7 in the 2004 SIP andthe provisions ofthe 2003 State Strategy andARB Board Resolution 04-29 that relate to aggregate emission reductions in the SanJoaquin Valley AirBasin as meeting therequirements ofCAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6).

4. EPA isproposing 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 ofRACT) requirements ofCAA section 172(c). 5.EPA isproposing to approve pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3), SJVAPCD Rule 9310 SchoolBus Fleets (adoptedSeptember 21, 2006) into the SanJoaquin Valley portion ofthe California SIP.

2004 SIP havebeen replaced by budgets inthe SJV planforthe 1997 8-hourozone standard.

As discussed in section II. ofthis proposal, EPA has revoked the 1-hourozone standard. Asaresult, transportation conformity determinations andthus budgets are no longerrequired for that standard. Under ourtransportation conformityregulations, 8- hour ozone MVEBs replace existing 1-hour ozone MVEBs oncethe 8-hour ozoneMVEBs are found adequate orare approved. See40CFR 93.109(e)(1) and (2). Although the MVEB budgets from the 2004 SIPhave beenused in theinitialconformity determinations inthe SJVareaforthe 1997 8-hour

ozone standard, thesebudgets havenowbeen replaced bybudgets in the SJV 8-hour ozone plan whichwere found adequate onJanuary 8,2009.See Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA to James Goldstene, ARB, "Adequacy Status ofSan JoaquinValley 8- Hour OzoneRate ofProgress andAttainment Plan Motor VehicleEmissions Budgets" and 74FR4032 (January22, 2009). Thus,because the 1-hour ozone budgets will havenofurtherutility,weare not proposing action onthem here. 6. EPA isproposing to disapprove pursuant toCAA section 110(k)(3) the attainment contingency measures in the 2004 SIP and the 2008 Clarifications as failing to meetthe requirements ofCAA section 172(c)(9).

B. Effect ofFinalizingtheProposed Disapproval Actions
Ifwe should finalize our disapproval ofthe attainment contingency measures, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) willbe applied inthe SJV 1- hour ozone nonattainment area 18 months after the effective date ofthe 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 willbe imposed ifCalifornia submits andwe approve priorto the implementation ofthe sanctions replacement attainment contingency

measures.

In addition tothe sanctions, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides thatEPA
must promulgate a Federal implementation plan addressing the 1- hour ozone contingency measures in the SJV area, twoyears afterthe effective date ofa disapproval should we not be able to approve replace attainment contingency measures adopted and submitted by the State.
VI. Statutory andExecutive 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 reviewby 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 andto 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 nothave

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 etseq.). Because this proposed action does not impose any additional enforceable duties, itdoes
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 planis
not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State. Itwill 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

onthe States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This proposed action merely proposes to approve in part and disapprove inpart

a State-adopted plan andto approve a State-adopted rule and does not alter the relationship or the distribution ofpower andresponsibilities established in the CAA.

Executive Order 12898 establishes a Federal policy for incorporating environmental justice intoFederal agency actions by directing agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects oftheir programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. Today's action involves a proposed approval in disapproval in part ofa State-adopted plan and proposed approval ofa State-adopted rule. Itwill 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 ofChildren from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it isnot economically significant. The requirements of section 12(d)ofthe 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 ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. 3501 etseq.).
List of Subjects in40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq.

Dated: June 30, 2009. JaneDiamond, ActingRegional Administrator, RegionIX. [FRDoc. E9-16492 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

### 33947

HeinOnline -- 74 Fed. Reg. 33947 2009