# Final Technical Support Document

and Response to Comments

Final Rulemaking Action

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5



# and the South Coast Portions of the Revised

2007 State Strategy

Air Division U.S. EPA Region 9 September 30, 2011EPA

- Region 9 Page 2

For further information on this technical support document, please contact:

Wienke Tax Office of Air Planning (AIR

- 2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

– Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 947

- 4192 tax.wienke@epa.gov

Documents referenced in this technical support document may be found in the docket for this rulemaking, docket number EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2009

- 0366, which may be found at www.regulations.gov or at the address listed above.i 

# Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Background

A. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 )

1. The PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards a. Level and Form of the Standard
b. Health Effects c. Revisions to the 24

- Hour PM 2.5 Standard

2. Implementing the PM 2.5 NAAQS a. Designations b. PM 2.5 Planning Requirements

B. PM 2.5 Air Quality in the South Coast

1. PM 2.5 Levels in the South Coast 2. Chemical Composition of PM 2.5 in the South Coast

C. California Submittals Constituting the Sou th Coast PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan

D. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for and Completeness Determinations on SIP
Submittals

1. Public Notice and Public Hearing Requirements for SIP Submittals 2. Completeness Determinations on SIP Submit tals

II. Evaluation of the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5

A . Emissions Inventories

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories 2. Emissions Inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP 3. Proposed Action s on Emissions Inventories
4. Evaluation and Conclusion

B. Air Quality Modeling 1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling
2. Overview of the Conceptual Description, Modeling Approach, and Modeling Protocol in the South Coast 2007 AQMP
3. Air Quality Model Selection
4. Episode Selection 5. Domain Si ze and Spatial Resolution 6. Initial and Boundary Conditionsii

7. Meteorological Model 8. Air Quality Model Performance 9. Modeled Attainment Test 10. Weight of Evidence
11. Proposed Actions on Air Quality Modeling
12. Evaluation and Conclusion

C. Attainme nt Plan Precursors

1. Requirements for Control of PM 2.5 Precursors 2. Identification of PM 2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and EPA‘s Evaluation
3

. Evaluation and Conclusion

D. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology

1. Requirements for RACM/RACT 2. RACM/RACT Analysis in the South Coast 2007 AQMP 3. Proposed Action s on RACM/ RACT Analysis
4. Evaluation and Conclusion

E. Attainment Date Extension

1. Requirements f

or Attainment Date Extensions 2. Proposed Attainment Date in the South Coast 2007 AQMP 3. Proposed Action s on Attainment Date Extension
4. Evaluation and Conclusion

F. Adopted Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments

1. Requirements for Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments 2. Control Strategy in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and Revised 2007 State Strategy
3. Proposed Action s on Adopted Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments
4. Evaluation and Conclusion

G. Attainment Demonstration

1. Requirements for Attainment Demonstrations 2. Attainment Demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP 3

. Proposed Action s on Attainment Demonstration
4. Evaluation and Conclusion

H. Reasonable Further Progress D emonstration

1. Requirements for Re asonable Further Progress Demonstrations 2. RFP Demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMPiii

3. Proposed Action s on RFP Demonstration
4. Evaluation and Conclusion

I. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures 2. Contingency Measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP 3. Proposed Action s on Contingency Measures
4. Evaluation and Conclusion

J. Adequacy of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budg ets in the South Coast 2007 AQMP
3. Prior Proposed and Current Final Action on the Budgets 4. Action on Trading Mechanism

III. Response to Comments

Appendix A

– CARB Rules and Measures

A. Complete List of State Measures
B. State Rules That Do Not Address Direct PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors in the South Coast C. State Fuel Measures
D. State On

- Road Mobile Source Measures
E. State Consumer Product Measures
F. State Vapor Recovery Measures
G. Other State Measures

Appendix B

– South Coast Rulesiv Acronyms & Terms

μ: micron (one millionth) AB: California Assembly Bill AERR: Air Emissions Report Rule, 40 CFR part 51, subpart A APCD: air pollution control district AQMD: air quality management district AQMP: air quality management plan AQS: Air Quality Subsystem ARB: California Air Resources Board (also CARB) BAR: California Bureau of Automotive Repair BARCT: best available retrofit control technology BC : black carbon CAA: Federal Clean Air Act as amended in 199 0 CALMET: a diagnostic 3

- dimensional meteorological model CAMx: Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions CARB: California Air Resources Board (also ARB) CCR: California Code of Regulations CEFS: California Emissions Forecasting and Planning Inve ntory System CEIDARS: California Emissions Inventory Development and Reporting System CERR: Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule, 40 CFR part 51, subpart A CFR: Code of Federal Regulations CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds CMAQ: Commun ity Multiscale Air Quality [model] CMB: chemical mass balance CO: carbon monoxide CPM: condensable particulate matter CTG: Control Techniques Guidelines CSBA: California Small Business Alliance District: South Coast Air Quality Management District
DPR: California Department of Pesticide Regulation EC: elemental carbon EGU: electrical generating unit EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency
FDDA: Four Dimensional Data Assimilation
FEM : federal equivalent method
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration Fine particulate matter: PM 2.5 FMVCP: Federal motor vehicle control program FR: Federal Register FRM: federal reference method
FTA: Federal Transit Administration ICE : internal combustion engine km: kilometer

m: meter

m 3 : cubic meterv

MA TES: Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study MCR: mid

- course review
MM5: Mesoscale model MMPA: meteorological model performance analysis MPO: metropolitan planning organization MVEB: motor vehicle emissions budget NAAQS: national ambient air quality standard NCEP: National Centers for Environmental Prediction
NH 3 : ammonia NO 2 : nitrogen dioxide NO x : oxides of nitrogen NYQ: not yet quantified O 3 : ozone OC :organic carbon OTAQ: EPA‘s Office of Transportation and Air Quality PBL: planetary boundary layer
PM: particulate matter
PM 10 : particulate matter with a diameter of 10 μm or less, includes PM 2.5 PM 2.5 : particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 μm or less RACM: reasonably available control measures RACT: reasonably available control technology RAMS: Regional Atmospheric Modeling System RFP: reasonable further progress RH: relative humidity RMPA: Regional Model Performance Analysis ROG: reactive organic gases, used interchangeably with ―VOC‖ RRF: relative response factor RTIP: regional transportation improvement program RTP: regional transportation plan
SC: South Coast SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE: Southern California Edison
SCOS97: Southern California Ozone Study 1997 SIP: state implementation plan SJV: San Joaquin Valley SJVAPCD: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SMAT: Speciated Modeled Attainment Test
SO 2 : sulfur dioxide
SO x : oxides of sulfur SSI : Size Selective Inlet STMPRAG : Scientific, Technical, and Model ing Peer Review Advisory Group
TCM: transportation control measures tpd: tons per day TSD: technical support document
UAM : Urban Airshed Model

- UAMAERO

- LT: Urban Airshed Modelvi

UFP : ultrafine particle UTM: Universal transverse Mercator
VMT: vehicle miles traveled VOC: volatile organic c ompounds WOE: weight of evidence
WRAP: Western Regional Air Partnership WRF: Weather Research and Forecasting WSPA: Western States Petroleum AssociationTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 1



# Technical Support Document and Response to Comments, Final Rulemaking Action on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 

# and the South Coast Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strategy

I. Introduction and Background

This document provides supporting information and analysis for EPA‘s final rulemaking actions on the South Coast Air Quality Management District‘s 2007 AQMP ( adopted June 1, 2007 and revised March 4, 2011 ) and the related portions of the California Air Resources Board‘s State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation P lan (adopted with
amendments on September 27, 2007, revised and updated on April 24, 2009 and April 28, 2011). EPA proposed action on these plans on November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71294) and an amended proposal on July 14, 2011 (76 FR 41562)

. This TSD updates th e TSDs prepared in support of the November 22, 2010 and July 14, 2011 proposals. 1

In t his TSD , we also provide our responses to the comments received on the two proposals

. 

### A. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 

### )

1. The PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

a. Level and Form of the Standard

On July 18, 1997, EPA established new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for PM 2.5 . 62 FR 38652. 2 The annual standards are set at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μ/m 3 ), as determined by the 3

- year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations. The

1 ― Technical Support Document for the Proposed Action on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 and the South Coast Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strategy ,‖ Air Division

, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, November 8, 2010, referred to as the ― 2010 TSD‖ in this document. ― Technical Support Document for the Revised Proposed Action on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 and the South Coast Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strategy ,‖ June, 2011, Air Division

, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9,referred to as the ―2011 TSD‖ in this document.

2 The original annual and daily standards for particulate matter generally less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter (also referred to as PM 10 ) were establis hed in 1987. In the 1997 PM NAAQS revision, EPA also revised the standards for PM 10 but these revised PM 10 standards were later vacated by the court, and the 1987 PM 10 standards remained in effect. In the 2006 NAAQS revision, the 24

- hour PM 10 standards w ere retained but the

a nnual standards were revoked. The South Coast nonattainment area is designated and classified as serious nonattainment for the PM 10 NAAQS. See 40 CFR part 81.305.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 2 24

- hour standards were set at a level of 65 μ/m 3 , as determined by the 3

- year average of the 98 th percentile of 24

- hour concentrations. 40 CFR § 50.13.

b. Health Effects

EPA established air quality standards for PM 2.5 based on evidence from numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to eleva ted levels of PM 2.5 . Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant correlations between
elevated PM 2.5 levels and premature mortality. Other important effects associated with PM 2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascu lar disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restricted activity days), changes in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms, as well as new evidence for more subtle indicators of cardiovascular health. Individuals particularly sensitive to
PM 2.5 exposure include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children

. See, EPA,
Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter

, No . EPA/600/P

– 99/002aF and EPA/600/P

– 99/002bF

, O ctober 2004.

Attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards is estimated to lead to reductions in health impacts, including tens of thousands fewer premature deaths each year, thousands fewer hospital admissions and emergency room visits each year, hundreds of t housands fewer absences from work and school, and hundreds of thousands fewer respiratory illnesses in children annually. See 72 FR 20586, 20587 (April 25, 2007).

c. Revisions to the 24

- Hour PM 2.5 Standard

On October 17, 2006, EPA completed another re view of the NAAQS for PM. With regard to the primary standards, the 24

- hour PM 2.5 standards were strengthened to a level of 35 μ/m 3 , based on the 3

- year average of the 98th percentile of 24

- hour concentrations. The annual standards remained unchanged. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). Attainment of the 2006 PM 2.5 standards is estimated to lead to additional reductions in health impacts over the 1997 standard, including approximately 1,200 to 13,000 fewer premature deaths each year, 1,630 fewer hospital

a dmissions and 1,200 fewer emergency room visits for asthma each year, 350,000 fewer absences from work and school, and 155,300 fewer respiratory illnesses in children annually. 72 FR 20586, 20587.

On November 13, 2009, EPA designated the South Coast

, along with other areas in the Country, as nonattainment for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard. 74 FR 58688. California is now required to submit a plan demonstrating attainment of this standard by December 14, 2012. The South Coast 2007 AQMP address only the 1997 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard s of 65 μg/m 3 and annual standard s of 15 μg/m 3

.
2. Implementing the PM 2.5 NAAQS

a. Designations

The process for designating areas either attaining or not attaining following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contai ned in CAA section 107(d)(1)

. Under this section , eachTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 3 State Governor or Tribal leader has an opportunity to recommend air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for areas to EPA . Under CAA section 107, State and Tribal

r ecommendations are due within one year of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS , and EPA has up to three years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to designate areas for that NAAQS . In the case of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards , however, Congress amended section
107 to extend the schedule for EPA to initiate the designations process until 3 calendar years of air quality data, measured at Federal Reference Method monitors, were gathered. See s ection 6102(c)(1)(d) of the Transportation Equity Act fo r the 21st Century

. EPA and State air quality agencies initiated the monitoring process for the PM 2.5 NAAQS in 1999 and deployed all air quality monitors by January 2001.

By no later than 120 days prior to promulgating designations, EPA is required to notify States or Tribes of any intended modifications to their boundaries that EPA deems necessary. States and Tribes then have an opportunity to provide a demonstration as to why the proposed
modification s suggested by EPA are inappropriate. Whether or not a State or Tribe provides a recommendation, EPA must promulgate the designation that it deems appropriate.

In April 2003, EPA requested that California to submit its designation recommendations

, based on ambient air quality data from 2001 to 2003, an d supporting documentation to EPA by February 15, 2004. California submitted its recommendations on February 11, 2004. See Letter, Catherine Witherspoon, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA

- Region 9, February 11, 2004. On December 17, 2004, EPA issued final PM 2. 5 designations for areas violating the 1997 standards, including the South Coast air basin. They were published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944) and became effective on April 5, 2005. The designations are codified at 40 CFR part 83, subpart C.

The nonattainment designation for an area starts the process whereby a State must develop an implementation plan that includes, among other things, a demonstration showing how it will attain the ambient standards by the attainment dates require d in the CAA. Under section 172(b), States have up to 3 years after EPA‘s final designations to submit their SIPs to EPA. The SIPs demonstrating attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards were due on April 5, 2008, 3 years after the effective date of the desig nations.

b. PM

2.5 Planning Requirements

To assist states in developing effective plans to address their PM 2.5 nonattainment problem, EPA issued the ―Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation Rule,‖ also known as the
PM 2.5 implementation rule. 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z. We proposed this rule on November 1, 2005 at 70 FR 65984. EPA issued this rule in accordance with the statutory requirements of the CAA set forth in subpart 1 of Part D of Title 1,
i.e. , sections 171

– 179B.

The PM 2.5 implementation rule covers most CAA requirements for PM 2.5 State implementation plans. A list of these CAA requirements, the corresponding provision in the
PM 2.5 implementation plan and preamble are g iven in Table IA

- 1 below.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 4 Table IA

- 1 

### CAA Requirements for PM 2.5 

### Attainment State Implementation Plans

CAA
Section PM 2.5 Implementation Rule Description TSD

Rule Preamble 172(a)(2)(A) §51.1004 20600 Attainment date and attainment date extensions II.E.

172(b) §51.1002(a) 20599 SIP submittal date I.B.3.

172(c)(1) §51.1010 20609

-- 20633 Reasonably available control measures (including reasonably available control technology) II.D.

172(c)(1) § 51.1007(a) 20601

- 20602 Demonstration of expeditious attainment II.F.

172(c)(2) § 51.1009 20633

- 20640 Reasonable further progress II.H. 172(c)(3) § 51.1008 20647

- 20651 Emission inventory II.A.

172(c)(6) § 51.1007(b)

§ 51.1010(b) 20601

- 20602

20658

- 20660 Enforceable limitation limits, other

control measures, means or techniques and schedules and timetables for compliance as necessary for attainment II.D. &
F.

172(c)(7) § 51.1002(b) 20600 CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements N/A

172(c)(9) § 51.1012 20642

- 20645 Contingency measures for failure to attain or make reasonable further

progress II.J.

302(g) § 51.1002(c) 20589

- 20597 PM 2.5 precursors to be evaluated for control II.C.

172(c)(1) § 51. 1007(b) 20629 Timing of emission reductions for attainment II.D. &
F. 176(c) 93.118(e) 20645

- 20646 Motor vehicle emissions budgets I.D. 172(c)(2) & (6) § 51.1011 20640 Mid

- course review II.I.

110(a)(2)(K) § 51.1007(a),

§ 51.112 and Appendix W 20605

- 20609 Air Quality Modeling II.F.

In June 200 7 , a petition to the EPA Administrator was filed on behalf of several public health and environmental groups requesting reconsideration of four provisions in the PM 2.5 implementation rule. See EarthJustice, ―Petition for Reconsideration in the Matter of th e Final Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation Rule,‖ June 25, 2008. These provisions are:TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 5 1. Presuming that c ompliance with the (now remand ed) Clean Air Interstate Rule satisfies the NO x , and SO 2 and RACT requirements for electric generating units (EGUs). 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007), at 20623

- 206 28. EPA granted the petition for this provision on April 25, 2011. Letter, Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, EPA, to David Baron and Paul Cort, EarthJus tice, April 25

, 2011.

2. A llowing States to defer establishing emission limits for condensable PM until January 1, 2011. 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007), at 20652 (codified at 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)). EPA denied the petition for this provision on April 25, 20 11 because the deferral period had already lapsed.

3. Revising the criteria for analyzing the economic feasibility of RACT from a presumption that a given source must bear a cost s imilar to other sources to a consideration of whether the cost of

a measur e is reasonable for the regulated entity to bear, in light of benefits. 72 FR 20586, a t 20619

- 20620

. EPA granted the petition for this provision on April 25 , 2011

.

4. Allowing States to use emissions reductions from outside of the nonattainment area t o demonstration RFP. 72 FR 20586, at 20636. EPA granted the petition for this provision on May 13, 2010. Letter, Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, EPA, to David Baron and Paul Cort, EarthJustice, May 13, 2010.

The disputed provisions of the PM 2.5 implementation rule are, for the most part, not relevant to today‘s action because California did not rely on them in developing the PM 2.5 plan
for the South Coast nonattainment area . We address each of these provisions later in thi s TSD: the first three in section II.D. (RACM/RACT) and the fourth in section II.H. (RFP).



### B. PM 2.5 

### Air Quality in the South Coast

The South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area is located in the southern part of California. It comprises portions of Los Ang eles County, all of Orange County, and the urbanized portions of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. It is home to almost 18 million people and is the nation‘s leading area for goods movement. See Figure IB

- 1 for a map of the South Coast nonattainment a rea and the major sources of air pollution in the nonattainment area

. The local air district with primary responsibility for developing a plan to attain the PM 2.5 NAAQS in this

area is the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( ― SCAQMD ‖ or ― District ‖ ). For a complete description of the PM 2.5 nonattainment area, please refer to 40 CFR part 81.305.

1. PM 2.5 Levels in the South Coast

A nnual PM 2.5 levels in South Coast are still exceeding the standard with a design value of
16.8 μg/m 3 for the 2008

- 201 0 period at the Mira Loma site

. 3 See EPA, Air Quality System,

3 See EPA, Air Quality System Design Value Report dated April 21, 2011 in the docket for today‘s action. A design value is an ambient concentration calculated using a specific methodology from monitored air quality data and is used to compare an area‘s air quality to a NAAQS. The methodologies for calculating design values f or the annual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS are found in 40 CFR 50, Appendix N, Sections 1(c)(1) and 1(c)(2), respectively. ThisTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 6 Design Value Report, April 21, 2011

. 24

- hour PM 2.5 levels in the South Coast are below the 1997 standard of 65 ug/m 3 ; the 2008

- 2010 design value is 41 ug/m 3

. 4 See Figures IB

- 2 and IB

- 3. Figure I B

- 4 is a map of the current monitoring system in the South Coast.

Since com

prehensive monitoring began for PM 2.5 in the South Coast in the late 1990s, the area has seen a significant decline in ambient levels, especially in the 2002

- 2010 time period. Data presented in Figures IB

- 2 and IB

- 3 have been validated. All data except 2010 dat a have been certified by SCAQM D. Data for all sites exceeds 75% annual completeness but four sites have at least one quarter with completeness less than 75% in 2010: Azusa , Pas adena, Big Bear, and Reseda.

Figure IB

- 1. South Coast Nonattainment Area and Location of Major Sources of Air Pollution



### and Location of Major Sources of Air Pollution
F igure IB

- 1

value is based on 2008 and 2009 data that are complete, validated, and certified by the District and on 2010 data that

are complete a nd validated but not yet certified by the District

. 4 Ibid

. This value is based on 2008 and 2009 data that are complete, validated, and certified by the District and on 2010 data that are complete and validated but not yet certified by the District

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 7 Figure IB

- 2TSD for the Final Rulemaking on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM2.5 September 30, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA

- Region 9 Page 8 Figure IB

- 3TSD for the Final Rulemaking on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM2.5 September 30, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA

- Region 9 Page 9 

### Figure IB

- 4. Ambient PM 2.5 

### Monitoring Locations In the South Coast Air Basin

From http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/AQ

- Reports/AQMonitoringNetworkPlan/AppendixA.pdfTSD for the Final Rulemaking on

the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM2.5 September 30, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA

- Region 9 Page 10 2. Chemical Composition of PM 2.5 in th e South Coast

PM 2.5 in the air is a complex mixture of components. Common components include: nitrate (NO 3 ); sulfate (SO 4 ); ammonium; elemental carbon; a great variety of organic compounds; and inorganic material (including metals, dust, sea salt, and oth er trace elements) generally referred to as ― crustal ‖ material, although it may contain material from other sources.

― Primary ‖ particles are emitted directly into the air as a solid or liquid particle (e.g., elemental carbon from diesel engines or fire activities, or condensable organic particles from gasoline engines). ― Secondary ‖ particles (e.g., nitrate and sulfate ) form in t he atmosphere as a result of chemical reactions between precursor pollutants such as NO x , SO 2 , VOC, and ammonia. The South Coast 2007 AQMP includes an updated ammonia inventory. 5 Understanding the compounds that impact an area‘s PM 2.5 problem is necessary in order to develop control strateg ies that are effective for attaining the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 72 FR 20586, at 20586.

PM 2.5 in the South Coast Air Basin is overwhelmingly formed as a secondary pollutant. (South Coast 2007 AQMP, page ES

- 9). Therefore, the South Coast 2007 AQMP relies on reducing precursors to PM 2.5 and some directly

- emitted PM 2.5 rather than fugitive dust (PM 10 ). In general, the organic carbon (OC) mass accounts for approximately 30 percent of the total mass at each station. Ammonium, sulfa te and nitrates account for an approximate 45 percent of the total mass at each location. Rubidoux and Fontana are the most heavily impacted by nitrates. Sulfate is highest in the near coastal or ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach areas, particularly Wilmingt on and Long Beach . Elemental carbon (EC) and metals measurements were highest at Wilmington

, accounting for almost 24 percent of the mass when combined. All sites observed measurable concentrations of sodium and chloride ions reflecting the influence of th e marine air as it is transported inland . Figure IB

- 5 shows the annual distribution of PM 2.5 species in the South Coast
PM 2.5 nonattainment area

5 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, page III

- 1

- 16, and electronic mail, Kathy Hsiao, SCAQ MD, to Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, dated October 29, 2010.TSD for the Final Rulemaking on

the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM2.5 September 30, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA

- Region 9 Page 11 Figure IB

- 5: MATES

- III 2005 Annual Distribution of PM 2.5 Species (μg/m3) 6



### C. California Submittals Constituting the South Coast PM 2.5 

### State Implementation Plan

Six submittals or parts of submittals comprise the South Coast PM 2.5 attainment plan:

1. Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan

, SCAQMD, adopted June 1, 2007, submitted with the ado pting resolutions and other supporting documentation by CARB on November 28, 2007. See South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board Resolution 07

- 9 ; CARB Resolution No. 07

- 41 , September 27 , 2007 ; and l etter

, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 28, 2007 with enclosures. This document will be r eferenced in this TSD and the Federal Register final rule as the ―2007 AQMP‖ and the ―South Coast 2007 AQMP ‖.

2. Proposed State Strategy for California’ s 2007 State Implementation Plan , adopted September 27, 2007, submitted with the adopting resolution and other supporting documentation by CARB on November 16, 2007

. See CARB Resolution No. 07

- 28, S eptember 27, 2007 and letter

, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB

, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 16, 2007

, with enclosures.
This document will be r eferenced in this TSD and the Federal Register final rule as the

― 2007 State Strategy‖.

3. Status Report on the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revisions to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy , adopted April 24, 2009, submitted with the adopting resolution and other supporting documentation by CARB on August 12, 2009. See CARB Resolution No. 09

- 34, April 24, 2009 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Laura

6 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V

- 2

- 4.TSD for the Final Rulemaking on

the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM2.5 September 30, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA

- Region 9 Page 12 Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 12, 2009 with enclosures. This document will be referenced in this TSD and the Federal Register final rule as the ―revised 2007 State Strategy ‖. 7

4. Progress Report on Implementation of PM 2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions

, adopted on April 2 8

, 20 11 by CARB , submitted with the adopting resolution and other supporting documentation by CARB on May 18

, 20 11

. 8 See C ARB Board Resolution 11

- 24, April 2 8

, 2011 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld , Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, May 18

, 2011 with enclosures. This document will be referenced in this TSD and the Federal Regist er final rule as the 2011 Progress Report

.

5. Revisions to the 2007 PM 2.5 and Ozone State Implementation Plans for the South Coast
Air Basin and Coachella Valley (SIP Revisions), adopted on March 4, 2011 by the SCAQMD Governing Board and approved by the CARB Board on April 28, 2011 and submitted on May 19, 2011 . This SIP revision includes an update on District rule implementation and commitments provided by SCAQMD for the 2007 AQMP as well as a backstop of 1 tpd of NOx for the federal assignment. This SIP revision was included as Appendix F in the 2011 Progress Report and will be referred to as such.

6. 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins , June 20, 2011, with Appendices. Adopted by the CARB Board on July 21, 2011 and submitted on July 29, 2011. 9 (2011 Ozone SIP Revision) We are only acting on the revisions to the PM 2.5 SIP transportation budget s from that submittal here. We will act on the ozone

- related provisions of this SIP submittal as par t of our final action on the South Coast 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP. We proposed to approve these ozone

- related provisions on September 16, 2011; see 76 FR
57872

.

Future references in this TSD and the Federal Register notice of final rulemaking to the 2007 State Strategy will be to the Strategy as revised in 2009 and 2011

, and the South Coast AQMP as revised in 2011, respectively, unless explicitly noted otherwise. We will also refer to the 2007 State Strategy as revised in 2009 and 2011 as the revised 2007 State Strategy.
In addition to these plan submittals, the District and CARB have provided additional information on the implementation status of the Pl an‘s control strategy as well as supplemental

7 Only pages 11

- 27 of the 2009 State Strategy Status Report ar e submitted as a SIP revision. The balance of the report is for informational purposes only. See Attachment A to the CARB Resolution, No. 09

- 34.

8 Only Appendices B, C, and D of the 20 11 Progress Report are submitted as a SIP revision. The balance of the report is for informational purposes only. See letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated May 18, 2011.

9 Only Appendix A of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision is submitted as a SIP revision. The balance of the report is for informational purposes only. See Attachment A, CARB Resolution No. 11

- 22.TSD for the Final Rulemaking on

the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM2.5 September 30, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA

- Region 9 Page 13 documentation of the Plan‘s technical background and further information supporting the 2011 Progress Report

. This additional information was transmitted in a letter from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, C ARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, US EPA Region 9, on May 18, 2011 ( CARB Progress Report Supplement )

.
Finally, both CARB and the District have adopted and submitted numerous rules that reduce emissions in the South Coast nonattainment area and contribute to progress in meeting the
PM 2.5 NAAQS in the area. See Appendices A and B of this TSD.



### D. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for and Completeness Determinations on SIP Submittals

1. Public Notice and Public Hearing Requiremen ts for SIP Submittals

CAA sections 110(a) and (l) require a State to provide reasonable public notice and hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. Thus, every SIP submittal should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and a public hearing was held consistent with EPA‘s implementing regulations in 40 CFR § 51.102.

Both the D istrict and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy. T he District conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan on June 1, 2007. Documentation accompanying the AQMP describes a public and agency outreach effort. See, e.g., the SCAQMD‘s Response to Comments on the Draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (February 2007), submitted by CARB on November 28, 2007 as enclosure I

E, describing nine regional workshops held from October 24 through December 6, 2006 to discuss the draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) released on October 10, 2006. The sequence of public meetings held to discuss the elements of the d raft State Strategy for California‘s 2007 SIP (State Strategy) is described in the CARB staff report developed for the CARB Board‘s consideration prior to adoption of the State Strategy. CARB also provide the required public notice and opportunity for publ ic comment prior to its September 27 , 2007 public hearing on the South Coast 2007 AQMP. See CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan for Attaining th e Federal 8

- hour Ozone and
PM 2.5 Standards in the Sout h Coast Air Basin and the Coachella Valley . See http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/ma/2007/ma092707.htm and http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/n onreg/scsip07.pdf

.

CARB conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held a public hearing prior to its adoption of the 2007 State Strategy on September 27, 2007. See CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of the Proposed State Strategy for California‘s State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Federal 8

- Hour O z one and PM 2.5 Standards, May 7, 2007 and CARB Resolution No. 07

- 28, September 27, 2007

.

CARB provide d the required public notice, opportunity for public co mment, and public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009 adoption of revisions to the Strategy. See CARB, Notice ofTSD for the Final Rulemaking on

the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM2.5 September 30, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA

- Region 9 Page 14 Public Hearing to Consider a Status Report on the State Strategy for California‘s 2007 State Implementation Plan and Consider Approval of a Pr oposed Revision to the State Implementation Plan Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy, March 24, 2009 and CARB Resolution No. 09

- 34, April 24, 2009

.

CARB provided the required public notice, opportunity for public comment , and public hear ing pr ior to its adoption of the 2011 Progress Report on April 28, 2011. See CARB, Notic e of Public Hearing to Consider the Approval of a Progress Report and Proposed State
Im plementation Plan Revisions for PM 2.5 , March 2 9

, 20 11 and CARB Resolution No

. 11

- 24, April 2 8

, 20 11

.

2. Completeness Determination s on SIP Submittals

CAA section 110(k)(1) (B) requires EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also provides that any plan that we have not
affirmat ively determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of law six months after the day of submittal by operation of law. A completeness review allows us to determine if the submittal includes all the necessary items and informatio n we need to act on
it.

We make completeness determinations using criteria we have established in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. These criteria fall into two categories: administrative information and technical support information. The administrative i nformation provides documentation that the State has followed basic administrative procedures during the SIP

- adoption process and thus we have a legally

- adopted SIP revision in front of us. The technical support information provides us the information we need to determine the impact of the proposed revision on attainment and maintenance of the air quality standards.

We notify a state of our completeness determination by letter unless the submittal become complete by operation of law. A finding of comple teness does not approve the submittal as part of the SIP nor does it indicate that the submittal is approvable. It does start the 12 month clock we have to act on the SIP submittal. See CAA section 110(k)(2).

The November 28, 2007 submittal of the South Coast 2007 AQMP became complete by operation of law on May 28, 2008. The November 16, 2007 submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and the August 12, 2009 submittal of the 2009 revisions to the State Strategy beca me complete by operation of law on May 16, 2008 and February 12, 2010, respectively. We found the May 18, 2011 submittal complete on June 13 , 2011

. See Letter, Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, US EPA Region 9, to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, dated June 13,
2011. We found CARB ̳s 2011 Ozone SIP Revision submittal of July 29, 2011 complete on August 23, 2011. See Letter, Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, US EPA Region 9, to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, dated August 23, 201 1.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

of the South Coast AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 15 

## II. Evaluation of the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5TSD for the Final Rulemaking

of the South Coast AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 16 

### A. Emission s I nventor ies

1. Requirements for Emission s Inventories

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires states to submit a plan provision that includes a ―comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant.‖ Pursuant to th is section, the PM 2.5 implementation rule requires State to submit, within three years of the designation of one of its areas as no nattainment, statewide emission s inventories for direct PM 2.5 emissions and emissions of PM 2.5 precursors. The se inventories should meet the data requirements of EPA‘s Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule ( ―CERR,‖
codified at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A )

. § 51.1008(a) (1)

. 10 Direct PM 2.5 includes condensable PM. §51.1000 ―Direct PM 2.5 ‖. PM 2 .5 precursors are NO X , SO 2 , VOCs, and ammonia

. Id. T he state must report inventories for each, even if it has determined that control of any of these precursors is not necessary for attainment. Id. and 72 FR 20586, at 20648.

The PM 2.5 implementation rule also requires states to submit a baseline emission inventory as part of the a ttainment and RFP demonstrations in their PM 2.5 attainment plans . The base year for this inventory should be calendar year 2002 or other suitable year for areas initially designated nonattainment for the PM 2.5 in 2004

- 2005. § 51.1008( b ). The baseline inventory
should be appropriate for the geographical area addressed by the PM 2.5 attainment plan and consistent with applicable EPA guidance. 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007), at 20648. States are also required to submit any additional emission inventory information needed to support its
attainment and RFP demonstrations. § 51.1008(a) (2)

.

EPA has issued the ― Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Qualit y Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, ‖ EPA

– 454/ R

– 99

– 006

, November 2005 ( available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ chie f /eidocs/eiguid/

index.html). EPA developed this guidance document to complement the CERR and to pr ovide specific guidance on ho w to develop emissions inventories for 8

- hour ozone, PM 2.5 , and regional haze SIPs.

The emissions inventor ies required under the PM 2.5 implementation rule (as opposed to the CERR) are SIP provision s that must be approved by EPA under CAA section 110(k) a nd are subject to public hearing requirements pursuant to section 110(a)(2). States should include in
their SIP submittals documentation explaining how the emissions data were calculated. In estimating mobile source emissions, States should us e the latest emissions models and planning assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed . 72 FR 20586, at 20647. For California,
the lates t emissions model means the most recently EPA approved version of EMFAC. C urrent ly, this is EMFAC2007. See 73 FR 3464 ( January 18, 2008).

10 In late 2008, EPA promulgated the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) at 73 FR 76539 (December 17, 2008). The AERR updated the CERR reporting requi rements by consolidating and harmonizing new emissions reporting requirements with pre

- existing sets of reporting requirements under the NO X SIP Call (which does not apply to California). Because this AERR was not finalized until after the submittal of th e South Coast 2007 AQMP, its data requirements, in that they differ from the CERR requirements, do not apply to the South Coast 2007 AQMP.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

of the South Coast AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 17 2. Emissions Inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

Note : We discuss the CARB‘s statewide inventory to provide background to our evaluation of the emission inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP. We are not finalizing any SIP a ction on the statewide inventory here, only on the South Coast inventories. EPA will address the statewide inventory in a separate rulemaking.

CARB submitted statewide inventories for direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors (except for ammonia) as part of the 2007 State Strategy. See Appendix A for the emission inventory output tables and Appendix F for documentation of the emissions inventory. Inventories are provided for the base year of 2002 and baseline years of 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2 013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2023. 11 These statewide emissions inventories are assembled and maintained by CARB in the California Emission Inventory Development and Reporting System (CEIDARS) and the California Emission Forecasting and Planning I nventory System (CEFS) databases. Both systems are described in Appendix F of the 2007 State Strategy

.

The inventories in Appendix A of the 2007 State Strategy are summer season planning inventories on which the 2007 State Strategy is based. Baseline inventories incorporate reductions from control measures adopted prior to December 2006 . South Coast 2007 AQMP, page 3

- 11, and 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1. Specific adjustments for State and District rules adopted in the 2004 to 2006 time perio d, as well as adjustments to among other things, heavy duty truck VMT in 2005 and pesticide emissions, are described in the introductory section to Appendix A.

The planning inventories for direct PM 2.5 and all PM 2.5 precursors (including ammonia) for the South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area together with additional documentation for the inventories are found in Appendices III and V of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and additional documentation from the District. 12 Average annual day, winter planning day and average summer planning inventories are provided for PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors for the year 2002 (the base year for the attainment and RFP demonstrations), 2005 (the reference year for the air quality modeling )

, and the years 2008, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2023, and 2030 . The inventories use EMFAC2007 for estimating on

- road motor vehicle emissions. See South Coast 2007 AQMP page 3

- 1.These inventories provide the basis for the control measure analysis and the RFP and attainment demonstrations.

As a starting point for the South Coast 2007 AQMP‘s inventor ies, the District used CARB‘s 2002 base year inventory

. The 2002 Inventory was projected to 2005 and future years using CEFS. South Coast AQMP, Appendix I II, p. III

- 1

- 1.

All inventories include emissions from point, area, on

- road, and non

- road engines. None specifically show emissions from non

- anthropogenic sources (that is, natural sources) although

11 The Revised 2007 State Strategy and the 2007 South Coast AQMP address both the 8

- hour ozone standard and the PM 2.5 standards; therefore, baseline inventories are given not only for years of importance for PM 2.5 plans but also ones of importance for 8

- hour ozone plans.

12 Electronic mail from Kathy Hsiao, SCAQMD to Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, RE: NH3 numbers for SCAB, dat ed October 29, 2010.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

of the South Coast AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 18 inventories developed for input into the air quality mo deling do include such sources. South Coast 2007 AQMP , p. 1

- 4.

A sum mary of the planning inventory for the plan‘s base year of 2002 and baseline years of 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2014 from the South Coast 2007 AQMP is p rovided in Table A

- 1
below.

3. Proposed Action s on Emissions Inventor ies

In our November 2010 proposal and July 2011 amended proposal on the South Coast
2007 PM 2.5 SIP, we propos ed to find that the 2002 emissions inventory in the 2007 State Strategy and the South Coast 2007 AQMP met the CAA section 172(c)(3) requirement for the State to submit a plan provision that includes a ―comprehensive, accurate, current, inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant .‖ We also proposed to find that the
baseline inve ntories in the South Coast 2007 PM 2.5 SIP provided an adequate basis for the reasonably available control measure, reasonable further progress and attainment demonstrati ons in the Plan. See 2010 TSD, section II.A. and 75 FR 71294, at 71298; 2011 TSD, sect ion II.A.; and 76 FR 41562, at 41567

.

4. Evaluation and Conclusions

The emissions inventories were made available to the public for comment at the same time as the draft 2007 State Strategy and the draft 2007 South Coast 2007 AQMP, and were subject to public hearing as part of final version of the Strategy and AQMP . See CARB Resolution 07

- 28, p.3, and South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board Resolution 07

- 9 : June 1, 2007

, p. 2.

Consistent with the PM 2.5 implementation rule, the Sout h Coast 2007 AQMP uses a 2002 base year inventory. When considered together with the inventory documentation in Appendix F of the State Strateg y, Appendix III of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, and the air quality modeli ng documentation in Appendix V of the P lan, it contains all the elements required by EPA‘s emission inventory guidance.

The inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP are based on the most current and accurate information available to the State and District at the time the Plan was developed a nd submitted (including using the latest EPA

- approved version of California‘s mobile source emissions model, EMFAC2007), address comprehensively all source categories in the South Coast nonattainment area , and meet the applicable requirements of EPA‘s inve ntory guidance.

For these reasons, EPA is approving the 2002 base year emissions inventory in the South Coast 2007 AQMP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR § 51.1008(a)(1)

. We also find that the baseline inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP provide an adequate basis for the reasonably available control measure, reasonable further progress and attainment demonstrations.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

of the South Coast AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 19 We received a number of comments on our proposed approval of the emission s inventory . We have reviewed these comment s and provided respon ses to them. See section III. of
this TSD. No issues raised in these comments changed our finding that the emissions inventories in the South C oast 2007 AQMP for PM2.5 are consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.

Post

- Submittal Revisions to the Plan’s Base Year and Projected Baseline Inventories

From late 2007 until mid

- 2009 , California has experience d an economic recession that greatly reduced and continues to a ffect the level of activity in the State‘s construction and goods movement sectors. 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E. As a result, current and projected emission levels from these categories are now substantially lower than were projected in the
South Coas t 2007AQMP . At this time, EPA will refle ct these recession impacts (in combination with the technical corrections to the inventory discussed below) as a line

- item adjustments to the baseline inventories.

These recession

- caused decreases in emissions do not affect either the Plan‘s base year (2002) or modelin g year (2005) inventories and thus do not change the carrying capacity estimates in the Plan (that is, they do not affect the target level of overall emissions needed to demonstrate attainment) or the st arting point for the reasonable further progress demonstration. Their principal effect is to reduce the reductions needed from the Plan‘s control strategy to demonstrate RFP and attainment.
CARB also made technical changes to the inventory for diesel t rucks and buses as part of its Dece mber 2010 rulemaking amending its In

- Use On

- Road Truck and Bus Rule. These included updates and revisions to:
regional allocation factors

out

- of

- state vehicle miles traveled estimates new vehicle inventory categories lifetime mileage assumptions

See CARB, Staff Report: Initial State of Reas ons for Proposed Rulemaking, Pro posed Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulations, The Drayage Truck Regulation and the Tractor

Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation , October 2010, p. 17

. CARB also comprehensively updated and revised the inventory for off

- road equipment as part its December 2010 rulemaking amending the In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment Rule. These included updates and revisions to the:
equipment population hours of use
load facto rs future equipment sales and activity

See CARB, Staff Report: Initial State of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for In

- Use Off

- Road Diesel

- Fueled Fleets and the Off

- Road Large Spark

- Ignition Fleet Requirements, Octobe r 2010, pp. 16

- 17.
CARB estimates that these technical revisions reduce the total 2002 base year NO x and
PM 2.5 inventory by approximately 4 percent and 5 percent, respectively. CARB Progress Report Supplement, Attachment 1. We took the difference between t he ―SIP‖ estimate and the ―CurrentTSD for the Final Rulemaking

of the South Coast AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 20 Estimate‖ columns in Attachment 1, Table SC

- 2002, to the May 18 letter and divided by the ―SIP‖ estimate to calculate the percent change in the inventories. These change are s mall enough that we do not believe they affect the overall accuracy of the inventory given the normal and unavoidable uncertainties in emissions inventories.
We have also considered the potential effects of the revisions to the truck, bus, and off

road equipment emission s inventory categories on the approvability of the attainment and RFP demonstrations and the contingency measure provisions in the Plan and concluded they do not adversely aff

ect them. See sections II.D.1. and II.H. of this TSD. We note that the State and District are currently workin g on a revision to the S outh Coast PM 2.5 SIP to address the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard. These revisions are due to EPA in December 2012 and will , as required by CAA section 172(c)(3), include the latest updates to the emissions inventories.

Both the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Districts reviewed and evaluated the changes to the CARB baseline inventories from changes to the emissions inventories for the diesel heavy duty truck, bus, and off

- road equipment categories. Both Districts concluded that the emissions inventory changes for these categories were improvements compared to the 2007 State Strategy inventories for these categories. See letter, Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer, SCAQMD, and Seyed Sadedrin, Executive Director, SJVUAPCD, to James G oldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, dated December 14, 2010.TSD for the Proposed Approval

of the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 June 26, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 21

Table A

- 1

. 

### Emission Inventory Summary for the South Coast PM 2 

### . 5 

### Nonattainment Area (tons per day) Annual Average Day Winter Average Day
2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014
NOx Stationary and Area
Sources 93 95 87 78 76.4 100 104 96 88 86

On

- Road Mobile Sources 628 576 435 361 292 680 620 468 387 312

Off

- Road Mobile
Sources 372 358 332 303 285 367 352 324 296 278

Total 1093 1029 854 743 654 1147 1076 889 771 677

VOC Stationary and Area Sources 302 267 245 250 257 303 272 252 258 265

On

- Road Mobile
Sources 362 298 210 172 144 382 316 223 182 153

Off

- Road Mobile
Sources 180 175 153 137 127 158 158 138 125 116

844 740 608 559 528 843 746 614 565 533TSD for the Proposed Approval

of the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 June 26, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 22

Table A

- 1

. 

### Emission Inventory Summary for the South Coast PM 2 

### . 5 

### Nonattainment Area (tons per day) Annual Average Day Winter Average Day
2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014
Total

PM 2.5 Stationary and Area Sources 60.1 64.7 65.19 66.8 68.5 66.6 76.9 77.6 79.52 81.6

On

- Road Mobile
Sources 18.1 19.8 17.75 17.30 16.83 18.2 19.8 17.8 17.33 16.9

Off

- Road Mobile
Sources 20.9 21.1 18.56 17.5 16.26 19.6 19.8 17.0 15.74 14.3

Total 99 105.6 101.50 102 102 106 116 112 113 113

SOx Stationary Sources
Area Sources 21.7 22.2 16.60 16.35 16.24 23 23 17.46 17.20 17.10

On

- Road Mobile Sources 4.3 4.3 2.10 2.15 2.22 4.2 4.3 2.05 2.10 2.18

Off

- Road Mobile
Sources 27.3 35.2 22.2 21.51 24.4 27.3 35 22.1 21.5 24.4

Total 53.3 61.7 40.9 40.01 42.8 53.5 62.5 41.7 40.8 43.6TSD for the Proposed Approval

of the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 June 26, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 23

Table A

- 1

. 

### Emission Inventory Summary for the South Coast PM 2 

### . 5 

### Nonattainment Area (tons per day) Annual Average Day Winter Average Day
2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014

NH 3

Stationary Sources Area Sources n/a 75 n/a n/a 68 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

On

- Ro ad Mobile Sources n/a 29 n/a n/a 15 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Off

- R oad Mobile
Sources n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Total 104 n/a n/a 83 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Source: South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, Tables A

- 2, A

- 3, A

- 5, A

- 6, C

- 2, C

- 3, C

- 5, C

- 6 and electronic mail from Kathy Hsiao, SCAQMD to Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, ―RE: NH3 numbers for SCAB,‖ dated October 29, 2010. n/a = not availableTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 24 

### B. Air Quality Modeling

1. Requirements for Air Qua lity Modeling

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires states to submit a plan which ―shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.‖ Pursuant to this section, the
PM 2.5 implementation rule requires the State to submit, within three years of the designation of one of its areas as nonattainment, an attainment demonstration showing that the area will attain the annual and 24

– hour standards as expeditiously as practicable.

The PM 2.5 implementation rule requires states to s ubmit an attainment demonstration based on modeling results. 40 CFR § 51.1007, Attainment demonstration and modeling requirements, (a) states :

For any area designated as nonattainment for the PM 2.5 NAAQS, the State must submit
an attainment demonstration showing that the area will attain the annual and 24

- hour standards as expeditiously as practicable. The demonstration must meet the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.112 and Appendix W of this part and must include inventory data, modeling results, and emission s reduction analyses on which the State has based its projected attainment date. The attainment date justified by the demonstration must be consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR § 51.1004(a). The modeled strategies must be consistent with requirements in 40 CFR § 51.1009 for RFP and in 40 CFR § 51.1010 for RACT and RACM. The attainment demonstration and supporting air quality modeling should be consistent with EPA‘s PM 2. 5 modeling guidance.‖ 13

See also 72 FR 20586 at 20665.

The procedure for modeli ng PM 2.5 as part of an attainment SIP are contained in EPA‘ s

― Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 and Regional Haze ,‖ EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007, available

at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/final

- 03

- pm

- rh

- guidance.pdf (Guidance).

Overview of the EPA Recommende d Modeled Attainment Test for PM 2.5

A modeled attainment test is an exercise in which an air quality model is used to simulate current and future air qu ality. If future estimates PM 2.5 concentrations are less than the NAAQS,
then this element of the attainment test is satisfied. Our recommended test is one in which model estimates are used in a ―relative‖ rather than ―absolute‖ sense. That is, we take the ratio of the model‘s future to current (baseline) predictions at monitors. We call these ratios, relative response factors (RRF). Future PM 2.5 concentrations are estimated at existing monitoring sites by multiplying a modeled relative response factor at locations ―near‖ each monitor by the

13 EPA‘s November 9, 2005 final rule revising the ―Guideline on Air Quality Models‖ in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix
W is available at www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/appw_05.pdf.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 25 observation

- based, monitor

- specific, ―baseline‖ design value. The resulting predicted ―future

conc entration s‖ are compared to NAAQ S.

The PM 2.5 attainment t est reflects the fact that PM 2.5 is a mix ture. In the test, ambient
PM 2.5 is divided into major components. These are: mass associated with sulfates, nitrates, ammonium, organic carbon, elemental carbon, p article bound water, ―other‖ primary inorganic particulate matter, and passively collected mass.

A separate RRF is calculated for each of the PM 2.5 components (except passive mass). We call each of these site

- specific ratios, component

- specific RRFs. Fu ture PM 2.5 design values are estimated at existing monitoring sites by multiplying modeled relative response factors ―near‖ each monitor times the observed ―component specific design value‖. This latter quantity is estimated using measured site

- specific de sign values for PM 2.5 in concert with available measured composition data. Future site

- specific PM 2.5 design values at a site are estimated by adding the future year values of the seven PM 2.5 components. If all future site

- specific PM 2.5 design values are less than or equal to the concentration specified in the NAAQS, the test is passed. 14

2. Overview of the Conceptual Description, Modeling Approach, and Modeling Protocol in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

The South Coast 2007 AQMP provides information on the air q uality modeling, air quality data, and meteorological data in Appendix V. Chapter 1 discusses the overall modeling approach for PM 2.5 as well as other pollutants. Chapter 2 provides a discussion of the analysis for PM 2.5

. The Modeling Protocol is provid ed in Attachment 3 to Appendix V. The following description of the modeling approach is provided in Appendix V, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, and
Attachment 3.

a. Conceptual Description

The federal reference method ( FRM ) data depicted in Figure V

- 2

- 3 , belo w, clearly delineates the extent of the PM 2.5 problem in the Basin. PM 2.5 is essentially a combustion generated pollutant and with the volume of traffic flow, numbers of sources (both point and area) located in the region, concentrations exceed the annual federal standard (15 μg/m3) throughout
the South Coast nonattainment area . The area with the highest annual concentration includes southwest San Bernardino and Northwest Riverside Counties. These areas have design values exceeding 20 μg/m3 and encompass both the Fontana and Rubidoux air monitoring stations. It is important to n ote that the areas with the highest concentrations are directly downwind of a major ammonia source area associated with dairies and poultry farming. These industries are rapidly moving from the Basin and are expected to contribute significantly less to par ticulate formation in future years. 15

14 Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze‖, EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007 p. 15

- 16.

15 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V p. V

- 2

- 10

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 26 Figure V

- 2

- 3 2005 South Coast Air Basin Annual PM2.5 (μg/m3) 16

Figure V

- 2

- 1: MATES

- III 2 005 Annual Distribution of PM 2.5 S pecies (μg/m3)

16 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V

- 2

- 11.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 27 In general, the organic carbon mass accounts for approximately 30 percent o f the total mass (adjusted for the negative contribution of the other category) at each station. Ammonium, sulfate and nitrates account for an approximate 45 percent of the total mass at each location. Rubidoux and Fontana are the most heavily impacted by nitrates. Sulfate is highest in the near coastal or ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach areas, particularly Wilmington and Long Beach. EC and metals measurements were highest at Wilmington accounting for almost 24 percent of the mass when combined. All sites o bserved measurable concentrations of sodium and chloride ions reflecting the influence of the marine air as it is transported inland. 17

b. Annual PM 2.5 Modeling Approach

In the Final 2007 AQMP, CAMx annual average PM 2.5 modeling simulations were generated for 2005, 2014 and 2020 baseline emissions and 2014 and 2020 controlled emissions scenarios. The 2005 CAMx simulation was conducted using baseline monthly temperature and humidity corrected emissions, for a weekday, Saturday and Sunday activity p rofile. Seasonal boundary conditions were extracted from the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) regional modeling simulations (initialized from global air quality model output) in support of the Regional Haze Rule demonstrations. The simulations were driven by MM5 meteorological fields; five day

- simulations with a one day ―ramp

- up‖ period using NCEP model initialization. 18

CAMx simulations used the same region (5 km squared grid, 280 easting and 3650 northing, 65 by 40 grid cells) as that used for the 2003 UAMAERO

- LT analyses. The vertical structure was increased to 11 layers (compared with the 5

- layer analysis of UAMAERO

- LT ), but less than the 19 layers used for the MM5 simulations in an effort to conserve computational resources. MM5 was used to generate the meteorological profile for each day in 2005. The MM5 simulations were generated for the larger SCOS97 modeling domain employing a 5 km square grid and fit to the smaller PM 2.5 grid.

The MM5 simulations were initialized from NCEP analyses and run for 5

- day increments
without the four

- dimensional

- data

- assimilatio n (FDDA) option. Speciated PM 2.5 data measured from the Dis trict‘s Multiple Air Toxic Evaluation Program (MATES

- III) during 2005 provided the characterization for evaluation and validation of the CAMx annual and episodic
demonstrations.

Model performance was evaluated aga inst monitored particulate PM 2.5 air qua lity data for six species (ammonium, nitrates, sulfates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and primary) and total particulate mass. Annual data from eight MATES

- III monitoring sites, including Los Angeles, Anaheim, Wilmington, Long Beach, Compton, Burbank, Rubidoux, and Fontana, were used in the validation. The future year attainment demonstration was analyzed for 2014 controlled emissions, thus enabling an annual demonstration based on a control strategy that would be fully implemented by January 1, 2015.

Future year PM 2.5 air quality (2014 and 2020) was determined using site and species specific RRF‘s applied to 2005 PM 2.5 design values per EPA guidance documents. The quarterly

17 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p.V

- 2

- 5

. 18 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V

- 1

- 7, V

- 1

- 8

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 28 RRF‘s were calculated from the controlled 2014 simulation and the 2005 baselin e simulation. The design values were determined from the federal reference method Size Selective Inlet (SSI) High

- Vol PM 2.5 data measured at the District‘s air monitoring network from 2003

- 2005. The SSI
PM 2.5 design values were calculated by quarter then apportioned by species based on the distribution observed in the MATES

- III data.

c. Episodic 24

- Hr Average PM 2.5 Modeling Approach

T wo options are provided to determine RRFs for the future year 24

- hour average PM 2.5 attainment demonstration. The first option uses episodic modeling with day

- specific emissions for representative meteorological episodes to calculate RRFs and apply the RRF to the design value. The second approach proposed by EPA relies on an average response to implementation of emissions c ontrol for the top 25 percentile of days in each quarter of the annual model simulation. The maximum 24

- hour PM 2.5 design value (based on 2003

- 2005 data) for the Basin (64.8 μg/m3) meets the current federal standard. Of great interest is how will the 24 h our PM 2.5 concentration fair compared to the new standard of 35 μg/m3 when that standard become effective in 2010. On the basis of our initial simulations and analysis, the District staff feels that the future design calculation based on the top 25 percent ile day, quarterly is more conservative than the episodic modeling. AQMD recommends the use of the 25 percentile approach. 19

Episodic Simulations

The first approach to determine future year 24

- hour maximum or 98th percentile PM 2.5 impacts relied on the si mulation of one or more representative peak PM2.5 episodes where observed concentrations exceed 65 μg/m3. The peak PM 2.5 24

- hour average concentration observed in the Basin during the 2005 MATES

- III monitoring program (110 μg/m3 at Rubidoux)
occurred on Oc tober 22, 2005. Episode specific emissions for the peak and preceding days were temperature and humidity corrected and MM5/FDDA simulations were generated to provide the meteorological input. 20

Quarterly Top 25 Percentile

For this approach, the 2005 observational data are sorted by quarter of year and further into the top 25 percent of days in each quarter. PM 2.5 RRFs are calculated on a quarterly basis from the future and base year annual simulations for only those days in the top 25 percentile per quarter. The quarterly RRFs for the ―top 25 percent days‖ are then applied to the quarterly 24

- hour average PM 2.5 design values to develop quarterly future year design values which are later aggregated into an annual 24

- hour futu re year design value to assess attainment. (The measured quarterly 24

- hour average PM 2.5 design values were comprised of the 98th percentile data in each quarter for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005). Several variations of the episodic and quarterly top 25 pe rcentile future year calculations were conducted and are presented and discussed in Chapter
2. 21

19 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V

- 1

- 8

20 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V

- 1

- 9

21 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V

- 1

- 9TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 29 d. Modeling Protocol, Peer Review, and Advisory Committee

The Modeling Protocol for Ozone and Particulate Matter Modeling in Support of the South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 Air Quality Management Plan Update Draft Report May 9, 2006

, and a Summary of Preliminary Critiques of Peer Reviewers of the Modeling Protocol are included in the South Coast 2007 AQMP. 22

The protocol for the South Coast 2007 AQMP was reviewed by a technical and advisory group.

The Scientific, Technical, and Modeling Peer Review Advisory Group (STMPRAG) role expands upon that o f the MWG and includes experts in socioeconomic assessment and human health, providing review of AQMD modeling, monitoring and related scientific issues. The STMPRAG assists AQMD in resolving technical issues related to air quality and socio

- economic mode ling by providing ongoing technical review and consensus of procedures and analyses. The STMPRAG consists of approximately 20 members appointed by the Governing Board, with representatives from USEPA, CARB, Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG), the California Small Business Alliance (CSBA), Southern California Edison (SCE), Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), and technical experts from universities and consultant firms. 23

3. Air Quality Model Selection

EPA Recommendations

A model should meet several general criteria for it to be a candidate for consideration in an attainment demonstration or uniform rate of progress assessment. These general criteria are consistent with requirements in 40 CFR 51.112 and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W ( U.S. EPA, 2005d). We are not recommending a specific model for use in attainment demonstration or uniform rate of progress assessment. At present, there is no single model which has been extensively tested and shown to be clearly superior than its altern atives. Thus, 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W does not identify a ―preferred model‖ for use in attainment demon strations of the NAAQS for . Based on the language in 40CFR Part 51 Appendix W, models used for these purposes should meet requirements for ―alternati ve models‖. 24

States/Tribes should use a non

- proprietary model, which is a model whose source code is available for free (or for a ―reasonable‖ cost). Furthermore, the user must be able to revise the code to perform diagnostic analyses and/or to improve t he model‘s ability to describe observations in a credible manner. Several additional prerequisites should be met for a model to be used to support an attainment demonstration.

22 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachments 3 and 4

. 23 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p.20 DRAFT Modeling Protocol for Ozone And Particulate Matter Modeling in Support of the South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 Air Quali ty Management Plan Update Draft Report May 9, 2006

. 24 Guidance p.136

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 30 (1) It should have received and been revised in response to a scientific peer review. (2) It should be appropriate for the specific application on a theoretical basis. (3) It should be used with a data base which is adequate to support its application. (4) It should be shown to have performed well in past ozone or PM modeling applic ations. (If the application is the first for a particular model, then the State should note why it believes the new model is expected to perform sufficiently.) (5) It should be applied consistently with a protocol on methods and procedures.

South Coast 2007 AQMP

The selection process, models considered, issues, and comments for the air quality and meteorological model s are discussed in the modeling protocol on pages 25

- 27, and summarized in Table 3: Summary of Proposed 2007 AQMP Model Selection and Appl ication, of the modeling protocol. 25

The Final South Coast 2007 AQMP employs CAMx using the ―one atmosphere‖ approach comprised of the CB

- IV gas phased chemistry and a static two

- mode particle size aerosol module as the particulate modeling platform. 26

Th e preliminary PM 2.5 modeling approach crafted for the South Coast 2007 AQMP was to move the empirical AERO

- LT chemistry from the UAM to CAMx to take advantage of the advanced dispersion platform. Parallel testing was conducted to evaluate the CAMx/AERO

- LT performance against CAMx using the ―one atmosphere‖ approach comprised of the CB

- IV chemistry and a static two

- mode particle size aerosol module. The results of the analysis indicated that the two model/chemistry packages were performing similarly and that the speed of simulating an annual average using CAMx ―one atmosphere‖ was approximately equal to that of the AERO

- LT combination. As a consequence, the PM 2.5 modeling approach shifted to the use of the CAMx ―one atmosphere‖ as the primary tool. 27

Discussi on

EPA believes that the modeling platform selected for the 2007 was appropriate for the PM 2.5 modeling which was used as a basis for the attainment demonstration in the 2007 AQMP.

4. Episode Selection

EPA Recommendations

T he South Coast 2007 AQMP us es the first of the two recommended approaches, described below

.

25 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p.13

- 18 DRAFT Modeling Protocol for Ozone And Particulate Matter Modeling in Support of the South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 Air Quality Management Plan Update Draft Report May 9, 2006.

26 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V

- 1

- 6.

27 South Coast 2007 AQ MP, Appendix V, p. V

- 1

- 7.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 31 Model every day for a full year (or multiple years). This is recommended for both disp ersion modeling of primary PM 2.5 components and photochemical modeling of secondary and primary components. Many area s that violate the 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS will also violate the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, full year modeling may already exist or is being planned for the annual NAAQS attainment test. States that have nonattainment areas that violat e both
PM 2.5 standards should take advantage of planning opportunities to address both standards at the same time. Modeling at least a full year will also help ensure that a sufficient number of days are included in the RRF calculations. 28

South Coast 2007 AQMP

Annual PM 2.5 Modeling

In the Final 2007 AQMP, CAMx annual average PM 2.5 modeling simulations were generated for 2005, 2014 and 2020 baseline emissions and 2014 and 2020 controlled emissions scenarios. The 2005 CAMx simulation was conducted using b aseline monthly temperature and humidity corrected emissions, for a weekday, Saturday

, and Sunday activity profile. 29

Episodic Simulations

The first approach to determine future year 24

- hour maximum or 98th percentile PM 2.5 impacts relied on the simulation of one or more representative peak PM 2.5 episodes where observed concentrations exceed 65 μg/m3. The peak PM 2.5 24

- hour average concentration observed in the Basin during the 2005 MATES

- III monitoring program (110 μg/m3 at Rubidoux) occurred on October 22, 2005. Episode specific emissions for the peak and preceding days were temperature and humidity corrected and MM 5/FDDA simulations were generated to provide the meteorological input.

Discussion

EPA believes that the modeling of the full year for 2005

, and along with the episode specific modeling meets EPA recommendations for episode selection

.

5. Domain Size and Spatial Resolution

a. Domain Size

EPA Recommendations

The principal determinants of model domain size are the nature PM 2.5 problem and the scale of the emissions which impact the nonattainment area. Isolated nonattainment areas that are not impa cted by regional transport of PM and its precursors may be able to use a relatively small domain. Some areas of the western U.S. may fall into this category. The modeling domain

28 Guidance p. 147

29 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V

- 1

- 8.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 32 should be designed so that all major upwind source areas that influence the d ownwind nonattainment area are included in the modeling domain. The influence of boundary conditions should be minimized to the extent possible. 30

South Coast 2007 AQMP

Modeling Domain

The CAMx modeling domain was defined by 2600 5 km squared grid cells a Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection beginning at 275 easting through 3670 northing, using a 65 by 40 grid cell structure. This is same grid specification that was used for the 2003
UAMAERO

- LT analyses. Figure V

- 2

- 4 depicts the modeling domain. The PM 2.5 domain extends approximately 80 km offshore to the west of the middle Basin. The domain captures the international shipping routes that extend parallel to the coast (northwest and southeast) and due west from the port areas. The northern boundar y of the domain extends to Santa Barbara County and Kern County while the southern boundary resides primarily in Northern San Diego County. The desert portions of Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial
counties define the eastern 31 boundary of the modeling domain. The modeling domain is smaller than both the ozone modeling and MM5 domain. The vertical structure for the CAMx modeling was increased to 8 layers of varying depth (compared with the 5

- layer analysis of UAMAERO

LT) but less than the 19 layers used for the MM5 simulations in effort to conserve computational resources. The top of the modeling domain was set at 5,000 m.

30 Guidance p. 152

31 South Coast AQMP , Appendix V, p. V

- 2

- 15, V

- 2

- 16

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 33 Figure V

- 2

- 4: PM 2.5 Modeling Domain

Discussion

EPA believes that the air quality model domain size is appropria te, considering the nature
PM 2.5 problem

, and the scale of the emissions which impact the nonattainment area. EPA believes that the modeling domain is sufficiently large so that all major upwind source areas that
influence the downwind nonattainment area are included in the modeling domain

, and the influence of boundary conditions are minimized to the extent possible.

b. Horizontal Resolution

EPA Recommendations

The bottom line of the preceding discussion is that we feel comfortable recommending that St ates may use grid cell sizes as large as 12 km for urban scale applications addressing secondary components of particulate matter. We are less sure about an acceptable upper limit for cell size in applications addressing primary components. We believe it i s prudent to assume that, in some cases, cells as small as 4 km (or possibly smaller) are needed. Those implementing the modeling/analysis protocol may wish to perform a diagnostic test using a grid model without chemistry to see whether estimated RRF‘s fo r primary components are affected if one decreasesTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 34 the grid cell size from 12 km to 4km. Alternatively, large sources of primary PM can be modeled with a dispersion model or a combination of grid and dispersion models (see Section 5.3). 32

South Coast 2007 AQMP

For the South Coast 2007 AQMP ozone, particulate and meteorological modeling, a horizontal grid resolution of 5 km is proposed to be used for the air quality modeling. No grid nesting is anticipated. This resolution is consistent with the grid resol ution used in earlier photochemical modeling studies for the South Coast Air Basin and for San Diego. In addition, this will reduce resources needed to create gridded emissions, which are based on 5 km grid cells 33

Discussion

EPA believe s the grid resol ution of 5 km is meets EPA recommendations f or this application.

c. Vertical Layers

EPA Recommendations

There is no correct minimum number of vertical layers needed in an attainment demonstration. The vertical resolution will vary depending on the application. Recent applications of one atmosphere models (with model tops at 100mb) have used anywhere from 12 to 21 vertical layers with 8

- 15 layers approximately within the boundary layer (below 2500m) and 4

- 6 layers above the PBL. 34

South Coast 2007 AQ MP

The vertical structure for the CAMx modeling was increased to 8 layers of varying depth (compared with the 5

- layer analysis of UAMAERO

- LT) but less than the 19 layers used for the MM5 simulations in effort to conserve computational resources. The top o f the modeling domain was set at 5,000 m. 35 The modeling protocol includes a table which lists the Vertical Structures for the CAMx Ozone and PM Simulations with Corresponding MM5 Meteorological Model Layers. 36

32 Guidance p. 157

33 South Coast 2007 AQ M P , Appendix V, Attachment 3, Modeling protocol p.34

. 34 G uidance p. 159

35 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p V

- 2

- 16

. 36 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p.38 DRAFT Modeling ProtocolTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 35 Discussion

EPA believes that t he number of vertical layers in the 2007 AQPM meets EPA‘s recommendation for number of vertical layers.

6. Initial and Boundary Conditions

EPA Recommendations

If there is no larger regional model application available, then it is recommended that background boundary conditions be used to specify initial and boundary concentrations for the attainment demonstration modeling. However, concentration fields derived from a larger domain regional or global chemistry model (i.e. nesting approach) is considered more credible than theTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 36 assumption of static concentrations, since the pollutant concentration fields reflect simulated atmospheric chemical and physical processes driven by assimilated meteorological observations. Therefore, we recommend using boundary conditio ns derived from a regional or global scale model, whenever possible. Diagnostic testing which indicates a large impact on the model results from initial or boundary conditions may indicate that the domain is not large enough or the ramp

up period is too sh ort. In either case, it should generally be assumed that initial and boundary conditions do not change in the future. The use of altered initial or boundary conditions in the future year should be documented and justified. 37

South Coast 2007 AQMP

Boundary, Top Conditions

One of the more difficult tasks of the modeling analysis was to determine a method to define the boundary a nd top conditions for the PM 2.5 simulations. Three options were considered for the analysis: (1) assume clean conditions, ( 2) use the ozone modeling to generate concentration files at the PM 2.5 grid boundary, or (3) use hemispheric or global chemistry model output to specify the boundaries. Option

- 3 with minor adjustments was selected for the attainment demonstration.

The Wes tern Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) has been simulating hemispheric particulates with a focus on the western U.S. as part of the Regional Haze Rule demonstration using CAMx on a coarse grid extending into the Pacific Ocean. Model output from the WRAP anal ysis for model year 2002 was extracted and converted to develop hourly b oundary conditions for the PM 2.5 modeling analyses. For this analysis it is assumed that little uncertainty is introduced into the modeling using the 2002 boundary
data. The WRAP mode ling used CB

- IV gaseous chemistry as does the Final 2007 AQMP
PM 2.5 CAMx modeling. The WRAP modeling was conducted on a Lambert Conformal grid and therefore specification of the boundary conditions required remapping to the UTM coordinate system. Additiona l vertical layer avera ging and remapping to the PM 2.5 grid assumed that the concentration is uniform across each vertical layer.

The boundary and top concentration input files for the PM model were created on a month by month basis. The files were derived by averaging the WRAP simulation concentrations at each boundary point, vertical layer for each hour of the day over the course of a month. The values of the various boundary species were averaged over the entire top of the modeling domain for every hour in a month to create the top concentration files. The CAMx top concentration file only uses one concentration value for the top of the model for the entire simulation. Table V

- 2

- 7 provides the representative results for Fe bruary and August. Initial PM 2.5 p erformance with the WRAP boundary conditions suggested that Sox concentrations along the western boundary in the shipping lanes were too low. A minimum concentration of 5 ppb SO 2 was set for the southern boundary extending westward from the San Diego coast to approximately 20 km offshore after which the concentration was phased to a value less than 1 ppb at the extreme southwest corner of the modeling domain. A similar adjustment was made along the

37 Guidance p. 154

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 37 north

- south boundary with SO 2 being set at 5 ppb from the coast of Santa Barbara south to approximately 15 km offshore, again being reduced to less than 1 ppb at the southwest
corner of the domain. 38

Future Boundary, Top and Initial Air Quality Conditions

For the future year scenari os, the boundary, region top and ambient air quality concentrations were adjusted to reflect projected emissions reductions from the 2005
base

- year.

Discussion

EPA believes that the boundary and top conditions are appropriate for this application. The South Coast 2007 AQMP states that the future year initial and boundary conditions were adjusted, but does not discuss the methodology for this adjustment. The methodology should be discussed in the mid

- course correction.

7. Meteorological Model

EPA Recom mendations

a. Meteorological Model Selection

A description of the methods used to generate the meteorological fields should be included in the modeling protocol. In cases in which standard meteorological modeling (e.g., MM5, RAMS, or WRF in a retrospective analysis mode) is not used, it is recommende d that a detailed description of the technique that is used to generate the three

- dimensional meteorological fields be shared with the appropriate EPA regional office(s) prior to conducting the air quality modeling analysis. 39

b. Meteorological Model Dom ain

It is expected that most attainment demonstrations will cover large areas and use nested grids. The outermost grid should capture all upwind areas that can reasonably be expected to influence local conce ntrations of ozone, and/or . In terms of selecti ng an appropriate meteorological modeling domain, one should extend the grid 3 to 6 cells beyond the domains of each air quality modeling grid to avoid boundary effects. For example, if 4 km grid cells are to be used in the fine portion of a nested regiona l air quality model, then the meteorological fields
at this detail would need to extend 12

- 24 km beyond the bounds of the 4 km grid used for air quality predictions. In terms of grid resolution, EPA recommends that the dynamic meteorological models use the same grid resolution as desired for the air quality model applications. In some cases, however, this may not always be feasible. One possible reason for modeling with meteorology using a different grid resolution is in the case of unacceptable model perfo rmance from the meteorological model at the desired grid resolution. In other instances, the

38 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p. V

- 2

- 17

. 39 Guidance p. 161

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 38 need for finer resolution may be emissions

- driven more than meteorologically

- driven and the costs do not warrant the generation of additional resolution in the met eorological data. In these specific situations it is recommended that the air quality model application use available results from meteorological models on the next coarser scale (i.e., 36 km for a desired 12 km estimate, 12 km for a desired 4 km estimate) . The coarse grid meteorological fields can be mapped to the more finely resolved air quality modeling domain.

c. Data Assimilation

As noted above, the use of FDDA helps to keep the model predictions from widely diverging from what was actually observed to occur at a particular point in time/space. However, if used improperly, FDDA can significantly degrade overall model performance and introduce computational artifacts (Tesche and McNally, 2001). Inappropriately strong nudging coefficients can distort t he magnitude of the physical terms in the underlying atmospheric thermodynamic equations and result in "patchwork" meteorological fields with strong gradients between near

- site grid cells and the remainder of the grid. Additionally, if specific meteorologi cal features are expected to be important for predicting the location and amount of pollution formed, based on an area's conceptual model, then the meteorological modeling should be set up to ensure that FDDA does not prevent the model from forming these f eatures (e.g. nocturnal low

- level wind jets). In general, analysis nudging strengths should be no greater than 1.0 x 10

- 4 for winds and temperatures and 1.0 x 10

- 5 for humidity. In the case of observation nudging (i.e., FDDA based on individual observation s as opposed to analysis fields), it is recommended that the resultant meteorological fields be examined to ensure that the results over the entire domain are still consistent. Further, based on past experience, we recommend against using FDDA below the bo undary layer for thermodynamic variables like temperature and humidity because of the potential for spurious convection. If the dynamic model is applied without FDDA, it is suggested
that the simulation durations be shorter than 24 hours.

d. Meteorologic al Model Performance

Operational Evaluation: The operational evaluation results should focus on the values and distributions of specific meteorological parameters as paired with and compared to observed
data. It is recommended that the observation

- model matching be paired as closely as possible in space and time. Typical statistical comparisons of the key meteorological parameters105 will include: comparisons of the means, mean bias, mean normalized bias, mean absolute error, mean
absolute normalized err or, root mean square error (systematic and unsystematic), and an index of agreement. For modeling exercises over large domains and entire ozone seasons or years, it is recommended that the operational evaluation be broken down into individual segments such as geographic sub regions and/or months/seasons to allow for a more comprehensive assessment of the meteorological strengths and weaknesses. 40

40 Guidance p. 163

- 167

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 39 South Coast 2007 AQMP

The selection process for the meteorological model is discussed in the Model Protocol

. 41

The models considered are listed in Table 3: Summary of Proposed 2007 AQMP Model Selection and Application. 42

South Coast 2007 AQMP Meteorological Modeling Approach

The SCOS97 field study generated a dataset with a relatively high spatial density of meteorological observations. While this dataset suggests that an objective/diagnostic model could be adequate to develop the meteorological parameter fields required for air quality modeling of the August SCOS97 episode, there are large portions of the mod eling domain

— such as over the ocean or the inland desert

— where there are few observations. The approach for the 2007 AQMP modeling will be to use the MM5 prognostic model with a 5 km grid resolution. The meteorological boundary conditions for MM5 are

gener ated using the output from a Global Climate Model (GCM) with a relatively coarse grid of 45 km. The MM5 prognostic model uses more accurate and complete physics than the diagnostic models used previously. The MM5 has relatively good replication of meteorol ogical features of the Basin, such as the coastal eddies, Santa Ana winds, recirculation, & strong inversions. The recent air quality models are designed to use inputs from the prognostic models, such as MM5, and the use of such a model is strongly

encoura ged by USEPA. In the past, the use of MM5 meteorological fields in air quality models has brought limited success in the prediction of peak ozone concentrations that result from extreme meteorological conditions and complex distribution of precursor emissi ons. However, the prediction of ozone with MM5 meteorological fields on most days is comparable to the results using other models. Since the air quality model will be employed in more of a relative sense for the 2007 AQMP, with the use of relative reductio n factors instead of peak concentration comparisons, the MM5 is an appropriate choice for the AQMP modeling. The premise is that the magnitude of RRF will reflect the ozone concentration resulting from the various meteorological episode classifications. Wi th the use of the MM5 meteorological model, the AQMP modeling effort will move closer to the ―one atmosphere‖ air quality modeling perspective (i.e., ozone and fine particles simulated with the same model). The successful application of this prognostic mod el is critical for the development of multipollutant control strategies. Several MM5 initialization fields and data ingest options are also being explored for the 2007 AQMP modeling effort: 43

• MM5 model initialized with the National Centers for Environmen tal Prediction (NCEP) 12 km ETA/North American Model (NAM); • MM5 model with Aerospace Corp 3DVAR forecast fields; • Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) community model using Aerospace Corporation 3DVAR; • MM5 model with NCEP database of upper air and s urface observations and the

41 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3.

42 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p. 13

. 43 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p. 24

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 40 1degree by 1 degree Global Tropospheric Analysis • Above method of MM5 with NCEP database and Global Tropospheric Analysis and four

dimensional data assimilation (F DDA) of AQMD station meteorological data (this method is

more ma ss consistent, but may be difficult to capture localized wind impacts (e.g., transport to San Fernando Valley); • Hybrid CALMET with MM5 as background field

Meteorological Modeling Domain

Nested domains of 15 km and 5 km are defined within MM5 to simulat e meteorological fields for the fine grid scale of the modeling domain. The modeling domain for MM5 is
defined in a Lambert

- Conformal projection with two parallels to account for curvature of the Earth within the modeling domain over such a large region. F igure 1 shows the nested MM5 domains. Figure 2 shows the finest scale (interior) MM5 domain, covering most of
southern California. The vertical structure of MM5 is defined in a terrain

- following, ―sigma‖ coordinate system based upon a normalized pressure i ndex. The 30 vertical layers defined for MM5 to approximately 15,000 m above ground level (AGL) can be transformed to fit the requirements of any air quality model. The MM5 meteorological fields are converted from Lambert

- Conformal projection to UTM coordi nates for input into the air quality models.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 41 Figure 1: Nested MM5 Domains 44

The horizontal grid resolution of the outermost domain is 45 km, for the middle domain is 15 km, and for the fine scale domain is 5 km

.

Vertical Resolution

For the terrain

- fol lowing MM5 model, the proposed vertical layer consists of 34 layers to a height of over 15,000 meters AGL, ( as shown in Table 6, Vertical Structures for the CAMx Ozone and PM Simulations with Corresponding MM5 Meteorological Model Layers, below)

. For input into the air quality model, the 34 layers are reduced to match the vertical resolution of the ozone or particulate matter air quality. 45

44 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p. 30

. 45 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, Attachment 3, p. 33

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 42 Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses

The South Coast 2007 AQMP indicates that Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses for the meteorological modeling have been performed. 46

Discussion

EPA believes the meteorological model choice, domain, horizontal resolution and vertical resolution are appropriate for this application. The South Coast 2007 AQMP discusses

46 South Coast 2007 AQ MP, Appendix V , Attachment 3. p. 52TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 43 Qualit ative and Quantitative Analysis for the meteorological modeling. The results of the analysis should be included in the mid

- course correction.

8. Air Quality Model Performance

EPA Recommendations

PM 2.5 consists of many components and is typically measure d with a 24

- hour averaging
time. Th e individual components of PM 2.5 should be evaluated individually. In fact, it is more important to evaluate the components of PM 2.5 than to evaluate total PM 2.5 itself. Apparent ―g ood performance‖ for total PM 2.5 does no t indicate whether modeled PM 2.5 is predicted for ―the right reasons‖ (the proper mix of components). If performance of the major components is good, then performance for total PM 2.5 should also be good. This section contains some analyses that have been f ound to be particularly useful for PM analyses (such as fractional bias and error). We also show examples of some new types of display plots such as ―soccer plots‖ and ―bugle plots‖. Soccer plots provide a convenient way to display a summary of model perfo rmance (including bias and error at the same time). Bugle plots have variable bias and error goals, based on ambient concentrations. This allows for a higher percentage error and bias at very low concentrations. This recognizes the fact that models often h ave difficulty in accurately predicting near background concentrations. It may be useful to prioritize examination of model performance
within and near the non

- attainment area(s) of interest. Additionally, priority may be placed on examination of the days that are potentially used in the attainment test (the d ays > 65 ug/m3 for
24

- hour PM 2.5 ).

Statistics: We recommend calculating st atistics for components of PM 2.5 , and PM precursors. Useful metrics include mean fractional bias and mean fractional error, normalized mean bias, and normalized mean error. Formulas for estimating these metrics at an individual monitoring site, j, are given in the Guidance. 47 Other stat istics such as mean bias, mean error, root mean square error, correlation coefficients, etc. should also be calculated to the extent that they provide meaningful information and defined in Appendix A of the Guidance. Appendix B provides a summary of recen t model performance evaluations conducted by other modeling groups.

• Mean Fractional Bias (percent): Normalized bias can become very large when a minimum threshold is not used. Fractional bias is used as a substitute. The fractional bias for cases with
f actors of 2 under

- and over

- prediction are

- 67 and + 67 percent, respectively (as opposed to

- 50 and +100 percent, when using normalized bias).Fractional bias is a useful indicator because it has the advantage of equally weighting positive and negative bia s estimates. The single largest disadvantage is that the predicted concentration is found in both the numerator and denominator.

• Mean Fractional Error (percent): Normalized error can become very large when a minimum threshold is not used. Therefore frac tional error is used as a substitute. It is similar to the fractional bias except the absolute value of the difference is used so that the error is always positive.

47 Guidance p. 202

- 207

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 44 • Normalized Mean Bias (percent): This performance statistic is used as a normalization to facilitate a range of concentration magnitudes. This statistic averages the difference (model

- observed) over the sum of observed values. Normalized mean bias is a useful model performance indicator because it avoids over inflating the observed range of values.

• Normalized Mean Error (percent): This performance statistic is used as a normalization of the mean error to facilitate a range of concentration magnitudes. This statistic averages the difference (model

- observed) over the sum of observed value s. Normalized mean error is a useful model performance indicator because it avoids overinflating the observed range of values.

Averaging Times: Since modeling for the PM 2.5 NAAQS and regional haze will likely require modeling different times of year, seas on

- specific statistics and graphic displays are helpful for evaluating and diagnosing model performance. Statistics and graphics can be averaged for various time scales. For example, statistical metrics and scatter plots can show daily averaged
ambient mod eled pairs, monthly averaged pairs, quarterly (or seasonal averaged) pairs, or annual average pairs. Each of these averaging times can provide useful information. We recommend a range of different averaging times for annual or seasonal modeling. At a minim um, States should examine daily averaged pairs and seasonal (or quarterly) averaged pairs. It should be noted that statistics and plots tend to look ―better‖ as the averaging time increases from daily to monthly to quarterly to annual. As such, daily pairs should always be examined to ensure a detailed look at model performance on the time scale of the FRM and STN measurements (24

- hour average).

South Coast 2007 AQMP

Model Performance Statistics are presented in the South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, pages
V

- 2

- 26 through V

- 2

- 47 and in Appendix V, Attachment 2. A summary of the air quality model performance is presented below.

PM 2.5 Component Species Performance Evaluation for the MATES

- III Sites

In general, nitrate and ammoniu m tend to be over predicted by an average 2 μg/m3 or less at most sites. Ammonium model performance at Rubidoux and Fontana are approximately within 35 percent of observations and within 20 percent or less for nitrate. On average, sulfate is nominally unde r

- predicted however; OC and EC are well simulated at all stations. Model performance for the crustal

- others category indicates an average

over

- prediction of about 1 μg/m3 or 25 percent above observations. Overall, the prediction of total mass reflects the model performance for ammonium, nitrate and the others with a tendency for over

- prediction at about an average level of 4 μg/m3 or approximately 20 percent above observations. 48

48 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p. V

- 2

- 25

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 45 Table V

- 2

- 11b: CAMx 2005 Base Year Nitrate Model Predictions (μg/m3)

Table V

- 2

- 11g: CAMx 2005 Base Year Total Mass Model Predictions (μg/m3)

Annual Average SSI Mass Performance Evaluation

In general, the 2005 base year simulations over

- predict observed PM 2.5 measurements by the FRM methodology. The over prediction is g reatest in the western Basin, in particular metropolitan Los Angeles County. Over prediction in the San Gabriel Valley and eastern Basin is within 60 percent of observations (with the exception of Big Bear Lake which is significantly under

- predicted. ) Sout hern Orange County, Ventura County and the northern desert stations are reasonably well simulated. 49

49 South Coast 2007 AQ M P, Appendix V, V

- 2

- 47

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 46 Table V

- 2

- 12: CAMx Predicted and FRM Observed 2005 Base

- Year Annual Average PM 2.5 50

Discussion

EPA believes that model performance was adequate.

9. Modeled Attainment Test

a. PM 2.5 Annual NAAQS

South Coast 2007 AQMP

SMAT Annual PM 2.5 Attainment Demonstration

As previously outlined, the SMAT is conducted on a quarterly basis using the CAMx model output for the six species from the 2005 base

- year and the 2014 controlled emissions. Quarterly RRFs determined from the modeling are applied to the MATES

III/Sandwich modified quarterly design value component species. Bonded water is
calculated from the concentrations of ammonium, nitrate and sulfate using the AIM polynomial regression equation. Bonded water is not directly reduced by an RRF but is recalculated after applying the RRFs to the ammonium, sulfate and nitrate. Finally, the
blank is added to the mass. Tables V

- 2

- 15a through V

- 2

- 15c provide the 2014 baseline
PM 2.5 air quality at the eight key sites, th e predicted PM 2.5 based on the CARB emissions reduction plan and the estimation of the 2015 controlled annual average PM 2.5 adding the
Distric t‘s emissions reduction overlay to the CARB plan. Without implementin g any additional controls, PM 2.5 concentrations at the key sites will not meet the federal standard by 2015. Regional concentrations of PM 2.5 will be lower with implementation
of the CA RB plan how ever the maximum predicted PM 2.5 concentration, will continue to

50 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p. V

- 2

- 47

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 47 exceed the federal standard by approximately four (4) percent. With implementation of the District overlay to the CARB plan, all stations will meet the federal s tandard of 15.0 μg/ m3. The PM 2.5 annual attainment demonstration calculations using the SMAT and RRFs are provided in Tables V

- A

- 1a through V

- A

- 1h in Attachment A. 51



### 2014 Predicted Baseline PM 2.5 52



### 2014 Predicted PM 2.5 

### with CARB Measures

2014 Predicted PM 2.5 

### with CARB Measures and District Overlay

51 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p. V

- 2

- 52

. 52 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p. V

- 2

- 53

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 48 b. 24 Hour NAAQS

South Coast 2007 AQMP

The 2007 AQMP 2005 Basin maximum design value (64.8 μg/m3) meets the federal 24

- hour average PM 2.5 standard of 65 μg/m3. The SMAT for the 24

- hour standard is presented to assure that the PM 2.5 episodic levels continue to lower and that the Basin continues to meet the standard in 2015 and beyond. Six methods are discussed in the 2007 AQMP and applied to the Sandwich modified MATES

- III quarterly design values and episodic PM 2.5 data to quantify future year PM 2.5 reductions. 53

Episodic 24

- Hr Average PM 2.5 Modeling Approach

Per our PM 2.5 g uidance, two options are provided to determine RRFs for the fu ture year 24

- hour average PM 2.5 a ttainment demonstration. The first option uses episodic modeling with day

- specific emissions for representative meteorological episodes to calculate RRFs and apply the RRF to the design value. The second approach proposed by EPA relies on an average respon se to implementation of emissions control for the top 25 percentile of days in each quarter of the annual model simulation. The maximum 24

- hour
PM 2.5 design value (based on 2003

- 2005 data) for the Basin (64.8 μg/m3) meets the current federal standard. Of g reat intere st is how will the 24

- hour PM 2.5 concentration fa r e compared to the new standard of 35 μg/m3 when that standard become effective in 2010. On the basis of our initial simulations and analysis, the District staff feels that the future design calc ulation based on the top 25 percentile day, quarterly is more

53 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p. V

- 2

- 54

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 49 conservative than the episodic modeling. AQMD recommends the use of the 25 percentile approach. 54

Episodic Simulations

The first approach to determine future year 24

- hour maximum or 98th perce ntile PM 2.5 impacts relied on the simulation of one or more representative peak PM 2.5 episodes where observed concentrations exceed 65 μg/m3. The peak PM 2.5 24

- hour average concentration observed in the Basin during the 2005 MATES

- III monitoring program (1 10 μg/m3 at Rubidoux) occurred on October 22, 2005. Episode specific emissions for the peak and preceding days were temperature and humidity corrected and MM5/FDDA simulations were generated to provide the meteorological input. 55

Quarterly Top 25 Percentil e

For this approach, the 2005 observational data are sorted by quarter of year and further into the top 25 percent of days in each quarter. PM 2.5 RRFs are calculated on a quarterly basis from the future and base year annual simulations for only those days in the top 25 percentile per quarter. The quarterly RRFs for the ―top 25 percent days‖ are then applied to the quarterly 24

- hour average PM 2.5 d esign values to develop quarterly future year design values which are later aggregated into an annual 24

- hour f uture year design value to assess attainment. (The measured quarterly 24

- hour average PM 2.5 design values were comprised of the 98th percentile data in each quarter for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005). Several variations of the episodic and quarterly top 25 percentile future year calculations were conducted and are presented and discussed in Chapter 2. 56

Table V

- 2

- 16: Summary of Methodologies to Calculate 2015 24

- Hour Average Design Value (μg/m3) 57 presents the results of the six tests at eight sites in the basin. The maximum value for any monitoring site for any method is 56.6 μg/m 3 at Compton. All of the tests demonstrate
continued attainment of the 24

- hour average PM 2.5 standard of 65 μg/m 3 in 2015.

54 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p. V

- 1

- 9

. 55 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p. V

- 1

- 9

. 56 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p. V

- 1

- 9

. 57 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p. V

- 2

- 58

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 50 c. Unmonitored area analysis

EPA Recommendations

An additional review is necessary, particularly in nonattainment areas where the ozone or
PM 2.5 monitoring network just meets or minimally exceeds the size of the network required to report data to Air Quality System (AQS). This review is intended to ensure that a control strategy leads to reductions in ozone or PM 2.5 at other locations which could have baseline (and future) design values exceeding the NAAQS were a monitor deployed there. The test is called an ―unmonitored area analysis‖. The purpose of the analysis is to use a combination of model output and ambient data to identify areas that might exceed the NAAQS if monitors were located there. The unmonitored area analysis should identify areas where future year design values are predicted to be greater than the NAAQS. The unmonitored area analysis for a particular nonattainment area is intended to address potential problems within or near that nonattainment area. The analysis should include, at a minimum, all nonattainment counties and counties surrounding the nonattainment area (located within the State). In order to examine unmonitored areas i n all portions of the domain, it is recommended to use interpolated spatial fields of ambient data combined with gridded modeled outputs. 58

Gradient adjusted spatial fields are first created for the base year. Future year estimates can then be created by a pplying gridded RRFs to the gradient adjusted spatial fields. The basic steps are
as follows:

58 Guidance p. 30

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 51 1) Interpolate base year ambient data to create a set of spatial fields. 2) Adjust the spatial fields using gridded model output gradients (base year values).
3 ) Apply gridded model RRFs to the gradient adjusted spatial fields. 4) Determine if any unmonitored areas are predicted to exceed the NAAQS in the future.

South Coast 2007 AQMP

2015 CAMx Grid

- Cell Evaluation

Figure V

- 2

- 15 presents the grid cell extrapol ated of 2005 PM 2.5 annual design values. Only grid cells over the federal standard are darkened. Extrapolation was based on distance weighted interpolation scheme using design values from sites inside and outside the Basin to enhance the spatial representa tion. The pattern depicted by the grid cell design display closely matches the pattern of annual average PM 2.5 presented in Figure V

- 2

- 3 , in the AQMP.

Using a similar interpolation scheme, the relative percentage contributions of the six component species at the eight MATES

- III sites was extrapolated to each cell in the basin.
Predicted 2015 PM 2.5 concentrations at the grid cell level (without using mult i

- cell averaging) was estimated each grid cell by multiplying the speciated RRFs from the CAMx simulations by the relative percentage concentrations of the six components contributing to the grid cell mass and the interpolated grid cell design value. Figur e V

- 2

- 16 presents the 2015 baseline distribution.
PM 2.5 levels will be reduced regionally with implementing additional control measure however, almost 60 percent of the population of the Basin will continue to breathe air quality above the
federal standard . With the Final South Coast 2007 AQMP control strategy in place no cells in the South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area will be above the federal standard. 59

Discussion

EPA believes the 2015 CAMx Grid

- Cell Evaluation analysis adequately addresses the EPA‘s recommendation to perform a test to ensure that a control strategy leads to reductions in PM2.5 at other locations which could have baseline (and future) design values exceeding the NAAQS were a monitor deployed there

.

d. Attainment Date Extension

So uth Coast 2007 AQMP

Under the federal Clean Air Act, the Basin must comply with the federal PM 2.5 air quality standards by April, 2010 [Section 17 2(a)(2)(A)]. An extension of up to five years could be granted if attainment cannot be demonstrated and sever al other conditions are satisfied. A simulat ion of 2010 annual average PM 2.5 w as conducted to substantiate the severity of the PM 2.5 problem in the Basin. The simulation used the projected emissions for 2009 which included all existing and adopted control measures that will be implemented prior to 2010. The resulting 2010 future

- year design value (17.9 μg/m3) failed to meet the federal standard. As a consequence and as indicated in Chapter 1, the

59 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p. V

- 2

- 54, V

- 2

- 55TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 52 District is formally requesting U.S. EPA to grant the five

- ye ar extension based upon the severity of the problem and the modeled attainment demonstration that clearly indicates that significant reductions in daily emissions of PM 2.5 , NOx, VOC and SOx are required to meet the 2015 attainment date. 60

Discussion

EPA believes that the South Coast 2007 AQMP modeling provided in the 2007 AQMP is adequate to support the District‘s conclusion that the annual PM 2.5 standard will not be met in 2010.

10. Weight of Evidence

EPA Recommendations

States/Tribes should always pe rform complementary analyses of air quality, emissions and meteorological data, and consider modeling outputs other than the results of the attainment test. Such analyses are instrumental in guiding the conduct of an air quality modeling application. Somet imes, the results of corroboratory analyses may be used in a weight of evidence determination to show that attainment is likely despite modeled results which may be inconclusive. The further the attainment test is from being passed, the more compelling con trary evidence produced by corroboratory analyses must be to draw a conclusion differing from that implied by the modeled attainment test results. 61

60 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p. V

- 2

- 48

. 61 Guidance p. 17

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 53 Discussion

The modeled attainment test predicted a 2014 annual concentration of 15.0 μg/m 3

Rubidoux

. 62 Based on the table, Guidelines for a Weight of Evidence Determination, above, a weight of evidence determination is recommended to determine if additional analyses support the
modeled attainment test. EPA guidance lists three types of analyses that are recommended for this demonstration: 1) additional modeling, 2) analyses of trends in ambient air quality and emissions, and 3) observational models and diagnostic analyses. 63 The consistent improvement
in ambient PM 2.5 concentrations throughout the South Coast air basin and the expected continuing emissions decreases that are described in the South Cast Plan both indicate that the modeled attainment test results are reasonable.

WOE: trends in ambient air quality and em issions

T he weight of evidence from the South Coast AQMP supports the air quality modeling, which indicates the basin will attain the annual PM 2.5 standard by 2015.

The D istrict states that the emissions reductions expected from 2005 to 2014 are consis tent with the reductions observed from 2002 to 2005. 64 The District argues that given these expected continuing emissions reductions, and the observed trend at four monitoring stations of 4.5 percent annual improvement rate, the basin is projected to reac h attainment by 2015. 65 The WOE in the South Coast 2007 AQMP also discusses population and industrial growth and re

- distribution, as well as port con trol strategy and CARB measures. 66

Data from 2006 to 2009 reflect a smaller annual rate of improvement of ambient PM 2.5 concentration than the observed rate from 1999 through 2006, as show in the table below. Note that only sites with complete data are presented in the table.

62 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p. V

- 2

- 53

.

64 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p

. V

- 2

- 60

- 61

. 65 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p. V

- 2

- 60

- 61

. 66 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p. V

- 2

- 59

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 54 Annual PM2.5 design value for SCAQMD S ites (μg/m 3 )TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 55 I

- 710 Air Monitoring Study

The District conducted the I

- 710 Air Monitoring Study to investigate near roadway concentrations, understand trends for future control strategies, validate dispersion models, and understand community exposures in near roadway environments. To meet these objectives, SCAQMD conducted daily monitoring PM 2.5 mass using federal reference methods (FRM) during approximately one month in the winter (February

– March 2009) and approximately one month during the summer (July

– August 2009 ) at three sites.

The sites were 15m and 80m down wind of the freeway and several miles upwind of the freeway (as a background measurement). During the two month

- long intensive study periods, the
District also performed twenty

- four

- h our filter measuremen ts of TSP l ead, PM 10 mass, elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC) in PM 10 every other day. VOC Air Toxics were measured in four intervals starting at 5 a.m. (4, 6, 4, and 10

- hr intervals) every other day and continuous measurements of ultrafine par ticle number (UFP), black carbon (BC), PM 2.5 mass (non

- federal equivalent method (FEM)), NO x , and meteorological parameters were also conducted.

Preliminary results from the study indicate that during the winter monitoring period, and
PM 2.5 values at the 15 meter, 80 meter, and N Long Beach (background) sites were12.6 μg/m 3

, 11.5 μg/m 3 , and 9.59 μg/m 3 , respectively. D uring the summer monitoring period, and PM2.5 values at the 15 meter, 80 meter, and N Long Beach (background) sites were 15. 2 μg/m3, 14.0TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 56 μg/m3, and 12.7 μg/m3, respectively. These preliminary results in the presentation

― Preliminary Results f

rom t he A QMD I

- 710 Air Monitoring Study,‖ which is available at: http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/I710/images/AQMD

- I

- 710

- Air

- Monitoring

- Study

- to

CAC

- February

- 2010.pdf

Final study results are not yet available

. It is important to note that the duration of the

stu dy was shorter than what is required to show NAAQS attainment and is therefore not able to be a direct estimate of the expected value in a near

- roadway environment. However, the study area includes the most congested highway in the South Coast basin, and therefore, the results likely provide a worst case scenario and do show an incremental decrease in PM 2.5 concentrations with distance to roadways. SCAQMD continues to monitor BC and NOx at the 15m site to learn more about the interplay between air quality , meteorology and traffic emissions in the complex near

- roadway environment.

The current 24

- hour PM 2.5 design value for the South Coast Air Basin is 41 μg/m 3

. 67 The maximum modeled future year value of 24 hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast Basin, discussed above, is 56.6 μg/m 3 at Compton

. 68 Based on current monitored and future modeled data, EPA believes the 24 hour PM 2.5 mass will continue to be well below 65 μg/m 3

.

11. Proposed Actions on Air Quality Modeling in th e South Coast 2007 AQMP

In our November 2010 proposal and our July 2011 amended proposal , we proposed to find that the air quality modeling in the South Coast 2007 AQMP me e t s the requirements of the CAA consistent with EPA guidance , and that that the mode ling provides an adequate basis for the PM 2.5 reasonably available control measure, reasonable further progress, and attai nment demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 AQMP . See 75 FR 71294, at 71305

, and 76 FR 41562,
at 41573.

12. Evaluation and Conclusion

The modeling used for the attainment demonstration was made available to the public for comment at the same time as the draft 2007 PM 2.5 plan, and was subject to public hearing as part
of final version of the Plan.

The air quality modeling documentatio n in Appendix V of the South Coast 2007 AQMP contains all the elements required by EPA‘s modeling guidance. The modeling is based on the
best and most current informatio n available at the time the South Coast 2007 AQMP was developed. Based on our evaluat ion

, discussed above, we find that the modeling analysis used
for the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP for attainment of the 1997
PM 2.5 NAAQS meet s the CAA section 172(c )(1) requirement that the plan ―shall provide for
attainment of t he national primary ambient air quality standards‖ at the time of their submittal in
2007

, and that the modeling in the South Coast 2007 AQMP provides an adequate basis for the

67 See footnotes 3 and 4.

68 South Coast 2007 AQMP , Appendix V, p. V

- 2

- 58

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 57 PM 2.5 reasonably available control measure, reasonable further progress, and at tai nment demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

.

We received a number of comments on our proposed finding on the air quality modeling. We have reviewed these comments and provided respon ses to them. See section III of this TSD.
No issues raised in these comments changed our finding that the air quality modeling in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised 2007 State Strategy are consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 58 

### C. PM 2.5 

### Attainment Plan Precursors

1. Requirements for the Control of PM 2.5 Precursors

EPA recognizes NO x , SO 2 ,VOC, and ammonia as precursors of PM 2.5 because these pollutants can contribute to the formation of PM 2.5 in the ambient air . As discussed previously, states must include each in their submitted emissions inventory in order to assure the information
on all pollutants and precursors that contribute to PM 2.5 concentrations is available. 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007), at 20589 and 40 CFR § 51.1008(a)(1). However, the overall contribution of different precursors to PM 2.5 formation, and the eff ectiveness of alter native potential control measures, will vary by location. Thus, the precursors a state should regulate for attaining the
PM 2. 5 NAAQS will also vary to some extent from area to area.72 FR 20586, at 20589.

As discussed previously, states must submit emissi ons inventor ies for each of the four
PM 2.5 precursor gases in order to assure the information on all pollutants and precursors that contribute to PM 2.5 concentrations is available. 72 FR 20586

, at 20589 and 40 CFR § 51.1008(a)(1). However , the overall cont ribution of different precursors to PM 2.5 formation, and the eff ectiveness of alternative potential control measures will vary by location . Thus the precursors a state should regulate for attaining the PM 2. 5 NAAQS will also vary to some extent from area to area. 72 FR 20586 at 20589.

In the PM 2.5 implementation rule, EPA did not make a finding that all potential PM 2. 5 precursors must be controlled in each specific nonattainment area. See 72 FR 20586 at 20589

. Instead, for reasons explained in the rule, a s tate must evaluate control measures for sources of
SO 2 in addition to sources of direct PM 2.5 in all nonattainment areas. 40 CFR § 51. 1002(c) and (c)(1). A state must also evaluate control measures for sources of NO x unless the state and/or EPA determine that controls on sources of NOx emissions would not significantly reduce PM 2.5 concentrations in the specific nonattainment area. 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(2). By contrast, EPA has determined in the PM 2.5 implementation ru le that a state does not need to address controls for sources of VOC and ammonia unless the state and/or EPA make a technical demonstration that such controls would significantly contribute to reducing PM 2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area. 40 CFR §51.1002(c)(3) and (4). Such a demonstration is required ―if the administrative record related to the development of its SIP shows that the presumption is not technically justified for that area.‖ 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(5)

―Significant contributor‖ in this context means that a significant reduction in emissions of the precursor from sources in the area would be projected to provide a significant reduction in
PM 2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area. 72 FR 20586, at 20590. Although EPA did not establis h a quantitative test for determining the significance of such a change, EPA noted that even relatively small reductions in PM 2.5 concentrations are estimated to result in worthwhile public health benefits. Id

.

2. Identification of PM 2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and EPA‘s Evaluation

The 2007 South coast AQMP does not explicitly identify the pollutants that have been selected as ― PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors as defined in and 40 CFR § 51.1000. The planTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 59 addresses NOx, direct PM 2.5 , SOx, and VOC in the RFP and attainment demonstrations and the District‘s RACM/RACT analysis and thereby implicitly identifies NOx, SOx, and VOC as attainment plan precursors. The South Coast PM 2.5 attainment demonstration addresses ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate since they represent a dominant fraction of PM 2.5 components and are formed through secondary reactions of the precursors NOx, SOx, and
ammonia. Ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate are controlled through the control of NOx and SOx as precursors.

In the South Coast Air Basin, PM 2.5 can be directly emitted, such as from road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, and other sources (―primary particles‖), or formed through atmospher ic chemical reactions of precursor gases (―secondary particles‖). Examples of secondary particles include sulfates, nitrates, and complex carbon compounds formed from reactions of NOx, SOx, VOCs, and ammonia. The District‘s analysis indicates that SOx
red uctions followed by directly

- emitted PM 2.5 and NOx reductions provide the greatest ambient
PM 2.5 reductions. VOC reductions can also contribute to improving ambient PM 2.5 concentrations and will occur concurrently as a result of the District‘s 8

- hour ozon e strategy. 69

The PM 2.5 Implementation Rule allows States or EPA to evaluate which PM 2.5 precursors should be precursors for regulatory purposes in a particular nonattainment area, based on the facts and circumstances of such area. South Coast has elect ed to consider VOCs as regulatory precursors for the purpose of this SIP, based on their modeling analysis which considered the sensitivity on PM 2.5 formation to VOC emission reduction. EPA agrees that the District‘s determination to consider VOC as a pre cursor for this SIP is appropriate in this nonattainment

area.

3. Proposed Concurrences on PM 2. Precursors

In our November 2010 proposal and July 2011 amended proposal , we proposed to concur with the State‘s election to control direct PM 2.5 , and NOx, SOx and VOC as attainment plan

precursors in the South Coast 2007 AQMP to reach attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. See 75 FR 71294, at 71305 , and 76 FR 41562, at 41574.

4. Evaluation and Conclusion

EPA concurs with the State‘s election to c ontrol direct PM 2.5 , and NOx, SOx and VOC as attainment plan precursors in the South Coast 2007 AQMP to reach attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

We received several comments on our proposed concurrence on the State‘s election to
control direct PM 2.5 , NOx, SOx, and VOCs. We have reviewed these comment s and provided

respon ses to them. See section III of this TSD. No issues raised in these comments changed our concurrence with the State‘s election to control direct PM 2.5 , and NOx, SOx and VOC as attainmen t plan precursors in the South Coast 2007 AQMP to reach attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

69 South Coast 2007 AQMP, page 5

- 17.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 60 

### D . Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology

1. Requirement s for RACM/RACT

CAA s ection 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan ―provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology [RACT]), and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.‖

We interpret reasonably available control measures (RACM) in CAA section 172(c)(1) as referring to measures of any t ype that may be applicable to a wide range of sources, whereas the parenthetical reference to reasonably available control technology (RACT) refers to measures applicable to stationary sources. Thus, RACT is a type of RACM specifically designed for
statio nary sources. 72 FR 20586 at 20610.

EPA defines RACM as any potential control measure for application to point, area, on

road and non

- road emissions source categories that meets the following criteria: the control measure is (1) technologically feasible, ( 2) economically feasible, (3) does not cause ―substantial widespread and long

- term adverse impacts‖, (4) is not ―absurd, unenforceable, or impracticable‖, and (5) collectively can advance the attainment date by at least one year. 72 FR 20586 at 20610 We de fine RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular stationary source is capable of meeting by the application of technology (i.e., devices, systems, process modifications, or other apparatus or techniques that reduce air pollution) that is reaso nably available considering technological and economic feasibility. 72 FR 20586 at 20610.

For PM 2.5 attainment plans, EPA is requiring a combined approach to RAC M and RAC T under subpart 1 of Part D of the CAA

. Under this approach, RAC M /RAC T are measures that a

s tate finds are both reasonably available and contribute to attainment as expeditiously as practicable in its nonattainment area. Thus, what constitutes RACM/RACT in a PM 2.5 attainment plan is closely tied to that plan‘s expeditious a ttainment demonstration.40 CFR § 51. 1010; 72 FR 20586 at 20612. By definition, measures that are neither necessary for meeting the RFP requirement nor help an area attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable are not required RACM/RACT. A s tate‘s atta inment plan must include a list of measures considered and information sufficient to show that a state has met all requirements for determination of
RAC M /RAC T

. 72 FR 20586 at 20612. A state must evaluate RACM/RACT for each identified
PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor.

Under this combined approach, EPA considers RACT be part of an area' s overall RACM obligation . Subpart 1, unlike subparts 2 and 4 of title 1, Part D of the CAA , does not identify specific source categories for which EPA must issue control techn ology documents or guidelines
for what constitutes RACT or identify specific source categories for state evaluation during attainment plan development. 72 FR 20586 at 20610. Because of the variable nature of the PM 2.5 problem between nonattainment areas, which may require states to develop attainment plans that address widely disparate circumstances, EPA determined that a state should have flexibility with respect to RACT and RACM controls but also that in areas needing significant emissionTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 61 reductions to a ttain the PM 2.5 standards, RACM/RACT controls on smaller sources may be necessary to reach attainment as expeditiously as practicable

. PM 2.5 implementation rule preamble at 20612, 20615

The d etermination of RAC M /RAC T is a three

- step process: (1) identifying
techn olog ically and economically feasible measure s and associated emissions reductions, (2) conducting air

- quality modeling and related analyses, and (3) selecting RAC M /RAC T

. 72 FR 20586 at 2061 3

. Any measures th at are necessary to meet these requirements which are not already either federally promulgated, part of the state‘s SIP, or otherwise creditable in SIPs must be submitted in enforceable form as part of a state‘s attainment plan for the area. 72 FR 20586 a t 20614.

The first step, identification of potential measures, should be based on an inventory of emissions of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors from the range of relevant sources and source categories. 72 FR 20586 at 2061 3

. A state is re quired to evaluate RACM/RACT for direct PM 2.5 and SO 2 . A states is also required to evaluate RACM/RACT for NO x sources unless it finds that such sources do not significantly contribute to the PM 2.5 levels in
its nonattainment area. 72 FR 20586, at 20613. Significantly contribut e in this context means that a significant change in emissions of the precursor from sources in the area would be projected to provide a significant change in PM 2.5 concentrations in the area. 72 FR 20586 at
20590.

In the preamble to the PM 2.5 implementation rule, EPA provided a recommended list of the types of source categories and control measures that may be appropriate for evaluation given the local source mix and attainment needs of a specific area 72 FR 20586 at 20621.

Techn olog ic al feasibility refers to whether there are available measures capable of reducing emissions of PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors or both. A number of factors are considered in this analysis, such as process and operating conditions, raw materials, physical plant layout, non

air quality and energy impacts, and the time needed to install and operate controls. 72 FR 20586 at 20618

.

Economic feasibility refers to whether the cost of a measure is reasonable for the source or source category . A number of factors are considered in this analysis, such as cost per ton of pollution reduced, capital costs and annualized cost. 72 FR 20586 at 20619.

2. RACM/ R ACT Analysis in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

The South Coast 2007 AQMP and the revised 2007 State Strategy are th e latest in a series of air quality plans that the District and CARB have developed to provide for attainment of the federal air quality standards in the South Coast nonattainment area. 70 These planning efforts have resulted in a comprehensive set of rules and programs that address the great majority of

70 These plans include the 2003 PM 10 Plan (approved 70 FR 69081, November 10, 2005), the 2003 AQMP
addressi ng the 1

- hour ozone s tandard (partially approved at 74 FR 10176, March 10, 2009 )

, the 2003 State Strategy (portions that address the South Coast 1

- hour ozone standard partially approv ed at 74 FR 10176, March 10, 2009 ) and the South Coast 2007 AQMP (submitted November 28, 2007).TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 62 emissions in the South Coast nonattainment area. Many of these District and state rules are among the most stringent in the nation.

For the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the revised 2007 State Strategy, the Dist rict, CARB and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the South Coast metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the area, each undertook a process to identify and evaluate potential RACM that could contribute to expeditious attainmen t of the PM 2.5 standards in the South Coast nonattainment area. We describe each agency‘s efforts below.

a. District RACM/RACT Analysis

The District‘s RACM/RACT analysis and its results are described in Chapter 6 and Appendix VI of the 2007 AQMP. The an alysis focused on the stationary source and area source controls under direct jurisdiction of the District. Since the 1970s, the SCAQMD has adopted stationary source control rules that have resulted in significant improvement in air quality in the South Co ast Air Basin. When command and control rules were no longer within the limitations of economic efficiency, the District began using economic inventive approaches with programs such as the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) and the Carl Moyer p rogram. While the District still relies on command and control regulations, the District‘s control strategies are now supplemented by market incentives and compliance flexibility approaches where appropriate. These regulations and strategies have yielded s ignificant emissions reductions from sources under the District‘s jurisdiction. In developing the South Coast 2007 AQMP, the District conducted a process to identify RACM for the South Coast which involved public meetings to solicit input, evaluation of EP A suggested RACM, and evaluation of other air agencies‘ regulations. The District conducted a five step process which is described in detail
below.

Step 1

- AQMP Summit

In June 2006, the Distri ct conducted a 2007 AQMP Summit . Over 125 attendees including experts from a variety of areas and the public provided inpu t on new and innovative approaches to assist the District in attaining the ambient air quality standards for PM 2.5 by 2015. In total, the District received about 200 control measure sug gestions. In general, District staff was advised to 1) promote electrification; 2) focus on technology that impr oves energy efficiency and reduces greenhouse gases ; 3) influence consumer awareness and choice on low

- or zero

- VOC products; 4) incentivize l ow

- or zero

- emission control technologies; 5) promote the use of remote sensing

to detect polluting vehicles on roads and highways , and 6) improve public participation and multi

- agency collaboration.

Step 2

- U.S. EPA Suggested List of Control Measures

EPA published a list of suggested potential RACT and RACM for PM 2.5 in the preamble to the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule (see 72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) . As shown in Table 2 of Appendix VI, the District has adopted control measures for each PM 2.5 RACT an d RACM in the preamble to the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule. Since the District regulations emissions of VOC and NOx for purposes of attaining both the PM2.5 as well as the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard, some of the identified measures may not be necessary or tim ely for PM 2.5 attainment.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 63 Step 3

– Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) Updated by U.S. EPA in September 2006

As required in CAA section 172(c)(1) the SIP for a nonattainment area must include RACM, including RACT for stationary sources . EPA defines RACT as:

― the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility ‖. 44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979)

Section 182(b)(2) and (f) of the Clean Air Act provide that States must revise their SIP to include RACT for VOC sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document issued by the U.S. EPA after November 15, 1990 and prior to the are a‘s date of attainment. The CAA requires the EPA to revise RACT, update existing CTG documents, or develop new documents, on a frequent basis to provide states and local agencies with most current technical information and assist them in determining RACT. In September 2006, EPA updated the CTGs for Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing, Flexible Packaging Printing, Industrial Cleaning Solvents, and Flat Wood Paneling Coatings

Step 4

- Other Distric ts’ Current Rules and Regulations

The District reviewed all rules and regulations recently adopted or amended, from 2000 to 2006, by San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento, Ventura and San Francisco air districts, and compared its rules with analogous require ments in the rules of these other California air
districts . District staff selected these districts for comparison purposes based on their ozone nonattainment classifications.

Table 3 in Appendix VI of the AQMP contains a brief description of the 82 sou rce

- specific rules that staff analyzed and a summary of more stringent requirements adopted by other districts . In addition, Table 3 also includes a description of the control measures adopted by other agencies for their own 8

- hour ozone plans , and inform ation on advanced technologies or U.S. EPA consent decrees that District staff is aware of that may result in additional emission reductions. In general, the District‘s current rules and regulations are equivalent to or more

st ringent than those developed by other California air districts, with a few exceptions shown in Table 3 where improvements are possible. Therefore, the District developed several control measures to address these areas, such as Control Measure MCS

- 01

– Facility Modernization,
MCS

- 0 7

– Application of All Feasible Measures, and CMB

- 02

– Redu ction of Emissions in RECLAIM. Table 3 in Appendix VI identifies these control measures. In general, the areas identified for potential improvements are to explore the feasibility of lowering emission limits and increasing level of control in order to promote cleaner technologies, lowering VOC content of coatings/solvents, e stablishing standards and test methods for generic control equipment, lowering release or leak thresholds, encouraging continuous wireless monitoring, improving leak detection, repair, inspection and maintenance, and adding best management practices.

With respect to technological and economic feasibility, the District assumed that technologies and measures which are available and cost

- effective to implement in other air districts in California, would be available and cost

- effective for implementation in the SouthTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 64 Coast Basin in a timely manner. Best Available Retrofit Control T echnology (BARCT) is reevaluated every three years. The District refines emission inventory, emission reduction, and

cost

- effectiveness estimates as well as health benefits on an ongoing basis, especially during the rule development process. In addition , the District commits to monitor rule development in other air districts, and will conduct further study and reevaluate the feasibility of revising the requirements in existing rules if necessary. Instead of amending existing rules, new rules may be adop ted to implement the control measures described in the South Coast 2007 AQMP in a more effective manner. Prioritization and schedule s fo r adoption and implementation are discussed in Chapter 7 of the AQMP.

Step 5

- Additional Studies and Analyses

In addition to the above analyses, the District and SCAG have taken the following actions to meet the RACM requirements of the CAA:

• Evaluation of control measures developed by other air districts for their air quality management plans as described in Appendix IV

- A.

• Analysis of the s pecific costs of each SCAQMD‘s stationary source and mobile source

co ntrol measure, if available, as provided in A ppendix IV

- A and B.

• Development of a schedule for implementing the control measures , a s discussed in Chapter 7 of the AQMP, which demonstrates that the District will implement the control measures as expeditiously as practicable considering resources a nd budgets.

• Completion of a SCAQMD 8

- Hour Ozone RACT SIP Demonstration project which the
District submitted to EPA in June 2006 for comment. The District concluded that 1) All SCAQMD rules to implement the 1

- hour ozone SIP fulfil l RACT for the 8

- hour ozone SIP, and 2) All CTG sources and all major non

- CTG sources in the Basin are subject to SIP

approved rules satisfying RACT requirements for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard. EPA fully approved the South Coast RACT SIP for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard on December 18, 2008 at 73 FR 76947

.

District’s Conclusion Regarding RACM

Following is the summary of the District‘s findings:

The District evaluated all potentially reasona ble control measures that were available for implement ation in the area and inclusion in South Coast 2007 AQMP.

The control measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP included all RACM suggest ed by the public and experts.

The control measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP included all RACT and RACM recommended by EPA in the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 65 In general the District‘s rules and regulations are equivalent to, or more stringent than, other California districts‘ rules and regulations and their proposed control measures in their respective SIP s. In several areas identified in Table 3 of Appendix VI of the AQMP , the existing source

- specific rules may be amended to lower the emissions standards, promote cleaner technologies, add additional best management practices, and improve enforceability. District staff will monitor the rule development of other air districts, explore all feasible control options , and conduct further analyses to refine the emission inventory, emission reductions, and cost

- effectiveness analysis.

The District developed 37 stationary source control measures that contained all measures included in other districts‘ air quality management plans. In addition, the District developed many innovative stationary source control measures, such as MCS

- 01

– Facility Modernization, CTS

- 02

- Clean Coating Certification, MCS

- 07

– Application of All Feasible Measures, and FLX

- 01

– Economic Incentive Programs, that were not included in other districts‘ air quality management plans.

The few available control measures that District s taff did not include collectively would
not advance the attainment date or contribute to RFP for the South Coast PM 2. 5 nonattainment area because of the insignificant or non

- quantifiable amount of emission reductions that they would generate.

The RACM demonstration for transportation control measures (TCMs) i s included in Appendix IV

- C. The District is treating all mobile source control measures provided by CARB to SCAQMD RACM. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix VI, p. VI

- 7.

Since the submittal of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, the District has adopted a number of additional RACM that achieve a portion of the emissions reductions assigned to the Distric t ‘ s enforceable commitments.

b. Local Jurisdiction’s RACM Analysis

The local jurisdiction‘s RACM analysis was conducted by the Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG ) , the MPO for the Los Angeles region. This analysis, which focused on transportation control measures (TCMs), and its results are described in Appendix IV

- C of the South Coast 2007 AQMP. TCMs are generally measures designed to
reduce emissions from on

- road motor vehicles through reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or traffic congestion.

For the South Coast 2007 AQMP, the RACM demonstra tion for TCMs is included in Appendix IV

- C, The TCMs in the South Coast 2007 AQMP are derived from TCM projects in the 2006 SCAG Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). This evaluation, described beginning on page 49 of Appendix IV

- C of the Sou th Coast 2007 AQMP, resulted in extensive local government commitments to implement programs to reduce auto travel and improve traffic flow. South Coast 2007 AQMP page 6

- 6 and Appendix IV

- C. SCAG also provided reasoned justifications for any measures that it did not adopt. Attachment A to Appendix IV

- C contains an extensive list of TCMs in process and newly programmed TCMs.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 66 c. State’s RACM Analysis

CARB describes its proposed strategy to reduce emissions from sources within its jurisdiction

– on

- and o ff

- road engines and vehicles, fuels, and consumer products

- in Chapter 3 of the 2007 State Strategy. CARB has unique authority under the CAA to adopt standards for most categories of on

- and off

- road engines and vehicles, subject in most instances to a wai ver by EPA under CAA section 209.

CARB developed this proposed strategy after an extensive public consultation process to identify potential SIP measures. It included a SIP Symposium in October 2006 and a workshop in November 2006 to discuss development of potential control concepts for meeting the federal 8

- hour ozone and PM 2.5 standards. 71 CARB made a draft of the 2007 State Strategy available for public review in April 2007 and then conducted a series of public workshops on the draft . On April 26, 2007 , CARB staff released a revised draft of the Proposed State Strategy that incorporated changes based on further staff analysis and public comments. CARB Resolution 07

- 28, p. 3.

From this process, CARB identified and committed to propose 15 new defined mea sures

. 2007 State Strategy, p. 65 and CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B, p. 8. These measures focus on cleaning up the in

- use (legacy) fleet as well as increasing the stringency of emission standards for a number of engine categories and further reducti ons from motor vehicle fuels and consumer products. M any if not most of these measures are being proposed and adopted for the first time anywhere in the nation. They build on CARB‘s already comprehensive program to
address emissions of direct PM 2.5 , NOx, and VOC from all types of mobile sources through both regulations and incentive programs, as well as from fuels and consumer products . See 2007 State Strategy, p. 38. Table D

- 1 lists these measures and includes one additional measure each from the Calif

ornia Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). Table D

- 2 provides the list of these measures as updated in CARB‘s 2011 Progress Report

.

Table D

- 1 

### 2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for Consideration

Defined State Measure Expected Adoption Year

Smog Check Improvements 2007

- 2008

Expanded Vehicle Retirement 2008

- 2014

Modification to Reformulated Gasoline Program 2007

71 More information on this public process including presentations from the workshops and symposium that preceded the adoption of the 2007 State Strategy can be found at www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 67 Table D

- 1 

### 2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for Consideration

Defined State Measure Expected Adoption Year

Cleaner In

- use Heavy Duty Trucks 2008

Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Clean Technologies 2007

- 2008

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels Fuels: 2007 Engines: 2009

Port Truck Modernization 2007

- 2008

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Line

- Haul Locomotives (enforceable agreement) 2007

- 2008

Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft 2007

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment 2007

Clearer In

- Use Agricultural Equipment 2009

New Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats 2009

- 2010
Expanded Off

- Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions
Standards By 2010

Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above Ground Storage
Tanks 2007

Additional Evaporative Emissions Standards By 2010

Consumer Products Program (I & II) 2007

- 2008 & 2010

- 2012

Department of Pesticide Regulation rules 2008

Source: 2007 State StrategyTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 68 Table D

- 2 

### Updated 2007 State Strategy : PM 2.5 

### SIP Measures

Defined State Measure Action

Smog Check Improvements 2007

- 200 9

Expanded Vehicle Retirement 2007

Modification to Reformulated Gasoline Program 2007

Cleaner In

- U se Heavy Duty Trucks 200 7, 2008, 2010

Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Clean Technologies 2007

- 2008

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels Fuel: 200 8

- 2011 Engines: 200 8

Port Truck Modernization 200 7, 2008, 2010

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Line

- Haul Locomotives (enforceable agreement) 200 8

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts 2007 , 2010

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment 2007 , 2010

New Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats Expected 2013
Expanded Off

- Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions Standards Expected 2013

Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above Ground Storage
Tanks 2008

Additional Evaporative Emissions Standards 2009

, Expected 2013
Consumer Products Program (I & II) 2008, 2009 , 2011

Department of Pesticides Regulation Pesticide R ule 2008 , 2009

Source: 2011 Progress Report, p. 8, Table 1

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 69 3. Proposed Action s on the RACM/RACT Demonstration

In our November 2010 proposal , EPA proposed to disapprove the RACM/RACT
demonstration in the South Coast PM 2.5 SIP based on our proposed disapproval of the attainment demonstration and proposed denial of California‘s attainment date extension request.

We noted in our November proposed disapproval that is appear ed that the State, Distri ct, and local jurisdictions had identified and otherwise provided for the implementation of a comprehensive set of measure s that are among the most stringent in the nation and should the District and State correct the deficiencies in the attainment demonstration

, we would most likely be able to approve the SIP ‘s RACM/RACT demonstration. 75 FR 71294 at 71304

.
In our July 2011 amended proposal, we proposed to approve the RACM/RACT
demonstration in the South Coast PM 2.5 SIP based on our proposed approval of the attainment demonstration and proposed granting of California‘s attainment date extension request. 76 FR 41562, at 41572.

4. EPA‘s Evaluation and Conclusion

Under the PM 2.5 implementation rule, R AC M /RAC T are the set of measures necessary for expeditious attainment in a specific nonattainment area. The measures must address emissions of PM 2.5 and all PM 2.5 attainment plan pr ecursors that are necessary for such expeditious attainment. Thus, in order for a PM 2.5 plan to demonstrate that it provides for RACM/RACT, it must also demonstrate that it provides for expeditious attainment. 72 FR 20586 at 20612

- 20623.

As discussed in Section s II.E and G . of t his TSD, we are grant ing California‘s request to
extend the attainment date for the South Coast nonattainment area until April 5, 2015 and approving the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP as providing for expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the South Coast nonattainment area by that date

. Therefore, EPA find s that the South Coast 2007 PM 2.5 Plan, together with the revised 2007 State Strategy, provide s for the implementation of all RACM/RA CT necessary for expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the South Coast nonattainment area as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR § 51. 1010 and to approve the South Coast PM 2.5 SIP‘s RACM/RACT demonstration pursuant to these section s. We received a number of comments on our proposed approval of the RACM /RACT demonstration. We have reviewed these comment s and provided respon ses to them. See section
III of this TSD. No issues raised in these comments changed our finding that the RACM/R ACT
demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised 2007 State Strategy are consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.
Petitions for re consideration on provisions of the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule related to RACT:

As discussed in section I .A.2.b., EPA received a petition for reconsideration of several provisions in the PM 2.5 implementation rule including three provisions related to RACT. We
describe each below and whether the provision affects our action on the RAC M/RACTTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 70 demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP.

1. The presumption that c ompliance with the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) satisfies the NO x and SO 2 RACT requirements for electric generating units (EGUs). 72 FR 20586, at 20623

- 28.

The South Coast nonattainment area was not subject to the CAIR, which was intended to control the interstate transport of pollutants in the eastern United States. See 70 FR 26162 (May 12, 2005).

2. The a llowance for states to defer establishing emission limits for con densable PM (CPM) until January 1, 2011. 72 FR 20586, at 20652 (codified at 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)).

EPA will evaluate any rule adopted or revised after January 1, 2011 to assure that it appropriately addresses CPM.

3. The revisions to the criteria for analyzing the economic feasibility of RACT from a presumption that a given source must bear a cost similar to other sources and to a consideration of whether the cost of a measure is reasonable for the regulated entity to bear, in light of benefits

. 72 FR 20586 at 20619

- 20620.

While the South Coast 2007 AQMP includes some discussion of economic feasibility that seem to reflect the revised criteria in the PM 2.5 implementation rule (s ee Appendix VI p . VI

- 5 ), we can find no example of where those criteria actually resulted in the rejection of a potential
RACT measure

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 71 

### E . Attainment Date Extension

1. Requirements for Attainment D ate Extensions

CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) states that an area‘s attainment date ―shall be the date by which attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date such area was designated nonattainment..., except that the Administrator may extend the
attainment date to the ext ent the Administrator determines appropriate, for a period no greater than 10 years from the date of designation as nonattainment considering the severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures.‖ Because the
eff ective date of the initial PM 2.5 designations , including the designation for the South Coast nonattainment area, is April 5, 2005, the initial attainment date for PM 2.5 areas is as expeditiously as practicable but no l ater than April 5, 2010. For areas tha t EPA grants the full 5

- year attainment date extension under sectio n 172(a), the attainment date would be no later than April 5, 2015.

Section 51.1004 of the PM 2.5 implementation rule addresses the attainment date requirement. Section 51.1004(b) requires a state to submit an attainment demonstration justifying it s proposed attainment date and provide s that EPA will approve an attainment date at the same time we approve the attainment demonstration. Thus, the selection of an attainment date is dependent up on an attainment demonstration showing expeditious attainment.

A s t ate that requests an extension of the attainment date under CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) must provide sufficient information to show that attainment by the initial attainment date of April 5, 2010 is impracticable due the severity of the nonattainment problem in the area and the lack of
available and feasible control measures to provide for faster attainment

. 40 CFR § 51.1004(b) The state must also demonstrate that all RACM/RACT for the area a re being implemented to bring about attainment of the standard by the most expeditious alternative date practicable for the area. 72 FR 20586, at 20601. The state‘s plan will need to project the emissions reductions expected due to federal and state regula tions and local measures such as RACT and RACM, and then conduct modeling to project the level of air quality improvement in accordance with EPA‘s modeling guidance. EPA will not grant an extension of the attainment date for an area beyond the initial 5 ye ars allowed by section 172(a)(2)(A) if the state has not considered the implementation of all RACM and RACT local control measures for the area. 72 FR 20586, at
20601.

2. Proposed Attainment Date in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

The attainment demonstrati on and the District‘s proposed attainment date are found in Chapter 5 of the plan and discussed in more detail in Appendix V. A discussion of the attainment
date can be found on page V

- 2

- 48 of Appendix V

.

The Appendix states:

A simulati on of 2010 annual average PM 2.5 was conducted to substantiate the severity of the PM 2.5 problem in the Basin. The simulation used the projectedTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 72 emissions for 2009 which included all existing and adopted control measures that will be implemented prior to 2010. The resulting 2010 future

- year design value (17.9 μ g/m3) failed to meet the federal standard.

Based on this analysis for the annual stan dard, the District and CARB requested an attainment date extension to April 5, 2015 for both the annual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 standards. See SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution adopting the final South Coast 2007 AQMP, June 1, 2007, p. 4 and 5, and CARB Resolut ion 07

- 41, page 8, September 27, 2007. In its 2011 Progress Report, CARB continues to project Apri l 5 , 2015 as the most expeditious attainment date for the South Coast nonattainment area. See 2011 Progress Report, p. 1.

The South Coast 2007 AQMP does not specifically address the most expeditious date for attaining the 24

- hour PM .2.5 standard, although it does state that all monitoring sites in the nonattainment area will meet the 65 ug/m 3 PM 2.5 standard by 2015. South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, page V

- 2

- 48.

3. Proposed Action s on the Attainment Date Extension

In our November 2010 proposal

, EPA proposed to not grant the State ‘s request to extend the attainment date for the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the South Coast to April 5, 2015 . This proposal was based primarily on our proposed disapproval of the RACM/RACT demonstration

. See 75 FR 71294, at 71306. As stated in the preamble to the PM 2.5 implementation rule, (72 FR 20586, at 20601), EPA cannot grant an extension of the attainment date beyond the ini tial five years provided by section 17 2(a)(2)(A) if the state has not adequately considered and evaluated the implementation of RACM and RACT in the area. By definition, RACM/RACT are those controls that are necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditio usly as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements. 40 § CFR 51.1010(a).

We noted in our proposed disapproval that is appeared that the State, Distri ct, and local jurisdictions had identified and otherwise provided for the implementation of a comprehen sive set of measures that are among the most stringent in the nation and should the District and State correct the deficiencies in the attainment demonstration, we would likely be able to approve the SIP‘s RACM/RACT demonstration.

I n our July 14, 2011 amended proposal , we proposed to grant the State‘s request to
extend the attainment date for the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the South Coast to April 5, 2015. This proposed approval was based on our proposed approval of the RACM/RACT demonstration and the attainment demonstration . See 76 FR 41562, at 41575.

4. Evaluation and Conclusions

The PM 2.5 problem in the South Coast nonattainment area is complex, caused by both direct and secondary PM 2.5 and co mpounded by the area‘s topographical and meteo rological conditions that are particularly conducive to the formation and concentration of PM 2.5 . See 2007AQMP , Chapter 1

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 73 As discussed in section II.F. below, the District's and State‘s strategy for attaining the
PM 2.5 standard in the South Coast nonattai nment area relies on significant reductions of direct
PM 2.5 as well as the PM 2.5 precursor pollutant s NO x , SO x and VOC

. The State and District have already adopted and are currently implementing a comprehensive set of PM 2.5 , NO x , VOC and SO x control measures. We find that these rules and programs provide for the implementation of RACM/RACT as required by CAA section 172(c)(1). See section II. D. above.

R eductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions are achieved primarily from control measures on open burning, re sidential wood combustion, and in

- use trucks and buses. These types of control measures present special implementation challenges (e.g., the large number of individuals subject to regulation and the difficulty of applying conventional technological control solutions). Reductions in NO x emissions come largely from District rules for fuel combustion sources and from the State‘s mobile source rules. Reductions in SO x emissions come primarily from controls on combustion sources and ocean going vessels

.
Because of the necessity of obtaining additional emissions reductions from the more challenging

- to

- control source categories and the need to conduct significant public outreach if applicable control approaches are to be effective, EPA agrees with the District and CARB that
the South Coast 2007 AQMP reflects expeditious implementation of the se controls during the 2007

- 2014 time frame. We also agree that the implementation schedule for the District‘s enhanced stationary source controls is expeditious, taking into ac count the time necessary for purchase and installation of the required control technologies. Finally, we believe that it is not feasible at this time to accelerate the emissions reduction schedule for the State and Federal mobile source which must rely on fleet turnover over the years to ultimately deliver the anticipated emissions reductions beyond what is already anticipated from the State‘s in

- use mobile source control and incentive programs.

Given the complexity of the PM 2.5 air quality in the South Coa st and adoption and expeditious implementation of all reasonably available measures to reduce direct PM 2.5 and
PM 2.5 precursors , we believe that the South Coast 2007 AQMP provides for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards as expeditiously as practicable

. EPA, therefore

, i s grant ing California‘s request for an attainment date extension to April 5, 2015 for the South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area pursuant to CAA section 172(b)(2)

. We received several comments on our proposed approval of the attainment date extension. We have reviewed these comments and provided respon ses to them. See section III of this TSD. No issues raised in these comments changed our finding that the attainment date extension in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised 2007 State Strategy is consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 74 

### F

. Adopted Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments

1. Requirements for Control Strategies and Enforceable Commitments

CAA section 172(c)(6) requires n onattainment plans to ―include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emission rights), as well as
schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment of such standard in such area by the applicable attainment date....‖ CAA section110(a)(2)(A), which applies to all SIPs, contains virtually identical language.

The PM 2.5 implementation rule requires all control measures needed for attainment to be implemented as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the beginning of the year prior to the attainment date. 40 CFR § 51.1007(b).

In most instances, a nonattainment p lan should include the adopted measures it relies on
to demonstrate attainment and RFP and/ or meet any other CAA requirements or should identify the adopted measures it relies on that are already SIP approved, federally promulgated, or otherwise SIP creditable

. EPA, however, recognizes that circumstances exist that warrant the
initial use of enforceable state commitments in place of these adopted measures. We believe that the CAA all ows approval of such enforceable commitments as elements of a CAA control strategy requirement where they are limited in scope.

The language in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) cited above is quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any ―means or tec hniques‖ that EPA determines are ―necessary or appropriate‖ to meet CAA requirements, such that the area will attain as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the applicable attainment date. Furthermore, the express allowance for ―schedules and t imetables‖ demonstrates that Congress understood that all required controls might not have to be in place before a SIP could be fully approved.

Commitments approved by EPA under CAA section 110(k)(3) are enforceable by EPA and citizens under, respectively , CAA sections 113 and 304. In the past, EPA has approved enforceable commitments and courts have enforced actions against state s that failed to comply with them. 72 Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments, EPA could make a finding of
failure to implement the SIP under CAA section 179(a)(4), which starts an 18

- month period for the state to correct the non

- implementation before mandatory sanctions are imposed.

Once EPA determines that circumstances warrant the use of an enforceable commitment,
EPA considers three factors in determining whether to approve the enforceable commitment: (a) does the commitment address a limited portion of the statutorily

- required program; (b) is the

72 See, e.g., American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean , 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. Cons. , 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian , 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for Clean Air v. South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist. , No. CV 97

- 6916

- HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999).TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 75 state capable of fulfilling its commitment; and (c) is the commitment f or a reasonable and appropriate period of time. 73

2. Control Strategy in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and Revised 2007 State Strategy

For the purposes of evaluating the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, we have divided the measures relied on in the attainment and RFP demonstrations and to meet the contingency measures requirement into two categories: baseline measures and control strategy

measures.

As the term is used here, baseline measures are federal, State, and District rules and regulatio ns adopted prior to October 2006 (i.e., prior to the development of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy) that continue to generate emissions reductions through to the attainment year of 2014 and beyond. 74 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1. , and South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, p. III

- 2

- 3. Reductions from these measures are incorporated into the baseline inventory and, for the most part, not individually quantified. These measures provide the majority of emissions reductions needed to attain the PM 2.5 standards in the South Coast
nonattainment area . See Table G

- 1 in this TSD.

C ontrol strategy measures are the new rules, rule revisions, commitments and other adjustments to the inventory that provide the additional increment of emission reductions needed beyond the baseline measures to demonstrate RFP and attainment , meet RACM/RACT, and/or provide for contingency measures.

We evaluate the control strategy measures in this section. Bas eline measures are listed in Appendices A and B to this TSD.

a. District Control Strategy Measures and Commitments

For the South Coast 2007 AQMP, the District identified and committed to updating and adopting 9 control measures and newly adopting and implementing 28 new control measures to reduce emissions of direct PM 2.5 , NOx, SOx, and/or VOC. In Table F

- 1 below, we list the anticipated timing of the expected emissions reductions from these measures; however, we note that the District‘s commitment is only to aggregate emissions reductions. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, p. 4

- 2 and 4

- 73 and SCAQMD Governing Board Resolut ion, p. 10.

In Table F

- 2, we give the current SIP submittal and approval status of the measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP. In Tables F

- 3, we show the emissions reductions, as given in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and in individual rule submittals, for the measures that have been approved by EPA and for the measures that have been approved by or submitted to EPA, respectively. The reductions listed in Table F

- 3 are the ones anticipated to be achievable from

73 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA's interpretation of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and the Agency's use and application of the three factor test in approving enforceable commitments in the
Houston

- Galveston ozone SIP. BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et al. , 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003).

74 These measures are typically rules that have compliance dates that occur after the adoption date of a plan and mobile source measures that generate reductions through fleet turnover.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 76 each rule at the time the South Coast 2007 AQ MP was adopted. Actual reductions from each rule once adopted may be greater or less than the anticipated reductions. Finally, in Table F

- 4 we show the emissions reductions as updated in the South Coast PM2.5 Progress Report for the measures that have bee n approved or proposed for approval by EPA, and in Table F

- 5 we provide the overall control strategy for the South Coast 2007 AQMP.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 77 Table F

- 1 

### South Coast Air Quality Management District Estimated Emissions Reductions for South Coast 2007 AQMP Specific Rule Commitments (tons per average annual day)

NOx VOC PM2.5 SOx

Based on Adoption Date Based on

Implementation
Date Based on

Adoption
Date Based on

Implementation
Date Based on

Adoption
Date Based on

Implementa tion Date Based on

Adoption
Date Based on

Implementati
on Date
2007 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.0

-- -- -- 2008 5.6

-- 3.1

-- 0.4 1.0 3.0

-- 2009 0.8

-- 4.5

-- 0.4

-- -- -- 2010

-- 0.5 2.0 3.1 1.2 0.4

-- -- 2011

-- -- -- 0.8

-- -- -- -- 2012

-- -- -- 3.7

-- -- -- -- 2013

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 201 4

-- 3.5

-- 1.1

-- 3.0
2023

-- 2.4

-- 2.0

---- 0.4

-- -- Commitment to Total Reductions 6.8 6.8 10.4 10.4 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0

Source: South Coast 2007 AQMP , Table 4

- 10TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on th e South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2
. .5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 78 Table F

- 2 

### Approval and Submittal Status of District Rules in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

Rule 445

- Woodburning fireplaces and
wood stoves SIP

- approved 74 FR 27716, 6/11/09

Rule 461

– Gasoline transfer and dispensing SIP

- approved 71 FR 18216, 4/11/06

Rule 1110.2

– Liquid and gaseous fuels

– stationary ICEs SIP

- approved 74 FR 18995, 4/27/09

Rule 1111

- Further NOx reductions from space heaters SIP

- approved 75 FR 46845, 08/04/ 10

Rule 1127

- Livestock Waste 1 Submitted to EPA on
10/05/06

Rule 1138

– Restaurant Operations SIP

- approved 66 FR 36170 , 7/11/ 01

Rule 1143

- Consumer Paint Thinners
and Multi

- Purpose Solvents 1 Proposed for SIP approval 76 FR 41744, 07/15/11

Rule 1144

- Vanishing oils and rust
inhibitors 1 Proposed for SIP approval 76 FR 41744, 07/15/11

Rule 1145

– Plastic, Rubber, Leather and Glass Coatings SIP

- approved 75 FR 40726, 07/14/10

Rule 1146

– NOx from industrial, institutional, commercial boilers, steam gens, and process heaters 1 Proposed limited approval/limited disapproval Proposed limited

approval/limited disapproval 76 FR 40303, 7/8/11

Rule 1146.1

- NOx from small industrial, institutional, commercial boilers, steam gens, and process
heaters 1 Proposed limited approval/limited disapproval Proposed limited

approval/limited disapproval 76 FR 40303, 7/8/11

Rule 1147

– NOx reductions from miscellaneous sources SIP

- approved 75 FR 46845, 08/04/ 10

Rule 1149

- Storage Tank and Pipeline Cleaning and Degassing SIP

- approved 74 FR 67821, 12/21/09

Rule 2002

- Further SOx reductions
from RECLAIM SIP

- approv ed 76 FR 50128

, 8/12/11

Rule 2301

– Indirect Source Review 2012

Refinery Pilot Program Not yet adopted N/ATSD for the Final Rulemaking

on th e South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2
. .5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 79 Table F

- 2 

### Approval and Submittal Status of District Rules in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

SOON program 1 Submitted to EPA on July 18, 2008

AB923 l ight duty vehicle high emitter

program No rules associated
with these measures N/A

AB923 medium duty vehicle high emitter program No rules associated with these measures N/A

1 Th ese rules have been adopted by the District and submitted to EPA, but EPA has not yet completed a final action on them. The emissions reductions from these measures will not be credited until EPA takes final approval action.TSD for the Final Rulemaking on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 80 Table F

- 3. Status of District Short and Intermediate Term Control Measures Credited in South Coast 2007 AQMP Attainment Demonstration

Control

measure Rule

No. Title Emissions Reduction Commitment in South Coast 2007 AQMP Emissions Reductions Achieved a

BCM

- 03 445 Woodburning fireplaces and

woodstoves 1.0 tpd PM2.5 0.44 tpd VOC, 1.0 tpd
PM 2.5 , 0.06 tpd NOx, 0.01 tpd SOx

BCM

- 05 1138 Underfired charbroilers 1.1 tpd PM2.5 n/a

CTS

- 01 1144 Metalworking fluids and

direct

- contact lubricants 1.9 tpd VOC 3.9 tpd VOC b

CTS

- 04 1143 Consumer Paint Thinners and

Multi

- Purpose Solvents n/a 9.7 tpd VOC b

CMB

- 01 1147 NOx reductions from

miscellaneous sources 3.5 tpd NOx 3.5 tpd NOx

CMB

- 02 2002 Further SOx reductions from

RECLAIM 2.9 tpd SOx 4.0 tpd SOx

FUG

- 02 461 Gasoline transfer and

dispensing 3.7 tpd VOC 0

FUG

- 04 1149 Storage Tank and Pipeline

Cleaning and Degassing none 0.04 tpd VOC
CMB

- 03 1111 Further NOx reductions from

space heaters 0.8 tpd NOx 0.1 tpd NOx
MCS

- 01 1110.2 Liquid and gaseous fuels

–

stationary ICEs

1.6 tpd NOx 0.6 tpd NOx 0.3 tpd VOC

1146 NOx from industrial,

institutional, & commercialTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on th e South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2
. .5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 81

boilers, steam generators, and process heaters 0.4 tpd PM 2.5 2.0 tpd VOC

1146.1 NOx from small ind, inst, &

comm‘l boilers, steam gens, and proc. htrs

MCS

- 05 1127 Livestock waste 0.8 tpd VOC
FLX

- 02 Refinery pilot program 0.7 tpd VOC, 0.4 tpd PM 2.5

SOON

program 4

- 8 tpd NOx

MOB

- 05 2251 AB923 LDV high emitter

program 0.8 tpd VOC, 0.4 tpd NOx

MOB

- 06 AB923 MDV high emitter

program 0.5 tpd VOC, 0.5 tpd NOx

SIP commitment

- PM2.5 2.9 tpd PM2.5 Total achieved PM 2.5 reductions 1.0 tpd PM 2.5 SIP commitment

NOx 10.8 tpd NOx Total achieved NOx reductions 4.2 tpd NOx
SIP commitment

- VOC 10.4 tpd VOC Total achieved VOC reductions 0.8 tpd VOC b

SIP commitment

- SOx 2.9 tpd SOx Total achieved SOx reductions 4.0 1 tpd SOx

a From SCAQMD‘s 2011 ―Revisions to PM2.5 and Ozone State Implementation Plan for South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley‖ and District rule evaluation forms. Some emissions reduction commitments were revised from the information provided in the South Coast 2007 AQMP.

b We ar e not crediting the 3.9 tpd of VOC reductions from SC Rule 1144 and the 9.7 tpd of VOC reductions from SC Rule 1143 at this t ime. On July 15, 2011, we simultaneously published a di rect final rule and a proposed rule approving South Coast Rules 1143 ( Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi

- Purpose Solvents ) and 1144 ( Metalworking Fluids and Direct

- Contact Lubricants ). See 76 FR 41744. We received comments on our action on Rules 1143 and 11 44, and thus withdrew the direct final rule (see 76 FR 54384, September 1 , 2011). We are responding to comments received on our proposal but have not yet finalized that action, and therefore are adding those reductions to the State‘s remaining enforceable commitment for VOC. See also Table G

- 4 for the impact on the State‘s remaining enforceable commitments.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on th e South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2
. .5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 82 Table F

- 4 

### South Coast Air Quality Management District Estimated Emissions Reductions for South Coast 2007 AQMP Specific Rule Commitments,

as Updat ed by 2011 Progress Report (tons per average annual day)

Pollutant SIP Commitment by 2014

Commitment Achieved Balance

NOx 10.80 4.2 0

- 6.6

VOC 10.40 0.8

- 9.6

PM 2.5 2.90 1.00

- 1.90

SOx 2.90 4.01 +1.11 Source: 2011 State Strategy Progress Report, Appendix F, Table 1. The ―Achieved‖ column in this table reflects District rules
submitted to EPA and fully approved for SIP credit . Note that a number of rules adopted by the District and submitted to EPA are

p ending final EPA approval. See Tables F

- 2 and F

- 3.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 83 Table F

- 5 

### South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 AQMP Control Measures, Implementing Agency, Adoption Date, and Implementation Period (updated April 2011)

Control Measure Implementing Agency Adoption Date Implementation period

Facility Modernization

MCS

- 01 Facility Modernization (NOx, VOC, PM2.5) SCAQMD 2008+ 2011+
Energy Efficiency/Conservation

MCS

- 02 Urban Heat Island [All Pollutants] SCAQMD On

- going On

- going

MCS

- 03 Energy Efficiency and Conservation [all

Pollutants] SCAQMD 2008

- 2010 Beginning 2010

Good Management Practices

FUG

- 01 Improved Leak Detection and Repair [VOC] SCAQMD 2008

- 2009 2009

- 2010

FUG

- 02 Emission Reductions from Gasoline Transfer

and Dispensing Facilities [VOC] SCAQMD (a)

FUG

- 04 Emission Reductions from Pipeline and

Storage Tank Degassing [VOC] SCAQMD 2008 2008

BCM

- 01 PM Control Devices (Baghouses, Wet

Scrubbers, Electrostatic Precipitators, Other Devices)[PM] SCAQMD 2008

- 2009 2010

- 2012

MCS

- 04 Emissions Reductions from Green Waste

Composting [VOC, PM] SCAQMD Phase 1: 2008

- 09 Phase 2: 2010 2012

MCS

- 06 Improved Start

- up, Shut

- Down, and

Turnaround Procedures [All Pollutants] SCAQMD 2010 2012

Market Incentives/Compliance Flexibility

CTS

- 02 Clean Coating Certification Program [VOC] SCAQMD 2009

- 2010 2010

CMB

- 02 Further SOx Reductions from RECLAIM

(BARCT) [SOx] SCAQMD 201 0 2013

- 2019

FLX

- 01 Economic Incentive Programs [All

Pollutants] SCAQMD On

- going On

- going

FLX

- 02 Petroleum Refinery Pilot Program [VOC and

PM2.5] SCAQMD 2008TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 84 Table F

- 5 

### South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 AQMP Control Measures, Implementing Agency, Adoption Date, and Implementation Period (updated April 2011)

Control Measure Implementing Agency Adoption Date Implementation period

Area Sources

FUG

- 03 Emissions Reductions from Cutback Asphalts

[VOC] SCAQMD 2008 2010

CTS

- 01 Emissions Reductions from Lubricants

[VOC] SCAQMD 2009 2011

CTS

- 03 Consumer Products Certification and

Emissions Reductions from Use of Consumer Products at Institutional and Commercial Facilities [VOC] SCAQMD 2007

- 2010 2010

- 2020

CTS

- 04 Emission Reductions from the Reduction of

VOC Content of Consumer Products not Regulated by the State Board [VOC] SCAQMD 2008

- 2010 2010

- 2020

CMB

- 01 NOx Reductions from non

- RECLAIM

Ovens, Dryers, and Furnaces [NOx] SCAQMD 2008 2010

CMB

- 03 Further NOx Reductions from Space Heaters

[NOx] SCAQMD 2009 2012

- 2043

CMB

- 04 Natural Gas Fuel Specifications [All

Pollutants] SCAQMD

2008 2009

BCM

- 02 PM Emission Hot Spots

– Localized Control

Program [PM2.5] SCAQMD On

- going On

- going

BCM

- 03 Emission Reductions from Wood Burning

Fireplaces and Wood Stoves [PM2.5] SCAQMD 2008 2008

- 2014

BCM

- 04 Additional PM Emission Reductions from

Rule 444

- Open Burning [PM2.5] SCAQMD 2007 2008

- 2010

BCM

- 05 PM Emission Reductions from Underfired

Charbroilers [PM2.5] SCAQMD 2011

- 2012 2014

MCS

- 05 Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste

[VOC] SCAQMD 2009 2011

MCS

- 07 Application of all Feasible Measures [All

Pollutants] SCAQMD 2008 2008

MCS

- 08 Clean Air Act Emission Fees for Major SCAQMD 2009

- 2010 2011TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 85 Table F

- 5 

### South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 AQMP Control Measures, Implementing Agency, Adoption Date, and Implementation Period (updated April 2011)

Control Measure Implementing Agency Adoption Date Implementation period

Stationary Sources [VOC, Nox]
Emission Growth Management

EGM

- 01 Emission Reductions from New or

Redevelopment Projects [NOx, VOC, PM2.5] SCAQMD 2012 Be ginning 2014

EGM

- 02 Emission Budget and Mitigation for General

Conformity Projects [All Pollutants] SCAQMD Beginning 2007 Beginning 2007

EGM

- 03 Emissions Mitigation and Federally Permitted

Projects [All Pollutants] SCAQMD Beginning 2007 Beginning 2007 District’s Mobile Source Program

MOB

- 01 Mitigation Fee Program for all Federal

Sources [All Pollutants] SCAQMD 2007

- 2010 2010

- 2020

MOB

- 02 Expanded Exchange Program [All Pollutants] SCAQMD Beginning 2007 2010

- 2020

MOB

- 03 Backstop Measure for Indirect Sources of

Emissions at Ports and Port

- Related Facilities [All Pollutants] SCAQMD 2007

- 2010 2010

- 2020

MOB

- 04 Emission Reductions from the Carl Moyer

Program [NOx, PM2.5] SCAQMD On

- going On

- going

MOB

- 05 AB923 Light Duty Vehicle High Emitter

Identification Program [NOx, VOC] SCAQMD On

- going On

- going

MOB

- 06 AB923 Medium Duty Vehicle High Emitter

Identification Program [NOx, VOC] SCAQMD Ongoing Ongoing

MOB

- 07 Concurrent Reductions From Global

Warming Strategies [All Pollutants] SCAQMD On

- going On

- going

SOON Surplus Off

- Road Opt

- In for NOx SCAQMD 2008 2008

- 2014

Mobile Source and Consumer Product Control Measures Developed by CARB*

ARB

- ONRD

01 Smog Check Enhancements [VOC, NOx,

PM] BAR 2007

- 2008 By 2010

ARB

- ONRD

- Expanded Vehicle Retirement [VOC, NOx, CARB/BAR 2008

- 2014TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 86 Table F

- 5 

### South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 AQMP Control Measures, Implementing Agency, Adoption Date, and Implementation Period (updated April 2011)

Control Measure Implementing Agency Adoption Date Implementation period

02 PM] 2008

- 2014

ARB

- ONRD

03 Modifications to Reformulated Gasoline

Program [VOC] CARB 2007 Beginning 2010

ARB

- ONRD

04 Cleaner In

- Use Heavy Duty Trucks [VOC

,NOx, PM] CARB 2008 2010

- 2015

ARB

- ONRD

05 Port Truck Modernization [NOx,

PM] CARB/ SCAQMD 2007

- 2008 2008

- 2020

ARB

- OFRD

01 Marine Vessels

– Fuel, Auxiliary

& Main Engines [VOC, NOx] U.S. EPA/CARB/SCAQ
MD 2007

- 2009 Beginning 2010

ARB

- OFRD

02 Accelerate Introduction of

Cleaner Line

- Haul Locomotives [VOC, NOx, PM] CARB/U.S. EPA 2007

- 2008 Beginning 2012

ARB

- OFRD

03 Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft

[VOC, NOx, PM] CARB 2007 2009

- 2018
ARB

- 0FRD

04 Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road

Equipment [VOC, NOx, PM] CARB 2007 Phase in starting 2008

ARB

- OFRD

05 New Emission Standards for

Recreational Boats [VOC, NOx] CARB 2009

- 2010 2012

- 2023
ARB

- OFRD

06 Expanded Off

- Road Recreational Vehicle Emission Standards [VOC] CARB By 2010 2012

- 2023

ARB

- CONS

01 Consumer Products [VOC] CARB 2007

- 2012 2010

- 2014

Recommended Mobile Source and Clean Fuel Control Measures*

SCONRD

- 01 Accelerated Penetration of

Advanced Technology Partial CARB 2007

- 2008TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 87 Table F

- 5 

### South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 AQMP Control Measures, Implementing Agency, Adoption Date, and Implementation Period (updated April 2011)

Control Measure Implementing Agency Adoption Date Implementation period

Zero and Zero Emission Vehicles [VOC, NOx, CO] 2010

- 2023

SCONRD

- 02 Deployment of On

- Board

Diagnostics (Phase III) in Light and Medium Duty Vehicles [VOC, NOx, CO, PM] CARB/BAR 2008 2012

- 2023

SCONRD

- 03 Further Emission Reductions

From On Road Heavy

- Duty Vehicles [NOx, PM] CARB/SCAQMD 2008 2010

- 2014

SCONRD

- 04 Further Emission Reductions

from Heavy

- Duty Trucks Providing Freight Drayage Services [NOx, PM] CARB/ Marine Ports/ SCAQMD 2007

- 2008 2008

- 2023

SCOFFRD

- 01 Construction/Industrial

Equipment Fleet Modernization [VOC, NOx] CARB 2007 2009

- 2023

SCOFFRD

- 02 Further Emission Reductions

from Cargo Handling Equipment [NOx, PM] CARB/ Marine Ports 2007

- 2008 2010

- 2014

SCOFFRD

- 03 Further Emission Reductions

from Locomotives [NOx, PM] U.S.EPA 2007

- 2008 2012

- 2014

SCOFFRD

- 04 Emission Reductions from

Airport Ground Support Equipment [NOx, VOC, PM] CARB 2007

- 2008 2010

- 2014

SCOFFRD

- 05 Emission Reductions from

Transport Refrigeration Units [NOx] CARB 2009 2010

- 2023TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 88 Table F

- 5 

### South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 AQMP Control Measures, Implementing Agency, Adoption Date, and Implementation Period (updated April 2011)

Control Measure Implementing Agency Adoption Date Implementation period

SCOFFRD

- 06 Accelerated Turnover and

Catalyst Based Standards for Pleasure Crafts [VOC, NOx, PM] CARB 2007

- 2008 2010

- 2023

SCFUEL

- 01 Further Emission Reduction from

Gasoline Fuels [NOx, SOx] CARB 2007 2010

- 2012

SCFUEL

- 02 Greater Use of Diesel Fuel

Alternatives [NOx, SOx, PM] CARB/SCAQMD 2008 2015

Transportation Control Measures
TCM

- A HOV Improvements SCAG, CTCs, Local Gov‘t 2007 2007

- 2023
TCM

- B Transit & Systems Management SCAG, CTCs, Local Gov‘t 2007 2007

- 2023
TCM

- C Information Based Measures SCAG, CTCs, Local Gov‘t 2007 2007

- 2023

Long

- Term Mobile Source and Consumer Product Control Measures
SCLTM

- 01A Further Emission Reductions

from On

- Road Mobile Sources [NOx] CARB 2009

- 2012 2015

- 2023

SCLTM

- 01B Further Emission Reductions

from On

- Road Heavy

- Duty CARB/BAR 2009

- 2012 2015

- 2023TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 89 Table F

- 5 

### South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 AQMP Control Measures, Implementing Agency, Adoption Date, and Implementation Period (updated April 2011)

Control Measure Implementing Agency Adoption Date Implementation period

Vehicles [NOx]

SCLTM

- 02 Further Emission Reductions

from Off

- Road Mobile Sources [NOx] CARB/ U.S. EPA 2009

- 2012 2015

- 2023

SCLTM

- 03 Further Reductions from

Consumer Products [VOC] CARB 2009

- 2012 2015

- 2023

From South Coast 2007 AQMP, Table 7

- 3, pages 7

- 5 to 7

- 9 , as revised by the 2011 Progress Report, Appendix F. (a) SCAQMD lacks the legal authority to adopt the control that was listed in the original 2007 AQMP. * The 2007 South Coast AQMP notes that ―The recommended mobile source and clean fuel control measures listed in this table re present a menu of potential control strategies which could be implemented by CARB to achieve the additional 63 tons per day of NOx reductions needed for PM 2.5 attainment by 2015. Annual rulemaking schedule to be developed by CARB within adoption date window but at earliest practicable date to achieve th e necessary reductions.‖ When CARB adopted the South Coast 2007 AQMP, i t did not adopt the measures assigned to CARB by SCAQMD in this table.TSD for the Revised Proposed Approval

of the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 June 26, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 90 b. CARB Measures and Commitments

The 2007 State Strategy includes a commitment by CARB to propose new defined measures. 2007 State Strategy, page 62, and CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Att achment B, page 8 and 2011 Progress Report, Appendix B. . Table F

- 6 below lists these defined measures and their current adoption and approval status. As can be seen from this table, the State has already adopted and EPA has approved or proposed to approve, or is in the process of granting waivers under CAA se ction 209 for most of these measures. These new measures build on the State‘s already extensive list of adopted measures, which can be found in the 2007 State Strategy (page 38) and in Appendix A of this TSD.

In addition to the State‘s commitment to propo se specific measures , the 2007 State Strategy includes an enforceable commitment for emissions reductions sufficient in combination with existing measures and the District‘s commitments to attain the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the South
Coast nonattainment area by the requested attainment date of April 5, 2015. For the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area , the 2007 State Strategy includes a State commitment to achieve 9 tpd of direct PM 2.5

, 46 tpd of VOC, 20 tpd of SOx and 152 tpd of NO x in the South Coast
nonattainmen t area by 2014. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 63 and CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B, p. 4

. The nature of this commitment is described in the State Strategy as follows :

―T he total emission reductions from the new measures necessary to attain the federal standards are an enforceable State commitment in the SIP. While the proposed State Strategy includes estimates of the emission reductions from each of the individual new measures, it is important to note that the commitment of the State Strategy is to ach ieve the total emission reductions necessary to attain the federal standards, which
would be the aggregate of all existing and proposed new measures combined. Therefore, if a particular measure does not get its expected emission reductions, the State still commits to achieving the total aggregate emission reductions, whether this is
realized through additional reductions from the new measures or from alternative control measures or incentive programs. If actual emission decreases occur in any air basin for which emission reduction commitments have been made that are greater than
the projected emissions reductions from the adopted measures in the State Strategy, the actual emission decreases may be counted toward meeting ARB‘s total emission reduction commitm ents. ‖

CARB Resolution 07

- 28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 3.
The 2011 Progress Report further discusses this commitment:

― When ARB adopted the 2007 State Strategy as a SIP revision, the State of California made a legal commitment, required by the Clean Air Act and enforceable in federal court, to reduce emissions to the levels necessary for attainment. ARB specifically identified several ways this emission reduction commitment could be achieved:

New measures as described in the SIP
Other alternati ve measures that ARB had not considered at the time the
SIP was adopted Incentive programs that support the replacement or retrofit of aging,
h igher polluting pieces of equipmentTSD for the Revised Proposed Approval

of the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 June 26, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 91

Actual emission decreases ‖
2011 Progress Report, p. 4.

A s described in section II.A.3 of this TSD, CARB has adjusted baseline emissions estimates for source categories subject to its recently

- revised in

- use rules. Table F

- 6 reflects the revised implementation schedule CARB submitted in its 2011 Progress Report. Table F

- 7 shows original and adjusted baseline emissions inventories for the sources affected by each measures. The adjustments to the inventories show the effect of the resent economic recession and, for some source categories, changes to inventory metho dologies . Table F

- 8 lists the emissions reductions (from the adjusted baseline emissions inventories) that the State now estimates it will
achieve from its measures as adopted or revised and which are currently creditable to wards CARB‘s commitment

.



### Table F

- 6 Revised 2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for Consideration and Current Status

State Measures Expected A c tion
Year Current Status

Defined Measures in 2007 State Strategy

Smog Check Improvements 2007

- 200 9 Elements approved 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010) 75

Expanded Vehicle Retirement (AB 118) 200 7 Adopted by CARB, June 2009; by BAR, September 2010

Modification s to Reformulated Gasoline Program 2007 Approved 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010)

Cleaner In

- use Heavy Duty Trucks 2007, 2008 , 2010 Proposed approval 76 FR 40562, July 8, 2011 Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Other Clean Technologies 2007

- 2008 Adopted December, 2007

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels Fuel: 2008

- 2011 Engines: 2008 Proposed approval 76 FR

40562, July 8, 2011

Port Truck Modernization 2007, 2008 , 2010 Adopted December 2007 and December 2008

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Locomotives 2008 Prop 1B funds awarded to upgrade line

- haul locomotive engines not already accounted for by enforceable agreements with the railroads. Those cleaner line

- hauls will begin

75 California Assembly Bill 2289, passed in 2010, requires the Bureau of Automotive Repair to direct older vehicles to high performing auto technicians and test stations for inspection and certification effective 2013. Reductions shown for the SmogCheck pro gram in the 2011 Progress Report do not include reductions from AB 2289 improvements. See CARB Progress Report Supplement , Attachment 5.TSD for the Revised Proposed Approval

of the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 June 26, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 92 

### Table F

- 6 Revised 2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for Consideration and Current Status

State Measures Expected A c tion
Year Current Status

operation by 2012.

Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft 2007 , 2010 Adopted November 2007, revised June 2010

.

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Engines 2007 Waiver action pending

New Emissions Standards for Recreational
Boats 2013 Partially adopted, July, 2008; additional action expected 2013.

Expanded Off

- Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions Standards 2013 Partially adopted, July, 2008; additional action expected 2013. Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above Ground Storage Tanks 2008 Adopted June, 2007

Additional Evaporative Emissions Standards By 2010 Partial adoption: September, 2008 (outboard marine tanks)

Consumer Products Program 2009, 2011 Phase I

– Approved, 74 FR 57074 (November 4, 2009). Phase I I

– Approved, 76 FR 27613 (May 12, 2011 ). proposed approval of 2011 rule signed September 28,
2011.

Source s : 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 23 (footnotes in original not included) and 2011 P rogress Report, Table 1, page 9. Additional information from www.ca.arb.gov . Only defined measures with PM2.5 or NOx reductions in South Coast are shown here.TSD for the Revised Proposed Approval

of the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 June 26, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 93 Table F

- 7 

### Original and Adjusted Baseline Emissions Inventories

By State Measure (tons per day, 2014)

State Measure Directly

- Emitted PM 2.5 NO x VOC SO x

Original Adjust

ed Change Original Adjust
ed Change Original Adjust
ed C hange O riginal A djusted C hange

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 7.8 7.8 0 134 134 0 132.1 132 0

Cleaner In

- Use Heavy

Duty Trucks & Buses 5.8 6.0 +0.2 136 151 +15.2 10.2 8.7

- 1.5 0.3 0.3 0

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment (>25hp) 4.9 1.3

- 3.6 96.9 28.0 - 68.9 13.4 2.6

- 10.8

Ship Auxiliary Engine Cold Ironing and Clean Technology 0.6 0.5

- 0.1 37.2 23.7

- 13.5 0.7 0.9 +0.2 1.1 1.1 0

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuel

– Main Engines 2.6 3.9 +1.3 33.4 38.5 +5.1 0.2 1.9 +1.7 20.7 38.7 +18

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line

- Haul
Locomotives 0.7 0.7 0 18.3 18.3 0 2.3 2.3 0

Clean up Existing Harbor Craft 0.7 0.6

- 0.1 15.7 15.2 - 0.5 0.7 1.2 +0.5

Cargo Handling Equipment 0.1 0.1 0 5.2 3.2 - 2.0 0.6 0.3

- 0.3

New Emission Standards for Recreational Boats 11.0 11.0 0 37.9 37.9 0TSD for the Revised Proposed Approval

of the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 June 26, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 94 Table F

- 7 

### Original and Adjusted Baseline Emissions Inventories

By State Measure (tons per day, 2014)

State Measure Directly

- Emitted PM 2.5 NO x VOC SO x

Original Adjust

ed Change Original Adjust ed Change Original Adjust ed C hange O riginal A djusted C hange

Expanded Off

- Road Rec. Vehicle Emissions
Standards 6.7 6.7 0

Consumer Products Program na Na na na na na 102.6 102.6 0 na na na

All Other State, Local and Federal Measures 74 165 166 221

Totals: 102 95 7 654 589 65 52 8 518 10 22.2 40.1 18

S ource: 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E, p. 4.

1 Includes emissions from recreational boats.

2 Includes emissions from all sources categories except for those subject to the Truck & Bus and Off

- Road Equipment RulesTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 9 5

a This rule was submitted by CARB on May 2, 2011, and we expect to be able to act on it and thus credit it in our final action.

Table F

- 8 

### Creditable Emission s Reductions from Defined Measures in the 2007

State Strategy for the South Coast

(tons per d ay 2014)

State Measure Directly

Emitted
PM 2.5 NO x VOC SOx

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 0.3 2.6 8.6 0

Cleaner In

- Use Heav y

- Duty Trucks 2.6 18.6 3.3 Na

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment (> 25 hp) 0 0.5 0.1 Na

Ship Auxiliary Engine Cold Ironing & Clean Tech. 0.1 8.1 0.2 0.3

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuel

- Main Engines 3.5 17.6 0.5 37

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line

- Haul
Locomotives 0 0 0 na

Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft 0.2 4.1 0.1 na

Cargo Handling Equipment 0 0 0 na

New Emission Standards for Recreational
Boats Na 0 0 na

Expanded Off

- Road Rec. Vehicle Emissions
Standards Na 0 na

Consumer Products 0 0 5.9 0

All other local, state, and federal measures 1 7 0.8 4

Totals: 7.7 58.5 19.5 41.3

Source: 20 11 Progress Report, Appendix E, pp. 2 and 3 Only defined measures with directly

emitted PM 2.5

, VOC, SOx and/or NO x, reductions in the South Coast are shown here.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 96 3. Proposed Action s on the Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments

In our November 2010 proposal and our July 2011 amended proposal , we found that
circumstances warrant ed the consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the South Coast 2007 AQMP‘s attainment demonstration for the PM 2.5 standards

. We also found that both the State and the District ha d demonstrated the capability to meet their commitments. However, in our November 2010 proposal, we did not fi nd that the commit ments constituted a limited portion of the required emissions reductions needed for attainment

. The State‘s and District‘s
unfulfilled commitments at the time of our 2010 proposal represent ed 89 percent of the PM 2.5 reductions, 30 percent of the NO x reduc tions, 18 percent of the VOC reductions and 53 p ercent of the SO x em issions reductions e stimated to be need ed for attainment

. We also found that the commitments , which were for the most part to achieve the reductions by 2014, were not for an appropriate ti meframe given that we were proposing to not gran t the State‘s request to extend the applicable attainment date from 2010 to 2015. See 75 FR 71294, at 71309

- 71310. Because we could not make two of the necessary findings, we were unable to propose to approve the attainment demonstration that relied in part on these commitments. We did, however, propose to approve the District‘s and CARB‘s commitments to adopt and implement specific control measures on the schedule identified in their plans and to achieve the aggregate emissions reductions identified in their plans because they would strengthen the SIP.
In our July 14, 2011 amended proposal, we found that the commitments constituted a limited portion of the required emissions reductions needed for attainment

. T he State‘s and District‘s unfulfilled commitments at the time of our 2011 amended proposal represent ed 8 percent of the direct PM 2.5 reductions, 11 percent of the NO x reductions, 3 percent of the VOC reductions and 0 p ercent of the SO x emissions reductions estimated to be need ed for attainment

. We a lso found that the commitments, which were for the most part to achieve the reductions by 2014, were for an appropriate timeframe given that we were proposing to grant the State‘s request to extend the applicable attainment date from 2010 to 2015. See 76 FR 41562, at 41577.

4. EPA‘s Evaluation and Conclusion

a. Baseline and Control Strategy Measures

As shown in Table F

- 9 , the majority of the emission reductions needed to d emonstrate attainment come from baseline measures. These reductions come from a combination of District and State measures as well as adjust m e n ts to t he baseli n e that ref lect revisions to the economic forecasts that underlie the 2007 AQMP‘s estimate of fut ure emissions levels

. 76

In the past two decades, the District has adopted or revised about 80 prohibitory rules that limit emissions of NOx, VOC, particulate matter and/or SOx including most of the rule

76 Reductions in the baseline also come from f ederal measures. These federal measures include EPA‘s national emission standards for heavy duty diesel trucks ( 66 FR 5001 (January 18, 2001)) , certain new construction and farm equipment ( Tier 2 and 3 non

- road engines standards, 63 FR 56968 (October, 23, 1998) and Tier 4 diesel non

- road engine standards, 69 FR 38958 (June 29 , 2004)), and locomotives ( 63 FR 18978 (May 16, 1998) and 73 FR 37045 (June 30, 2008)). States are allowed to rely on reductions from federal measures in attainment and RFP demonstrations and for other SIP purposes.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 97 a doptions/revisions it committed to as part of the S outh Coast 2007 AQMP. See Appendix B and Table s F

- 2 and F

- 3 . These rules include controls for boilers, fugitive dust sources, internal combustion engines, wood burning, and open burning. The great majority of these rules and rule revisions are currently SIP approved and as such their emissions reductions are fully creditable in attainment and RFP demonstrations and for meeting other CAA requirement s, such as contingency measures.

Table F

- 9 

### Summary of Reductions Needed for South Coast‘s PM 2.5 

### Attainment

Demonstration , Updated April 2011 (tons per average annual day in 2014)

NO x VOC PM 2.5 SO x

A 2002 baseline emissions level 1093 844 99 53

B 2014 a ttainment target level 460 474 86 20

C Total reductions needed from 2002 baseline
levels to attain in 2014 (A

– B) 633 370 13 33

D 2014 baseline emissions level 654 528 102 43

E. Adjustment to 2014 baseline emissions level 65 10 7

- 18

F Adjusted 2014 baseline emissions level (D

- E) 589 518 95 61

G Reductions from baseline measures (A

- F) 504 326 4

- 8

% of reductions needed for attainment from
baseline measures 79.6% 88.1% 30.8% n/a

Reductions needed f

ro m control strategy measures (C

- G ) 129 44 9 41

Percent of reductions needed for attainment from control strategy measures 20.4% 11.9% 69.2% 124%

California has adopted standards for many categories of on

- and off

- road vehicles and engines, gasoline and diesel fuels, and numerous categories of consumer products. The State‘s measures fall within two categories: measures for which the State has obtai ned or has applied to obtain a waiver of federal pre

- emption under CAA section 209 (―section 209 waiver measure‖ or ―waiver measure‖) and those for which the State is not required to obtain a waiver (―non

- waiverTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 98 measure‖). See EPA‘s proposed approval and f inal approval of the SJV 1

- Hour Ozone Plan at
74 FR 33933, 33938, (July 14, 2009) and 75 FR 10420, 10424 (March 8, 2010). 77

i

. Section 209 Waiver Measures

A waiver under CAA section 209 is, in general, required for most of California‘s on

- and
nonroad veh icle or engine standards

. Examples of State waiver measures are: low emission vehicle program, heavy duty bus standards, and small off

- road engine standard s

. A list of California‘s waiver measures can be found in the Appendix A of this TSD

. California‘s m otor vehicle emissions control program predates the first federal statute regulating motor vehicle emissions, the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965 (which amended the CAA of 1963)

. In further CAA amendments, referred to as the Air Quality Act of 1967 (Pub. L. 90

- 148), Congress allowed the State of California, and only California, a waiver of the Air Quality Act‘s pre

- emption of state emissions standards for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines because of California‘s pioneering efforts and unique problems

. This was not changed when the statute was amended in 1970

. The 1977 amendments to the CAA expanded the flexibility granted to California in order ―to afford California th e broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare.‖ (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301

- 2 (1977)

. So long as California determines that its motor vehicle standards are ―in the aggregate‖ at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards, title II of the CAA requires EPA, unless it makes certain findings, to waive the Act‘s general prohibition on state adoption and enforcement of standards
relat ing to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines

. See CAA section 209 , subsections (a) and (b).
As part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress enacted subsection (e) of section 209. In nearly identical language to s ubsections (a) and (b) of section 209, subsection (e) sets forth the federal pre

- emption of state emissions standards for nonroad vehicles or engines but allows the State of California, and only California, a waiver of pre

- emption (with certain exceptions) under criteria that mirror the section 2 09(b) waiver provisions for motor vehicles.

In EPA ‘s review of the California SIP and its many revisions, EPA has historically
allowed emission s reduction credit for the motor vehicle emissions standards that are s ubject to a section 209(b) waiver without requiring California to submit the standards themselves to EPA for approval as part of the California SIP

. In this respect

, EPA treated these rules similarly to the federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed states to credit in their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision

. Since 1990, EPA has treated
California nonroad standards for which EPA has issued waivers in the same manner as California motor vehicle standards, i.e ., allowing credit for standards subject to the waiver process without requiring submittal of the standards as part of the SIP . In so doing, EPA has treated the California nonroad standards similarly to the Federal nonroad standards, which are relied upon, but not included in, various SIPs.

77 EPA position is also discussed in Br ief of Respondents, Sierra Club, et al., And Committee for a Better Arvin, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al

., United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
Case Nos. 10

- 71457 and 10

- 71458, May 5, 2011, pp. 33

- 44.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 99 Credit for Federal measures, including those that establish on

- road and nonroad standards, notwithstanding their absence in the SIP, is justified by reference to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which establishes the following content requirements for SIPs: ―... enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), ... , as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.‖ (emphasis added). Federal measures are permanent, independently enforceable (by EPA and citizens), and quantifiable without regard to whether they are approved into a SIP, and thus EPA has never
found such measures to be ―necessary or appropriate‖ for inclusion in SIPs to meet the applicable requirements of the Act. Section 209 of the CAA establishes a process under which EPA allows California‘s waiver measures to substitute for Federal measures, and l ike the Federal measures for which they substitute, EPA has historically found, and continues to find, based on considerations of permanence, enforceability, and quantifiability, that such measures are not ―necessary or appropriate‖ for California to inclu de in its SIP to meet the applicable requirements of the Act.

First, with respect to permanence

, we note that, to maintain a waiver, CARB‘s on

- road
waiver measures can be relaxed only to a level of aggregate equivalence to the Federal Motor Vehicle Contr ol Program (FMVCP) . See section 209(b)(1)

. In this respect, the FMVCP acts as a partial backstop to California‘s on

- road waiver measures (i.e., absent a waiver, the FMVCP would apply in California)

. Likewise, Federal nonroad vehicle and engine standards act as a partial backstop for corresponding California nonroad waiver measure s

. The constraints of the waiver process thus serve to limit the extent to which CARB can relax the waiver measures for
whic h there are corresponding EPA standards, and thereby serve an anti

- backsliding function similar in substance to those established for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193

. Meanwhile, the growing convergence between California and EPA mobile source standards diminishes the difference in the emissions reductions reasonably attributed to the two programs and strengthens the role of the Federal program in serving as an effective backstop to the State

program

. In other words, with the harmonization of EP A mobile source standards with the corresponding State standards, the Federal program is becoming essentially a full backstop to most parts of the California program.
Second, as to enforceability, w e note that the waiver process itself bestows enforceability onto California to enforce the on

- road or nonroad standards for which EPA has issued the
waiver. CARB has as long a history of enforcement of vehicle/engine emissions standards as EPA, and CARB‘s enforcement program is equally as rigorous as the corresponding EPA

program

. The history and rigor of CARB‘s enforcement program lends assurance to California SIP revisions that rely on the emissions reductions from CARB‘s rules in the same manner as EPA‘s mobile sou rce enforcement program lends assurance to other state ‘s SIPs in their reliance
on emissions reductions from the FMVCP. While it is true that citizens and EPA are not authorized to enforce California waiver measures under the Clean Air Act (i.e., because t hey are not in the SIP), citizens and EPA are authorized to enforce EPA standards in the event that vehicles operate in California without either California or EPA certification,

As to quantifiability, EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motor

vehicle

- related waiver measures by allowing California to include motor vehicle emissions estimates made by using California‘s EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissionsTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 100 factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reduc tions from motor

- vehicle

related waiver measures through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updated from time to time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly

- es tablished emissions standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA‘s motor vehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as MOVES, which replaced EPA‘s MOBILE model .) The EMFAC
model is based on the motor vehicle emissions standards for which California has received waivers from EPA but accounts for vehicle de terioration and many other factors

. The motor vehicle emissions estimates themselves combine EMFAC results with vehicle activity estimates,

among other considerations

. See the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, and the related EPA rulemakings approving the pl an (see 48 FR 5074 (February 3

, 1983) for the proposed rule and 48 FR 57130 (December 28, 1983) for the final rule) as an example of how the waiver measures
have been treated historically by EPA in California SIP actions. 78 T he South Coast 2007 AQMP was developed using a version of the EMFAC model referred to as EMFAC200 7, which EPA has approved for use in SIP development in California. See 73 FR 3464 ( January 18, 2008 ). Thus, the emissions reductions that are from the California on

- road ―waiver meas ures‖ and that are estimated through use of EMFAC are as verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied upon by states other than California in developing their SIPs based on estimates of motor vehicle emissions ma de through the use of the MOVES model.

Moreover, EPA‘s waiver review and approval process is analogous to the SIP approval

process

. First, CARB adopts its emissions standards following notice and comment procedures at the state level, and then submits the rules to EPA as part of its waiver requ est

. When EPA receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal Register following the public comment period

. Once again, in substance, the process is s imilar to that for SIP approval and supports the argument that one hurdle (the waiver process) is all Congress intended for California standards, not two (waiver process plus SIP approval process)

. Second , just as SIP revisions are not effective until appr oved by EPA, changes to CARB‘s rules (for which a waiver has been granted) are not effective until EPA grants a new waiver, unless the changes are ―within the scope‖ of a prior waiver and no new waiver is needed. Third, both types of final actions by
EPA

-- i.e., final actions on California requests for waivers and final actions on state submittals of

78 EP A‘s historical practice in allowing California credit for waiver measures notwithstanding the absence of the underlying rules in the SIP is further documented by reference to EPA‘s review and approval of a May 1979 revision to the California SIP entitled, ―Chapter 4, California Air Quality Control Strategies.‖ In our proposed approval of the 1979 revision (44 FR 60758, October 22, 1979), we describe the SIP revision as outlining California‘s overall control strategy, which the State had divided into vehicul ar sources and non

- vehicular (stationary source) controls. As to the former, the SIP revision discusses vehicular control measures as including technical control measures and transportation control measures. The former refers to the types of measures we re fer to herein as waiver measures, as well as fuel content limitations, and a vehicle inspection and maintenance program. The 1979 SIP revision included several appendices, including appendix 4

– E, which refers to ―ARB vehicle emission controls included in t itle 13, California Administrative Code, chapter 3 * * *,‖ including the types of vehicle emission standards we refer to herein as waiver measures; however, California did not submit the related portions of the California Administrative Code (CAC) to EPA a s part of the 1979 SIP revision submittal. With respect to the CAC, the 1979 SIP revision states: ―The following appendices are portions of the California Administrative Code. Persons interested in these appendices should refer directly to the code.‖ Thu s, the State was clearly signaling its intention to rely on the California motor vehicle control program but not to submit the underlying rules to EPA as part of the SIP. In 1980, we finalized our approval as proposed. See 45 FR 63843 (September 28, 1980).TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 101 SIPs and SIP revisions

— may be challenged under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals.
Further statutory support for EPA ‘s long

- standing practice is found in CAA section 193.
CAA section 193, enacted as part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, is a general savings clause that provides for, among other things, EPA statutory interpretations that predate those amendments to re main in effect so long as not inconsistent with the Act

. At the time it enacted
section 193, Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA‘s consistent prior treatment of California‘s motor vehicle standards inconsistent with the Act . Moreover, where Congress intends state control measures that are otherwise pre

- empted under title II of the Clean Air Act to be incorporated into SIPs, it has required that explicitly. See

, e.g ., section 211(c)(4)(C) (State fuels regulations), section 21 1(m) (oxygenated gasoline regulations)

, and section 246 (centrally fueled fleets). Thus, in section 193, Congress effectively ratified EPA‘s longstanding pre

- 1990 practice of allowing emission s reduction credit for California standards subject to the waiver process notwithstanding the absence of the standards in the SIP itself

.

As noted above, under the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress enacted subsection (e) of section 209. In nearly identical language to subsections (a) and (b) of section 209, subsection ( e) sets forth the federal pre

- emption of state emissions standards for nonroad vehicles or engines but allows the State of California, and only California, a waiver of pre

- emption (with certain exceptions) under criteria that mirror the section 2 09(b) waiv er provisions for motor vehicles. Congress is presumed to be aware of agency interpretations and its subsequent revision of the
statute to add subsection (e) without overruling EPA‘s interpretation with respect to motor
vehicle standards is further compell ing evidence that the Agency correctly interpreted congressional intent with respect to crediting California requirements subject to a section 209
waiver without requiring California to submit the standards themselves to EPA for approval as part of the Cal ifornia SIP.

We believe that section 193 of the CAA, the general savings clause added by Congress in 1990, effectively ratified our long

- standing practice of granting credit for the California waiver rules because Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA‘s treatment of California‘s motor vehicle standards inconsistent with the Act

. Rather, Congress extended the California waiver provisions to most types of nonroad vehicles and engines, once again reflecting Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare

. Requiring the waiver measures to undergo SIP review in addition to the statutory waiver process is not
consi stent with providing California with the broadest possible discretion as to on

- road and nonroad vehicle and engine standards, but rather, would add to the regulatory burden California faces in establishing and modifying such standards, and thus would not b e consistent with Congressional intent

. In short, we believe that Congress intended California‘s mobile source rules to undergo only one EPA review process (i.e., the waiver process), not two. Even if section 193 did not provide congressional acquiescence as to EPA‘s treatment of the standards, the Act‘s structure, evolution, and provision for the waiver of Federal pre

- emption for California mobile source emissions standards , as discussed above

, support EPA‘s long

- standing interpretation of the CAA to allow California to rely on emission reductions resulting from waiver measures in SIPs, notwithstanding the waiver measures‘ absence from the SIP itself.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 102 ii. Non

- waiver measures

These measures include improvements to California‘s inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, SmogCheck, as well as cleaner burning gasoline and diesel regulations. A list of these

non

- waiver measures , many of which have been SIP approved, can be found Appendix A.

b. E nforceable Commitments

As stated and shown in Table F

- 11 below

, reductions in the projected baseline inventory resulting from the economic recession , changes to activity estimates and emission factors, and measures already adopted by the District and State (both prior to and pursuant to th e South Coast 2007 AQMP) and approved or proposed for approval by EPA provide the great majority of emission reductions needed to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the South Coast nonattainment are a . The balance of the needed reductions is in the form of enforceable commitments by CARB and the District.

We believe that, with respect to the South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised 2007 State Strategy, circumstances warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the attainment demonstration for the South Coast nonattainment area . As shown in Table F

- 10 above, the majority of emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment and RFP in the
South Coast nonattainment area come from rules and regulations that were adopted prior to 2007, i.e., they come from the baseline measures . As a result of these State and District efforts, most sources in the South Coast nonattainment area were already subject to stringent rules prior
to the State Stra tegy‘s and the South Coast 2007 AQMP‘s development, leaving fewer and more technologically challenging opportunities to reduce emissions in the nonatt a inment area. In the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy, the District and CARB identified p otential
control measures that could achieve the additional emission reductions needed for attainment. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Chapter 4, and 2007 State Strategy, Chapter 5. However, the timeline needed to develop, adopt, and implement these measures we nt well beyond the April 5,
2008 79 deadline to submit the PM 2.5 attainment plan. As discussed above, the District and State have made progress meeting their commitments but have not completely filled them. G iven these circumstances, we consider the District ‘s and CARB‘s reliance in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy on enforceable commitments to be warranted.
Having concluded that the use of enforceable commitments is warranted, w e now consider the three factors EPA uses to determine whether the use of enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted measures to meet a CAA plan ning requirements is approvable: (a) does the commitment address a limited portion of the statutorily

- required program; (b) is the state capable of fulfilling its commitment; and (c) is the commitment for a reasonable and appropriate period of time

.

79 The 2007 State Strategy was developed to address both the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. The 8

- hour ozone SIPs were due in November 2007, and the development and adoption of the State Strategy was timed to coordinate with this submit tal date. 2007 State Strategy, p. 1.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 103 Table F

- 10 

### Reductions Needed for Attai nment Remaining as Commitments B ased on Approved Measures Using Updated Emissions Reductions Estimates (tons per average annual day in 2014)

NO x VOC PM 2.5 SO x

A Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy measures to attain 633 370 13 33

B Reductions from baseline measures 504 326 4

- 8

C Total reductions needed from new measures and commitments 129 44 9 41

Total reductions from approved/waived measures and adjustments to baseline (from
Table F

- 8) 5 9 20 8 41

Total reductions remaining as commitments (A

B

- C) a 70.5 24 1 0

% of total reductions needed remaining as
commitments a, b 11% 7 % 8 % 0%

Total District commitments 10.8 10.4 3 3 Total reductions from approved District

measures 4.2 0.8 1 4

Total reductions remaining as District
commitments 6.6 9.6 2 0

Perc e nt of District‘s commitments remaining as
commitments compared to overall reductions needed 1 % 3 % 15% 0%

a Remaining NOx enforceable commitments in clude 10 tpd federal assignment. Remaining VOC enforceable commitments include 4 tpd VOC from CARB‘s marine tanks rule, which we have not yet acted on , and 3.9 tpd of VOC from SC Rule 1144 and 9.7 tpd of VOC from SC Rule 1143, because we have not completed final action on these District rules (see Table F

- 3 in this TSD)

. b Includes local reductions. (see 2011 Progress Report)

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 104 Table F

- 11 

### Reductions Needed for Attai nment Remaining as Commitments B ased on SIP

Creditable Measures (tons per average annual day in 2014) , based on 2011 Progress Report and 2011 Progress Report Supplement

NO x VOC PM 2.5 SO x

Total CARB commitments 129 44 9 41

Reductions from approved/waived measures and adjustments to
baseline 59 20 8 41

Reductions in excess of District‘s
commitments 0 0 0 1

Total reductions remaining as CARB
commitments a 70 24 1 0

% of CARB commitments remaining as commitments 11% 7% 8% 0%

a The VOC commitment includes 4 tpd VOC from CARB‘s marine tanks rule, which we have not yet acted on. and 3.9 tpd of VOC from SC Rule 1144 and 9.7 tpd of VOC from SC Rule 1143, because we have not completed final action on these rules (see Table F

- 3 on p. 79

- 80 of this TSD)

.

i. The C ommitments are a Limited Portion of Required Reductions

For the first factor, we look to see if the commitment addresses a limited portion of a statutory requirement, such as the amount of emissions reductions needed for attainment in a nonattainment area.

As shown in Table F

- 11 , the remaining portion of the enforceable commitments after accounting for approved and proposed for approval measures, as well as adjustments to the
baseline that resulted from the recent economic recession are 70 tpd NOx

, 24 tpd VOC, and 1

t pd direct PM 2.5 . When compared to the tot al reductions needed by 2014 for PM 2.5 attainment in the South Coast nonattainment area on a per

- pollutant basis , the remaining portion of the enforceable commitments represents approximately 11 percent of the needed NOx, 7 percent of the needed VOC, and 8 percent of the needed PM 2.5 needed to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the South Coast

.

We believe that the reductions remaining as enf orceable commitments in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and updated 2007 State Strategy represent a limited portion of the total emissions reductions needed to meet the statutory requi rement for attainment in the South Coast and therefore satisfy the first factor. The level of reductions remaining as commitments is within theTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 105 range of 10 percent or less that EPA has h is tor ically accepted in approving attainment demonstrations. 80

ii. The State is Capable of Fulfilling Its Commitment

For the second factor, we consider whether the State and District are capable of fulfilling their commitments.

As discussed above, CARB has adopted and submitted a 2009 State Strategy Status Report and a 2011 Progress Report which update and revise the 2007 State Strategy. These SIP revisions show that CARB has made significant progress in meeting its enforceable
commitments for the South Coa st and several other nonattainment areas in California. Additional ongoing programs that addresses locomo tives and revisions to the Smog Check program have yet to be quantified but are expected to reduce NOx and direct PM2.5 emissions in the South Coast by 2014. See CARB Supplement , Attachment 5. The 2009 State Strategy Status Report includes a table with estimates of the reductions that may fulfill the CARB‘s full commitment. See 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 17.

The District has also made good pro gress in meeting its enforceable commitments and has exceeded its emissions reduction commitments for SOx and VOC . The Distric t ‘ s continued efforts in committing to and adopting measures for sources under its jurisdiction will help the District fully meet its commitments. The District has also already adopted rules that are projected to achieve NOx reductions of 10. 8 tpd in 2014. See Table F

- 4 above. The District is continu ing to work to identify and adopt additional control measures to reduce emissions.

B eyond the rules discussed above, both CARB and the District have well

- funded incentive grant programs to reduce emissions from the on

- and off

- road engine fleets. Reductions from several of these programs have yet to be quantified and/or credited in the attainment demonstration.

Finally, the South Coast is designated nonattainment for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard. The State must submit a plan to address attainment of tha t standa rd by December 14,
2012. See 74 FR 58688, 58689, (November 13, 2009).

Given the evidence of the State's and District‘s efforts to date and their continuing efforts to reduce emissions, we believe that the State and District are capable of meeting their enforceable commitments to reduce emissions of directly

- emitted PM 2.5 , NOx, VOC and SOx to the levels needed to attain the PM 2.5 standards in the South Coast nonattainment area by 2014.

iii. The Commitment is for a Reasonable and Appropriate Tim eframe

80 See , for example, our approval of the SJV PM 10 Plan at 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004), the SJV 1

- hour ozone plan
at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010), and the Houston

- Galveston 1

- hour ozone plan at 66 FR 57160 (November 14, 2001).TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 106 F or the third and last factor, we consider whether the commitment is for a reasonable and appropriate period of time.

In or der to meet the commitments to reduc e emiss ions to the levels needed to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the South Coast by 2014, the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy include ambitious rule development, adoption, and implementation schedule s, which both the District and CARB have substantially met . EPA considers these schedule s to provide sufficient time to achi eve the committed reductions by 2014 as needed to attain by the proposed
attainment date of April 5, 2015. See Tables F

- 3 and F

- 6 above

. W e therefore conclude that the third factor is satisfied.

iv. Summary of Finding on Enforceable Commitments in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

EPA believe s circumstances warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and updated 2007 State Strategy

. As stated a bove , measures already adopted by the District and State and approved or proposed for approval pursuant to CAA section 110(k) or waived pursuant to CAA section 209 by EPA provide the great majority of emission s reductions needed to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the South Coast by 2015. We have found that the reductions that remain as enforceable commitments represent a l imited portion of the overall reductions needed for attainment. We have also found that the State and District ar e capable of fulfilling their remaining commitment s and that the commitment s are for a time period that is both reasonable and appropriate to assure that the remaining reductions are in place prior to the attainment date of April 5, 2015. As a result of ou r findings here, EPA is accept ing enforceable commitments as part of California ‘s strategy to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast.

v. Action on Enforceable Commitments to Reduce Emissions and Adopt Specific
Measures

W e are approving the D istrict ‘s commitments to adopt and implement specific control

measures identified in Table 4

- 2A in the South Coast 2007 AQMP (as amended March 4, 2011 by Tables 1 through 5 of Appendix F in the 2011 Progress Report ) , to the extent that these commitme nts have not yet been fulfilled, and commitments to achieve emissions reductions including emissions reductions of 2.9 tpd of direct PM2.5, 10.8 tpd of NOx, 10.4 tpd of VOC, and 2.9 tpd of SOx by 2014

. We are also approving CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, as given i n Table B

- 1 in the 2011 Progress Re port, Appendix B , to the extent that th e se

co mmitments have not yet been ful f illed

, and to achieve the total aggregate emission s reductions of NOx, VOC, direct PM2.5, and SOx by 2014 sufficient to provide for attain ment of the 1997
PM 2.5 standards in the South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area

. See CARB Resolution 07

- 28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 3

- 5

. We describe CARB‘s and the District‘s commitments in the 2007 State Strategy (revise d in 2009 and 2011) and the 2007 AQMP in detail in our amended proposal. See 76 FR 41562, at 41575 . The 2007 State Strategy includes commitments to propose defined new measures and an enforceable commitment for emissions reductions sufficient, in combination with existing measures and the Dis trict‘s commitments, to attain the
PM 2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast by April 5, 2015. See CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment BTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 107 at pp. 3

- 5

. For the South Coast, the State‘s emissions reductions commitments as submitted in 2007 were to achieve 152 tpd NO x , 46 t pd of VOC

, 20 tpd of SOx and 9 tpd of direct PM 2.5 by
2014

. See 2009 State Strategy Status Report , page 20

. The 2011 SIP revisions changed the total amount of reductions needed from control strategy measures in 2014 to 129 tpd of NO x reductions, 44 tpd of VOC reductions, and 41 tpd of SO x reductions (the PM2.5 enforceable commitment stayed the same at 9 tpd of directly

- emitted PM2.5). See Table F

- 10.
We received a number of comments on our proposed approval of the a dopted control

s trategy and our proposed acceptance of enforceable c ommitments in the attainment demonstration . We have reviewed these comments and provided respon ses to them. See section
III of this TSD. No issues raised in these comments changed our finding that the a dopted control

s trategy and enforceable c ommitments in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised 2007 State Strategy are consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 108 

### G . Attainment Demonstration

1. Requirement for Attainment Demonstrations

CAA section 172 (b) and (c) require states to submit plans that demonstrate attainment of the applicable standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the applicable attainment
date. Under the PM 2.5 implementation rule, this demonstration should consists of four parts :

(1) t echnical analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of emissions that are contributing to violations of the PM 2.5 NAAQS;
(2) analyses of future year emissions reductions and air quality improvement resulting
from already

- adopted national and local programs, and from potential new local measures to meet the RACT, RACM, and RFP requirements in the area; (3) adopted emissions reduction measure with schedules for implementation; and
(4) contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.

See 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007), at 20605.

The requirements for parts 1 and 2 are described in the emissions inventory (II.A.) , air quality modeling (II.B.) , and RACM/RACT (II.D.) sections of this TSD. Requirements for parts 3 and 4 are described in the control strategy (II.F.) and contingency measures (II.I.) sections of this TSD, respectively. In this section, we evaluate how these parts taken together provide for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the South Co ast as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the attainment date required by the CAA.

2. Attainment Demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

The attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP is in Chapter 5, ―Future Air Quality, ‖ with additional technical information in Appendix V of the AQMP. It is summarized in Table G

- 1 below. Table G

- 2 shows the contribution by the District and CARB to the control strategy as given in the South Coast 2007 AQMP as submitted in November 2007.

Since adoption and submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and the South Coast 2007 AQMP, both CARB and the District have adopted most of the measures that they committed to adopt in their plans, and most have been approved, proposed for approval, or granted a CAA section 209 waiver by EPA. See Tables F

- 3 and F

- 6. In the 2011 Progress Report, CARB and the District have updated the emissions reductions expected from their adopted measures and resulting from changes to the inventory and the economic recessio n. Table G

- 3 shows the impact of these updates on the attainment demonstration, and Table G

- 4 shows the effect of these updates and EPA‘s proposed and final approvals on the level of commitments remaining in the
attainment demonstration.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 109 Table G

- 1 

### Summary of the Attainment Demonstration

, South Coast 2007 AQMP, as Submitted in November 2007 (tons per average annual day in 2014)

NO x VOC Directly

Emitted
PM 2.5 SO x

A 2006 baseline emissions level 972 732 101 63

B 2014 a ttainment target level* 460 474 86 20

C T otal reductions needed from 2006 baseline levels to attain in 2014 (A

– B) 512 258 15 43

D 2014 baseline emissions level 654 528 102 43

Reductions from baseline measures (A

- D) 318 204 (

- 1) 20

% of reductions needed for attainment from
baseline measures 62% 79% n/a 47%

Reductions needed f

rom control strategy measures (D

- B ) 194 59 16 23

% of reductions needed for attainment from control strategy measures 38% 23% 106% 53%

*The South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2009 State Strategy use slightly different attainment targets. The CARB Staff Report for the South Coast 2007 AQMP presents a slightly different emissions carrying capacity which relies more heavily on reductions of prima ry PM 2.5 and less heavily on reductions of precursors to PM 2.5 . The Staff Report's emission carrying capacity estimates are PM 2.5 - 86 tons/day, NOx

- 460 tons/day, SOx

- 20 tons/day, and VOC

- 474 tons/day (see CARB Staff Report on the South Coast AQMP, page ES

- 3). Therefore, the percentage reductions needed for attainment in this table may not add up to 100%. In the proposed rule and this TSD, we use the CARB Staff Report carrying capacity numbers.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 110

Table G

- 2

. 

### Summary of Control Strategy Reductions by Agency South Coast 2007 AQMP as Submitted November 2007 (tons per average annual day in 2014)

NO x VOC Directly

Emitted
PM 2.5 SO x

Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy measures to attain 512 258 15 43

Total reductions from control strategy measures 194 53 16 23

District commitments 32 10 4 3

Percent of total control strategy reductions from District commitments 1 7 % 19 % 25 % 13 %

State commitments* 152 46 9 20

Percent of total control strategy reductions from State commitments 78 % 87 % 56 % 87 %

Federal assignment** 10 (5 %)

-- -- --

* The 2007 State Strategy identifies 9 tpd of directly

- emitted PM 2.5 as the aggregate State commitment by the 2015 attainment date (see 2009 State Strategy Status Report, page 20) but the CARB staff report for the South Coast 2007 AQMP indicates a 12 tpd commitment. (see 2007 Staff Report, page ES

- 3) It is unclear whether the State‘s commitment is for 9 tpd direct PM 2.5 or 12 tpd of direct PM 2.5
. **The AQMP assigns 10 tpd of NOx reductions to the federal government . We are reject ing this assignment.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 111

Table G

- 3

. 

### Summary of the Attainment Demonstration Updated April 2011 with Additional Adjustments (tons per average annual day in 2014)

PM 2.5 NO x VOC SO 2

A 2002 baseline emissions level 99 1093 844 53

B 2014 a ttainment target level 86 460 474 20

C T otal reductions needed from 2002 baseline levels to attain in 2014 (A

– B) 13 633 370 33

D Unadjusted 2014 baseline emissions level 102 654 528 43

E Adjustment to 2014 baseline emissions
level 7 65 10 - 18

F Adjusted 2014 baseline emissions level (D

– E) 9 4 589 518 6 5

Reductions from baseline measures (A

- F ) 4 504 326 - 8

Percent of reductions needed for
attainment from baseline measures 30.7% 79.6% 88.1% 0

Reductions needed from control strategy measures (B

– F) 9 129 44 41

Percent of reductions needed for attainment from control strategy measures 69.2% 20.3% 11.9% 124%TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 112 Table G

- 4

. 

### Summary of the Attainment Remaining as Commitments based on Approved Measures using Updated Emissions Reductions Estimates

(tons per average annual day in 2014)

NO x VOC PM 2.5 SO x

A Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy measures to attain 633 370 13 33

B Reductions from baseline measures (Table
F

- 10) 504 326 4

- 8

C Reductions needed from control strategy

measures 129 44 9 41

D Total reductions from approved /proposed for approval measures (Table s F

- 4 and F

- 9) 5 9 20 8 41

E Total reductions remaining as commitments (A

- B

- D ) a , b 70 24 1 0

Percent of total reductions needed remaining
as commitments a , b 11% 7 % 8% 0%

E Total District commitments 10.8 10.4 3 3

F Total reductions from approved/proposed for approval District measures 4.2 0.8 1 4

G Total reductions remaining as District
commitments 6.6 9.6 2 0

Percent of District‘s commitments remaining
as commitments 1 % 3 % 15 % 0%

a Includes the District‘s and State‘s backstop for the 10 tpd NOx federal assignment.
b The VOC commitment includes 4 tpd VOC from CARB‘s marine tanks rule, which we have not yet acted on. and 3.9 tpd of VOC from SC Rule 1144 and 9.7 tpd of VOC from SC Rule 1143, because we have not completed final action on these rules (see Table s F

- 2 and F

- 3 and footn ote b to T able F

- 3)

.
3. Proposed Action s on the Attainment Demonstration in the 2007 South Coast AQMP

In November 2010, we propos ed to disapprove the attainment demonstration in the 2007 South Coast AQMP based on our proposed disapproval of the RACM/RACT demonstrati on and

our proposal to deny the State‘s request to extend the attainment date for the South Coast until April 5, 2015. EPA also proposed to disapprove the attainment demonstration because, at the time of the 2010 proposal, t he State‘s and District‘s unfulfilled commitments represent ed 89 percent of the direct PM 2.5 reductions, 28 percent of the NO x reductio ns, 18 percent of the VOC reductions, and 53 percent of the SO x emissions reductions required for attainment . The se percentages were well above the roughly 10 p ercent figure generally acceptable in order for EPA to approve an attainment demonstration that relies in part on enforceable commitments. 75 FR 71294, 71314 and Section II.D. of the November 2010 TSD.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 113 In our J uly 2011 amended proposal, we proposed to approve the attainment demonstration in the 2007 South Coast AQMP based on our proposed approval of the RACM/RACT demonstration and our proposal to grant the State‘s req uest to extend the attainment date to April 5, 2015 . We also found in our July 2011 amended proposal that circumstances warranted the conside ration of enforceable commitments in the attainment
demonstration , and that the State is capable of meeting the commitments, that the commitments are for an appropriate time frame, and that the commitments constitute a limited portion of the required emiss ions reductions.

4. Evaluation and Conclusion

In order to approve a SIP‘s attainment demonstration, EPA must make several findings and approve the State‘ s requested attainment date.

First, we must find that the dem onstration‘s technical bases

- emissions invento ries and air quality modeling

- are adequate. As discussed above in section s II.A. and II. B ., we find that the emissions inventories and the air quality modeling on which the South Coast 2007 AQMP‘s
attainment demonstration is based meet applicable EPA regulations and guidance and are an acceptable basis for the demonstration

.

Second, we must find that the SIP provides for expeditious attainment through the implementation of all RACM and RACT on direct PM 2.5 and each PM 2.5 attainment plan

precursor

. As discussed above in section II. D., we are approving the RACM/RACT demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP .

Third, EPA must find that the emissions reductions that are relied on for attainment are
creditable. As discussed in section II. F.

, the South Coast 2007 AQMP relies principally on adopted and approved/waived rules to achieve the emissions reductions needed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the South Coast by April 5, 2015. The balance of the reductions is currently
in the form of enforceable commitments that account for 8 percent of the directly

- emitted PM 2.5 , 11 percent of the NOx, and 7 percent of the VOC needed from 2002 levels for attainment. See Table G

- 4.

EPA has previously accepted enforceable commitments in lieu of adop ted control

measure s in attainment demonstrations when the circumstances warrant it and the commitments
meet three criteria. As discussed above in section II.F.4, w e believe that circumstances here warrant the considerat ion of enforceable commitments and tha t the three criteria are met: 1) the commitments constitute a limited portion of the required emissions reductions

, 2 ) both the State and the District have demonstrated their capability to meet their commitments

, and 3) the commitment are for an approp riate timeframe. Based on these conclusions, we are allow ing the State to rely on these limited enforceable commitments in its attainment demonstration.

Finally, for a PM 2.5 nonattainment area that cannot attain with five years of its designation as nonattainment, EPA must grant an extension of the attainment date in order to approve the attainment demonstration for the area. As discussed above in section II.E., we believe that an five

– year extension of the attainment date is appropriate since it i s supp orted byTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 114 the necessary analysis. We are therefore grant ing the State‘s request to extend the attainment
date in the South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area to April 5, 2015. For the foregoing reasons, we

are approving the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP.

We received several comments on our proposed approval of the attainment demonstration. We have reviewed these comments and provided respon ses to them. See section
III of this TSD. No issues raised in these comments changed our finding that the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised 2007 State Strategy are consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 115 

### H . Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration

1. Requirements for Reasona ble Further Progress Demonstrations

C lean A ir A ct section 172(c)(2) requires that plans for nonattainment areas shall provide for reasonable further progress (RFP). RFP is defined in section 171(1) as ―such annual
incremental reductions in emissions of th e relevant air pollutant as are required by this part [Part D] or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date.‖

The PM 2.5 implementation rule requires a s tate to s ubmit an RFP plan a t the same time as its attainment demonstration for any area for which the state requests an extension of the attainment date beyond 2010. The RFP plan must provide emission reductions such that emissions in 2009 represent generally line ar progress from the baseline year to the attainment year. Where a state requests an extension of the attainment deadline to 2014 or 2015, the state must additionally provide emission reductions such that emissions in 2012 represent generally linear progre ss from the baseline year to the attainment year. See 40 CFR § 51.1009 (c). 72 FR 20586 at 20633

The RFP plan must describe the control measures that provide for meeting the reasonable further progress milestones for the area, the timing of implementation of those measures, and the expected reductions in emissions of direct PM 2.5 and all PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors. See
40 CFR § 51.1009 (c).

A state is also required to d emonstrate in its RFP plan that in each applicable milestone year, emissions will be at a level consistent with generally linear progress in reducing emissions between the base year and the attainment year. See 40 CFR § 51.1009 (d). A state may demonstration this by showing that emissions for each milestone year are either 1) roughly equivalent to benchmark emission levels for direct PM 2.5 emission and each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the plan or 2) at levels included in an alternative scenario that is projected to result in a generally equivalent improvement in air quality by the milestone year as
would be achieved under the first option. See 40 CFR § 51.1 009 (g). 72 FR 20586 at 20639.

The steps for determining the benchmark emissions levels is given in the PM 2.5 implementation rule in 40 CFR § 51.1009 (f) :

(1) For direct PM 2.5 emissions and each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the
attainment s trategy, the full implementation reduction is calculated by subtracting the full implementation inventory from the baseline year inventory. The f ull implementation inventory is the projected RFP emission inventory for the year preceding the attainment
dat e, representing a level of emissions that demonstrates attainment. The b aseline year inventory is the emissions inventory for the year also used as the base year for the attainment d emonstration (see 40 CFR § 51.1000 ).

( 2 ) For direct PM 2.5 emissions and each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the attainment strategy, a benchmark emission reduction is calculated by multiplying the full implementation reduction by the milestone date fraction. The milestone date fraction isTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 116 the ratio of the number of years from the baseline year to the milestone inventory year divided by the number of years from the baseline year to the full implementation year.

( 3 ) The benchmark emission level in the milestone year is calculated for direct PM 2.5 emissions and each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor by subtracting the benchmark emission reduction from the baseline year emission level. The benchmark RFP plan is defined as a plan that achieves benchmark emission levels for direct PM 2.5 emissions and

ea ch PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the attainment strategy for the area.

In comparing inventories between baseline and future years for direct PM 2.5 emissions and each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor, the inventories must be derived from the same geographic area. The plan must include emissions estimates for all types of emitting sources and activities in the geographic area from which the emission inventories for direct PM 2.5 emissions and each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the plan are derived. See 40 CFR §
51.1009 (f)(5).

The equivalence of an alternative scenario to the corresponding benchmark plan must be determined by comparing the expected air quality changes of the two scenarios at the design value monito r location. This comparison should use the information developed for the attainment plan to assess the relationship between emissions reductions of the direct PM 2.5 emissions and
each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the attainment strategy and the ambient air quality improvement for the associated ambient species . See 40 CFR § 51.1009 (h).

2. RFP Demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

The RFP demonstration is in Chapter 6 of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and is updated
and revised in Appendix C of the 2011 Progress Report. The demonstration addresses NO x , VOC, direct PM 2.5 , and SO x and uses the 2002 annual average day inventory as the baseline year inventory and 2014 as the attainment year. The State is requesting an extension of the attainment
date until April 5, 2015, which means 2014 is the attainment year for the purposes of the RFP benchmark calculation.

Table H

- 1 shows the calculation of full implementation reductions, the first step in determining the RFP benchmarks under the PM 2. 5 implementation rul e.

Table H

- 2 provides the benchmark calculations from the Plan. The State is requesting an extension of the attainment date until April 5, 2015 which means 2014 is the attainment year for the purposes of the RFP benchmark calculation. The 2014 attainment y ear is 12 years from the 2002 base year, making the 2009 milestone date fraction 7/12 and the 2012 milestone date fraction 10/12.

Table H

- 3 provides the updated RFP demonstration from the 2011 Progress Report.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 117 Table H

- 1 

### Full Implementation Reductions in 2007 AQMP

(tons per average annual day)

Direct PM 2.5 NO x VOC SO 2 2002 base year inventory 99 1093 844 53

2014 attainment target emissions level (full implementation inventory) 86 460 474 20

Full implementation reductions for
attainment 13 633 370 33

Source: South Coast 2007 AQMP, page 6

- 11.

Table H

- 2



### Benchmark Calculations for 2007 AQMP (tons per average annual day)

Direct PM 2.5 NO x VOC SO 2

A. Full implementation reductions 13 633 370 33

B. 2009 milestone date fraction (7/12) 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58

C. 2009 benchmark emissions reductions (A * B) 7.6 367 215 19

D. 2009 benchmark emissions level (2002 baseline inventory

– C) 91.4 726 629 34

E. 2012 milestone date fraction (10/12) 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

F. 2012 benchmark emissions reductions (A * E) 10.8 525 307 27

G. 2012 benchmark emissions level (2002 baseline inventory

– F) 88.2 568 537 26

H. Annual reductions needed for linear progress ( 1 / 12 *A) 1.1 52.8 30.8 2.8

I. Percent annual reductions needed for linear progress ( 1 / 12 *A/2002 baseline inventory) 1% 4.8% 3.5% 5 .4%

Source: South Coast 2007 AQMP

, Page 6

- 11.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 118

Table H

- 3

- 

### Revised RFP Calculations in 2011 Progress Report

(tons per average annual day)

NO x VOC PM 2.5 SO x
1 2002 baseline inventory (tpd) 1093 844 99 53

2 Annual percentage change needed to show linear progress (%) 4.9% 3.7% 1.0% 5.4%

3 One year‘s RFP 52.8 30.8 1.1 2.8

4 2009 target needed to show linear progress (tpd)
724 628 91 34

5 2009 remaining emissions with plan (tpd) 677 563 89 43

6 Projected shortfall (tpd) a +47 +65 +2 9

7 2012 target needed to show linear progress (tpd) 566 534 88 26

8 2012 remaining emissions with plan (tpd) 582 514 89 26

9 Projected shortfall (tpd) 16 +20 +1 0

10 2014 remaining emissions with plan (tpd) 460 474 86 20

Source: 2011 Progress Report, Appendix C, Table C

- 2.

a A + value in the ―projected shortfall‖ cell means excess reduction

.

3. Proposed Action s on the RFP Demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

Based on our propose d disapproval of the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP in November of 2010, EPA proposed to disapprove the RFP demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP.

However, EPA also determined that the plan met generally linear progress, and sh ould
the State fix the deficiencies in the attainment demonstration , we believed we could approve the RFP dem onstration. See 75 FR 72194, at 71310 and section II.H of the November 2010 TSD.

In our July 2011 amended proposal , based on our proposed concurrence with the State‘s determination that NOx, VOC, and SOx are attainment plan precursors, our proposed granting of the State‘s request to extend the attainment date to April 5, 2015, and our proposed approval of
the attainment demonstratio n, we proposed to find that the South Coast 2007 AQMP provides for reasonable further progress as required by CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51. 1009 and that the South Coast nonattainment area has met its 2009 RFP benchmarks.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 119 4. EPA ‘s Evaluation and Conclusion

Because California has requested an attainment date of April 5, 2015 for the South Coast, the Plan has addressed RFP for both 2009 and 2012 as required by 40 CFR § 51.1009 (c) (2)

.

The South Coast 2007 AQMP describe s in Chapter 4 (Tables 4

- 1, 4

- 2 and 4

- 10) and Chapter 7 (Table 7

- 3) the non

- baseline control measures that are relied on to meet the reasonable further progress milestones for the area, the timing of implementation of the se measures, and the expected reductions in emissions of direct P M 2.5 and PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors as required by 40 CFR § 51.1009 (c).

In comparing inventories between base line and future years for direct PM 2.5 emissions and each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the 2007 AQMP, the inventories are derived from the same geographic area . The 2007 AQMP include s em issions estimates for all
sources and activities in the South Coast area from which the emissions inventories for direct
PM 2.5 emissions and each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in t he Plan are derived as required by 40 CFR § 51.1009 (f ).

In preparin g its RFP demonstration, the State followed the procedures in by 40 CFR § 51.1009 (f) and correctly calculated the benchmark emissions levels.

EPA has reviewed the revised RFP demonstrat ion in the 2011 Progress Report and has determined that it was prepared consistent with applicable EPA regulations and policies. See
Section II.H of the TSD. As can be seen from Table H

- 1 above, the RFP demonstration for 2009 shows that the area has a sho rtfall of 9 tpd of SOx, while NOx, direct PM2.5 and VOC reductions exceed their linear targets. The RFP demonstration for 2012 indicates a slight shortfall in meeting the 2012 milestones for NOx (16 tpd) and direct PM 2.5 (1 tpd), although the VOC target i s not only met but surpassed. While the shortfall of 9 tpd for SOx in 2009 is significant, this shortfall is made up by the reductions estimated for 2012, and the area meets its
2012 SOx milestone. We note that the shortfall in 2012 for NOx is less than 1% of the 2002 baseline inventory, and the shortfall in PM 2.5 reductions in 2012 is also about 1% of the 2002 baseline inventory, while 2012 SOx reduction milestones are met and 2012 VOC reduction milestones are exceeded by 20 tpd.

Based on our eval uati on summarized above, we find that the South Coast 2007 AQMP provides for reasonable further progress as required by CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR § 51.1009

.

We received a comment on our proposed approval of the RFP demonstration. We have reviewed this comment and provided our respon se. See section III of thi s TSD. No issues raised in this comment changed our finding that the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised 2007 State Strategy are consistent with the applicable requireme nts of the CAA and EPA guidance.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 120 Estimated Effect of Base Year Inventory Changes on the South Coast 2007 AQMP’s RFP Demonstrations
As discussed in section II.A. of this TSD, CARB has updated the inventories for several mobile source categories including off

- road equipment a nd heavy duty diesel trucks and estimates th at these updates reduce the 2002 base y ear inventory by approximately 4 percent for NO x , 5 percent for PM 2.5

, 2 percent for VOC, and increase the SOx inventory by 23 percent

. See
CARB Progress Report Supplement, Attachment 1

. The State, however, did not revise the RFP demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP t o incorporate these adjustments into the base year inventories.

As shown in Tables H

- 4, and H

- 5 below, we have evaluated the e ffect on the RFP demonstration of making the se minor adjustments to the 2002 base year inventory. As can be seen f rom these tables, the Plan still provide s for RFP with these adjustments

.

Table H

- 4

. 

### Estimated Effect of Changes to the 2002 Base Year
Inve ntory on the RFP Demonstration

– Milestone Calculation

(tons per average annual day)

Direct
PM 2.5 NO x VOC SO x

A. 2002 b ase year inventory 99 1093 844 53

B. Adjusted base year inventory assuming 5%
reduction in PM 2.5 , 4% reduction in NO x , 2% reduction in VOC

, 23 % increase in SO x 94 1046 827 65

C. Attainment level 86 460 464 20

D

. Adjusted f

ull implementation reductions (B

D) 8 586 363 45

E

. 2 009 milestone date fraction (7/12 ) 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58

F. Adjusted 2009 benchmark emissions reductions ( D * E ) 4.7 340 210 26

G

. Adjusted 2009 benchmark emissions level (B

- F) 89.3 804 616 39

H

. 2012 mi lestone date fraction (10/12 ) 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

I

. Adjusted 2012 benchmark emissions reductions ( D * H ) 6.7 486 301 37TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 121 J

. Adjusted 2012 benchmark emissions level ( adjusted 2002 baseline inventory

– F) 87.3 560 526 28

K. Annual reductions needed for linear progress ( 1 / 12 * D) 0.67 48.8 30 3.8

L. Percent annual reductions needed for linear progress ( 1 / 12 * D / adjusted 2002 base year inventory) <1% 4.7% 2.8% 5.8%

Table H

- 5 

### Estimated Effect of Changes to the 2002 Base Year Inventory on RFP Demonstration (tons per annual average day)

Direct
PM 2.5 NO x VOC SO x

2009

Adjusted b enchmark emissions level 89. 3 70 6 6 16 3 9

Projected controlled emissions level 89 677 56 3 43

Emissions below benchmark emissions level

- 0. 3

- 29

- 53 +4

Percent below/above benchmark emissions level - <1%

- 3.9%

- 8 .6% +10 %

2012

Benchmark emissions level 87. 3 560 5 26 2 8

Projected controlled emissions level 88 582 514 26

Emissions below/above benchmark emissions
level +0.6 +22

- 12

- 2

Percent below/above benchmark emissions
level +<1% +3.9%

- 2.3 %

- 7 %

+ means above the benchmark,

- means below the benchmark.

EarthJ ustice Petition on the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule

In June 200 7 , a petition to the EPA Administrator was filed on behalf of several public health and environmental groups requesting reconsideration of several provisions in the PM 2.5 implementation rule

. See EarthJustice, ―Petition fo r Reconsideration in the Matter of the Final Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation Rule,‖ June 25, 2007

. Among these provisions isTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 122 a llowing state s to use emissions reductions from outside of the nonattainment area to demonstration RFP (out

- of

- area RFP) as discussed in 72 FR 20586 at 20636

. On May 1 3

, 2010, EPA granted the petition with respect to this issue

. See Letter, Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, EPA, to David Baron and Paul Cort, EarthJustice, May 13

, 2010. The updated South Coast 2007 AQM P does not rely on out

- of

- area emissions
reductions to demonstrat e RFP.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 123 

### I

. Contingency Measures

1. Requirement for Contingency Measures

Under CAA s ection 172(c)(9 ), all PM 2.5 attainment plans must include contingency

measures to be implemented if an area fails to meet RFP (RFP contingency measures ) and contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to attain the PM 2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (attainment contingency m easures )

. See 40 CFR § 51.1012. The purpose of contingency measures is to continue progress in reducing emission while the SIP is being revised to meet the missed RFP milestone or correct continuing nonattainment.

The principal requirements for contingen cy measures are:

Contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that are ready to be implemented quickly upon failure to meet RFP or failure of the area to meet the standard by its attainment date.

The SIP should contain trigger m echanisms for the contingency measures, specify a schedule for implementation, and indicate that the measures will be implemented without further action by the State or by EPA.

The contingency measures should consist of other control measures for the are a that are not included in the control strategy for the SIP.

The measures should provide for emission reductions equivalent to about 1 year of reductions needed for RFP, based on the overall level of reductions needed to demonstrate attainment divided by the number of years from the base year to the attainment year.

See 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007), at 20643.

The April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13512) provided the following guidance on contingency measures which continues to be applicable :

States must show that their contingency measures can be implemented without further action on their part and with no additional rulemaking actions such as public hearings or legislative review. In general, EPA will expect all actions needed to affect f ull implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the State of its
failure.

Contingency measures can include both Federal, state and local measures already scheduled for implementation or already implemented. The CAA requires c ontingency measures that provide for additional emissions reductions that are not relied on for RFP or attainment and are not included in these demonstrations. In other words, contingency measures are intended to achieve reductions over and beyond those re lied on in the RFP and attainment demonstrations. Nothing in the CAA precludes a state from implementing such measures before they areTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 124 triggered. EPA has approved numerous SIPs under this interpretation. See, for example, 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997) (direc t final rule approving Indiana ozone SIP revision);
62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997) (final rule approving Illinois ozone SIP revision);
66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) (direct final rule approving Rhode Island ozone SIP revision);
66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001) (f inal rule approving District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia ozone SIP revisions); and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001) (final rule a pproving Connecticut ozone SIP revision) . A court has upheld this interpretation. See LEAN v. EPA , 382 F.3d 575, 5th Circuit , 2004

.

2. Contingency Measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

The attainment plan for the S outh Coast includes contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to attain by its attainment date

. The South Coast contingency measures are described in Chapter 9 of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and discussed in more detail in Appendix IV

- A, section 2 of the AQMP. They are
described below.

CARB discusses the contingency measure provision in Appendix D of the 2007 State
S trategy. This discussion is addresses the contingency measure provisions for California‘s 8

- hour ozone plans and not the PM 2.5 plans. Updated information on the attainment contingency measures for the South Coast 2007 AQMP is provided in the 2011 Progress Report. This information includes updated estimates of the reductions in 2015 from the Sta t e‘s mobile source control program. See 2011 Progress Report

, Appendix A, p. 2, and Appendix C, Table C

- 2 and CARB Supplement , Attachment 2.

The South Coast 2007 AQMP describes the contingency measures in the following way, ―Although implementation of these measures is expected to reduce emissions, there are issues that limit the viability of these measures as AQMP control measures at this time. Issues surrounding these measures include, but are not limited to availability of District resources to implement and enforce the measures, cost

- effectiveness of the measure, potential adverse environmental impacts, potential economic impacts, effectiveness of emissions redu ctions, and availability of methods to quantify emissions reductions.‖ South Coast 2007 AQMP, page 9

- 1. The contingency measures do not meet the requirements of the CAA, namely the requirements
for these contingency measures to be fully adopted or otherwis e ready for quick implementation, for trigger mechanisms and an implementation schedule, and the AQMP does not provide for quantification of emissions reductions demonstrating the equivalent of one year of RFP for any of the suggested contingency measures

.

CTY

- 01

- Offsetting potential emissions increase due to change in natural gas specifications This proposed contingency measure requires RECLAIM facilities that use natural gas of a quality that creates more emissions to offset these emissions for all p ollutants. The measure is listed as a ―Remaining 2003 AQMP Revision Control Measure‖ and thus was relied on in the 2003 AQMP for attainment. In addition, the reductions are not quantified, and may be zero, since the proposed measure may only reduce future emissions increases rather than provide net reductions. There is no trigger mechanism, and the AQMP does not quantify the reductionsTSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 125 associated with this measure. For these reasons, this proposed measure does not meet CAA requirements for contingency measu res.

CTY

– 02

– Clean Air Act Emission Fees for Major Stationary Sources

– This proposed contingency measure would use fees generated from the District‘s CAA section 185 program for
8

- hour ozone , to achieve emissions reductions. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, p. 9

- 2. The funds collected through this rule would be used to implement other pollution control programs and reductions from these control programs would serve as contingency measures. The implementation of a section 185 program is triggered by a failure of the South Coast to attain the 8

- hour standard by 2024 and not by any failure to make RFP or to attain the PM 2.5 NAAQS, a minimum requirement for contingency measures for PM 2.5 SIPs. There is no implementation schedule provided, and the AQMP does not qu antify the reductions associated with this measure. For these reasons, this proposed measure does not meet CAA requirements for contingency

measures.

CTY

- 03

- Banning pre

- Tier 3 off road diesel engines on High Pollution Advisory (HPA) days

– This propose d contingency measure would complement a CARB rule which proposed to establish declining fleet average emissions levels for off

- road equipment over 25 horsepower (hp). The District proposed a complementary measure, SC

- OFFRD

- 1, which would ban the use of pr e

- Tier 3 off

- road diesel engines after 2023 on HPA days should the South Coast Air Basin
fail to meet the 8

- hour ozone standard. This proposed contingency measure would require additional rulemaking at the District level, as it is not currently adopted. It also would be implemented too late in time to provide for RFP or contingency reductions for PM 2.5 RFP or attainment. In addition, the AQMP does not quantify the reductions associated with this measure. For these reasons, this proposed measure does not mee t CAA requirements for contingency

measures.

CTY

- 04

- Accelerated implementation of CARB‘s mobile source measures

– This proposed contingency measure, which could function as both an RFP and an attainment contingency measure, requires the District‘s Boa rd to request that CARB accelerate the adoption and/or implementation of the remaining control measures that have not been adopted or fully implemented by one year. South Coast 2007 AQMP, page 9

- 3. Under CAA section 172(c)(9) and EPA‘s long

- standing polici es interpreting this section, contingency measures must require minimal additional rulemaking by the State and take effect within a few months of a failure to make RFP or to attain. This proposed contingency measure would require additional rulemaking

at t he District level and potentially substantial and lengthy additional rulemaking at the State level to be implemented. There is no trigger mechanism or implementation schedule provided, and the AQMP does not quantify the reductions associated with this meas ure For these reasons, this proposed measure does not meet CAA requirements for contingency measures.

Post

- 2014 Emissions Reductions

. Excess reductions in 2015/2016 from CARB mobile source measures do not fully address the contingency measure requirement for the PM 2.5 attainment year. The 2011 Progress Report includes the estimated incremental emissions reduction that will occur in 2015 from CARB‘s mobile source program, including the reductions expected from its
In

- use Truck and Bus Rule and In

- use Off

- ro ad Engine Rules. See CARB Progress Report Supplement

, Attachment 2 . The updated 2015 reductions are 24 tpd NOx and 13 tpd VOC.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 126 From information in the Plan, in Table I

- 1 we calculate d one year‘s worth of RFP to be 1 .1 tpd
PM 2.5 , 52.8 tpd NO x , 30.8 tpd of VOC, and 2.8 tpd SO 2 . See TSD, section II.H, and CARB Staff Report on the 2007 South Coast AQMP, Appendix A. However, CARB‘s mobile source measures do not provide sufficient NOx reductions to meet one year‘s worth of RFP; therefore, post

- attainment

- year e missions reductions cannot be used to meet the CAA contingency measure requirement.

3. Proposed Action s on the Contingency Measures

In November 2010, we proposed to disapprove the RFP and attainment contingency

meas ures in the South 2007 AQMP. We found that although the AQMP included suggestions for several contingency measures, they did not meet the CAA‘s minimum requirements for contingency measures (e.g., no additional rulemaking, surplus to attainment and RFP needs), the AQMP did not provide s ufficient information to determine if the emissions reductions from the contingency measures are SIP creditable or to quantify the expected emissions reductions . We therefore were unable to determine if the suggested contingency measures provide d r eduction s roughly equivalent to one year‘s worth of RFP. See 75 FR 71294 at71311

- 71312 , and section II. J of the November 2010 TSD.

In our July 2011 amended proposal , we again proposed to disapprove the RFP and attainment contingency meas ures in the South 2007 A QMP. We found that although the AQMP included suggestions for several contingency measures, they did not meet the CAA‘s minimum requirements for contingency measures (e.g., no additional rulemaking, surplus to attainment and RFP needs), and the AQMP did no t provide sufficient information to determine if the emissions reductions from the contingency measures are SIP creditable or to quantify the expected
emissions reductions . We therefore were unable to determine if the suggested contingency measures provide d r eductions roughly equivalent to one year‘s worth of RFP. In CARB‘s 2011 Progress Report, the State included calculations for the reductions associated with existing CARB mobile source control programs for 24 tpd of NOx and 13 tpd of VOC in the year after attainment. However, these measures do not provide sufficient reductions to meet one year‘s worth of RFP, based on the information provided i n the 2011 Progress Report (see 2011 Progress Report, Appendix C

, page 2 , and CARB Progress Report Supplement, Attachment 2). Therefore, post

- attainment year emissions reductions do not meet the CAA contingency measure requirement. See 76 FR 41562 at 41479

- 41580 , and section II.I of the July 2011 TSD.

4. Evaluation and Conclusions

Under the PM 2.5 implementation rule, a state must submit contingency measures that meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and provide for the equivalent of roughly one
year ‘ s worth of RFP

. One year‘s worth of RFP is determined by dividing the emission s reductions from base year levels that are needed for attainment by the number of years between the base year (2002) and the attainment year (2014) . 72 FR 20586 at 20643 . We sh ow t h is calculation for the South Coast 2007 AQMP in Table I

- 1 below

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 127 We are not evaluating the provisions of the updated South Coast 2007 AQMP that address contingency measures for failure to meet the 2009 RFP benchmarks. Information
available to EPA and the public shows that the South Coats met its 2009 RFP benchmarks for 2009 for directly

- emitted PM 2.5 , NOx, and VOC. SOx emissions are higher than the linear benchmark but catch up to the benchmark in 2012 due to recently adopted rules controlling
emis sions of SOx. See 2011 Progress Report, Table C

- 2 and section II.H of this TSD . As a result, contingency measures for failure to meet the 2009 RFP benchmark no longer have meaning or effect under the CAA and therefore do not require any review or action by EPA. In addition, as noted above, the purpose of RFP contingency m easures is to provide continued

progress while the SIP is being revised to meet a missed RFP milestone. Failure to meet the 2009 benchmark would have required California to revise the South Coast 2007 AQMP to assure that the next milestone was met and that the plan still provided for attainment. California has, in fact, prepared and submitted a revision to the South Coast 2007 AQMP that provides for RFP in 2012 and for attainment by 2015.

Under the PM 2. 5 implementation rule, a State must submit contingency measures that meet the requirements of section 172(c)(9) and provide for the equivalent of roughly one year‘s

wort h of RFP. One year‘s worth of R F P is determined by the emissions reduct ions from the base year baseline inventory (the base year is 2002 for the South Coast 2007 AQMP) divided by the number of years between the base year and the attainment year (2014). 72 FR 20586 at 20643. These calculations were given in Table H

- 2 for dire ctly emitted PM 2.5 and for the attainment plan precursors NOx, VOC, and SOx.

Table I

- 1

Reductions Needed from Contingency Measures
(tons per average annual day)

NOx VOC PM 2.5 SOx

A 2002 baseline 1093 844 99 53
B 2014 attainment 460 474 86 20
C Emissions reductions needed for attainment (A

- B) 633 370 13 33

D One year‘s RFP (C/12) 52.8 30.8 1.1 2.8

E One year‘s RFP as percent of 2002 baseline 4.8% 3.6% 5.2% 1.9%

Source: Table 6

- 3A of South Coast 2007 AQMP and EPA staff calculations.

Table I

- 2 summarizes reductions needed to meet 1 year‘s worth of RFP based on the updated emissions estimates in the 2011 Progress Report. These new calculations do not change our conclusion that the contingency measures in the revised 2007 AQMP are insufficient to meet CAA requirements . Table I

- 3 summarizes the approvability issues related to the contingency measures in the revised South Coast 2007 AQMP. Table I

- 4 provides CARB‘s post

- attainment year reductions for attainment contingency measures from the 2011 Progress Report.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 128 Table I

- 2 Reductions Needed from Contingency Measures to Equal One Year‘s Worth of RFP based on 2011 Progress Report
(tons per average annual day)

NOx VOC PM 2.5 SOx

A 2002 baseline 1046 827 94 65
B 2014 attainment 460 474 86 20
C Emissions reductions needed for attainment (A

- B) 586 353 8 45

D One year‘s RFP (C/12) 48.8 29 0.7 3.8

E One year‘s RFP as percent of
2002 baseline 4.7% 3.5% 0.7% 5.7%

Source: 2011 Progress Report, CARB Supplement, and EPA staff calculation s.

We received several comments on our proposed dis approval of the contingency
measures. We have reviewed these comments and provided respon ses to them. See section III of this TSD. No issues raised in these comments changed our finding that the contingency measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised 2007 State Strategy are insufficient to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 129 Table I

- 3 Summary of Approvability of Contingency Measures from the South Coast 2007 AQMP

Measure RFP or

Attainment Contingency Measure? Approvable

as a Contingenc y Measure? Comment Quantified Reductions (Tons per Average Annual Day)

NO x VOC Direct
PM 2.5 SO x

Offsetting potential emissions increase due to change in natural gas specifications Attainment No Not triggered b y failure to make RFP or attain; reductions associated with this measure may only offset potential increases and not provide net reductions; reductions not quantified; control measure in 2003 AQMP. Not quantified

Ozone Nonattainment Area Fee 2012 RFP milestone/ Attainment No Not triggered by failure to make RFP or attain for the
PM 2.5 standard ; reductions not quantified;. Not quantified

Banning pre

- Tier 3 off road diesel engines on High Pollution Advisory (HPA) days Attainment No Does not trigger until 2023; would require additional rulemaking; reductions not quantified;. Request CARB to expedite implementation of mobile source control s Both No Would require additional rulemaking at District and State level; reductions not quantified;. Not quantified

Post

- Attai nment year emissions reductions RFP No Insufficient excess reductions in RFP demonstratio n to meet 1 year of required reductions for all pollutants. quantified in 2011 Progress Report as 24 tpd of NOx and 13 tpd of VOCTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 130 Table I

- 4 

### Summary of Reductions from Contingency Measures

(tons per average annual day)

Direct PM 2.5 NO x VOC SO x 2012 RFP contingency reductions 0 0 0 0
Attainment contingency reductions 0 24 13 0

1

- year‘s worth of RFP 1.1 52.8 30.8 2.8

Based on this evalua tion and for the reasons stated above, we are disapproving the contingency measure provisions for the 2012 RFP year and the attainment year in the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 as not meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51. 1012.

EPA is committed to working with the District, CARB and SCAG to resolve the remaining issues with the SIP that make the current PM 2.5 attainment SIP for the South Coast nonattainment area not fully approvable under the CAA and the PM 2.5 implementation rule. However, because we are finalizing the disapproval of the contingency measure provisions in the South Coast 2007 AQMP, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) wil l apply in the South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area 18 months after the effective date of today‘s final disapproval. The highway funding sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) will apply in the area six months after the offset sanction is imposed. Neither sanc tion will be imposed under the CAA if California submits and we approve prior to the implementation of sanctions, SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies identified in our action. In addition to the sanctions, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides
that EPA mu st promulgate a federal implementation plan addressing the deficient elements in the
PM 2.5 SIP for the South Coast nonattainment area two years after the effective date of any disapproval, should we not approve a SIP revis ion correcting the deficiencies wi thin the two

years.

Because we are approving the RFP and attainment demonstrations and the motor vehicle emission budgets, we are issuing a protective finding under 40 CFR § 93.120(a)(3) to the disapproval of the contingency measures. Without a protective finding, final disapproval would result in a conformity freeze under which only projects in the first four years of the most recent conforming RTP and TIP can proceed. During a freeze, no new RTPs, TIPs or RTP/TIP amendments can be found to conform. See 4 0 CFR § 93.120(a)(2). Under a protective finding, however, final disapproval of the contingency measures w ill not result in a transportation conformity freeze in the South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 131 J. Adequacy of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the Revised South Coast 2007 AQMP

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

CAA section 176(c) requires Federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP‘s goals of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of the standards

. Conformity to the SIP‘s goals means that such actions will not: (1) cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing violation, or (3) d elay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone.
Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the EPA‘s transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR pa rt 93, subpart A

. Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state and local air quality and transportation agencies, EPA

, FHWA

, and FTA to demonstrate that an area‘s regional transpor tation plans (RTP) and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to the applicable SIP

. This demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal to the mot or vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) contained in all control strategy SIP s. An attainment, maintenance, or RFP SIP should include budgets for the attainment year

, each required RFP year or last year of the maintenance plan, as appropriate. Budgets are g enerally established for specific years and specific pollutants or precursors

.
PM 2.5 a ttainment and RFP plans should identify budgets for direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors

. All direct PM 2.5 SIP budgets should include direct PM 2.5 motor vehicle emissions from tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear . A s tate must also consider whether re

entrained paved and unpaved road dust or highway and transit construction dust are significant
contributors and should be included in the direct PM 2.5 budget

. See 40 CFR § 93.102(b) and § 93.122(f) and the conformity rule preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031

– 40036 (July 1, 2004)

. MPOs may use budgets in a submitted SIP but not

- yet approved SIP only if EPA has first determine d that the budgets are adequate . T o be f ound adequate and to be eventually approv ed

, the submittal must meet the conformity adequacy requirements of 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4) and be approvable under all pertinent SIP requirements . In addition, t he budgets must reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in the attainment and RFP demonstrations

. See 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4)(v).TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 132 2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

a. Budgets Submitted in South Coast 2007 AQMP (submitted November 2007)

As submitted on November 28, 2007, the 2007 South Coast AQMP included a set of
PM 2.5 budgets for RFP years 2009 and 2012, the attainment year 2014, and 2023 and 2030 for directly emitted PM 2.5 , VOC, and NOx. See CARB Resolution 07

- 05, which revised the budget s in the 2007 South Coast AQMP as adopted by the SCAQMD, and which was included in the November 28, 2007 submittal. We refer to these budgets as the ―original‖ budgets. The directly

emitted PM 2.5 budgets included tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear emissio ns and also included paved road, unpaved road, and road construction dust because these were considered to be significant contributors to PM 2.5 levels in the South Coast. No budgets for SO x were included because on

- road emissions of SO x were considered in s ignificant . Additionally, the submittal did not include any budgets for ammonia because the submitted SIP does not specify ammonia as a significant contributor to the area‘s PM 2.5 problem.

b. Budgets Submitted in Revised South Coast 2007 AQMP (submitted A pril 2008)

On April 30, 2008, CARB submitted a SIP revision that replaces the original set of PM 2.5 budgets with two new sets of budgets (―replacement‖ budgets). One set of the replacement budgets is referred to as ―SIP

- based‖ budgets, and the other set i s referred to as ―baseline‖ budgets. In its April 30, 2008 submittal, CARB requests that EPA give primary consideration to the ―SIP

- based‖ budgets and only find the ―baseline‖ budgets to be adequate if EPA cannot find the ―SIP

- based‖ budgets adequate in th eir entirety.

The replacement budgets submitted on April 30, 2008 differed from the original budgets in that they reflected the EPA

- approved EMFAC2007 motor vehicle emission factor model (see 73 FR 3464, January 18, 2008) rather than the District‘s CEPA e mission factor model, which had been used for the original budgets. The ―SIP

- based‖ budgets reflect emissions reductions from rules adopted by October 2006 and also from control measures CARB expects to adopt in regulatory form in the future. The ―baseline ‖ budgets differed from the ―SIP

- based‖ budgets by excluding emission reductions from control measures in the 2007 State Strategy that had not been adopted in regulatory form by October 2006. 81 Moreover, the ―baseline‖ budgets were only
established for RFP years 2009 and 2012 whereas the ―SIP

- based‖ budgets were established for the RFP years, the attainment year, and 2023 and 2030..

c. Budgets Submitted in 2011Progress Report (submitted May 2011)
CARB submitted updated budgets for the South Coast in its 2011 Progress Report. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendices D and A, respectively. Additional information associated with the motor vehicle emission budget calculations were provided in Attachment 4 of the CARB

81 With respect to the ―SIP

- based‖ budget for RFP year 2009, however, CARB did exclude the emissions reductions from measures not adopted by October 2006. Thus, the ―SIP

- based‖ PM 2.5 budget for 2009 is the same as the ―baseline‖ PM 2.5 budget for that year.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 133 2011 Progress Report Supplement. 82 Documentatio n of how these budgets were calculated is provided in Appendix A of the Progress Report and Attachment 4 of the May 18 th letter.
This submittal also includes a trading mechanism that would allow the substitution of excess NOx reductions for any on

- road in creases in directly

- emitted PM 2.5 emissions using a ratio of 10 tpd NOx to 1 tpd of PM 2.5 . Transportation conformity trading mechanisms are allowed under 40 CFR § 93. 124. The basis for the trading mechanism is the SIP attainment modeling which established the relative contribution of each PM 2.5 precursor pollutant. This trading mechanism would only be used, if needed, for conformity analyses for years after 2014. To ensure that the trading mechanism does not impact the ability to meet the NOx budget, the
NO x emissions reductions available to supplement the PM 2.5 budget would only be those remaining after the NOx budget has been met. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix D, notes to Table D

- 1.

d . Revision to Budgets Submitted by CARB (July 2011)

On June 3

, 201 1

, we received a letter from CARB indicating that they w ould revise the budgets to remove emission reductions from the AB 923 High Emitter Program and make minor adjustments to correct a spreadsheet error. 83 The letter was in response to EPA‘s request to remove the reductions since EPA has not yet reviewed the program and approved it for SIP credit and since the program was not credited in the South Coast attainment or RFP
demonstrations. The letter from CAR B stated that they intend to revise the budgets in the 2011 Progress Report by recalculating the budgets without reductions from the AB923 program.

On June 20, 2011, CARB posted on its website technical revisions to the updated MVEB in the 2011 Progress Report that were referenced in a June 3 rd letter to EPA. 84 See CARB, ―Proposed 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the
PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaq uin Valley Air Basins,‖ Appendix C, June 20, 2011, posted at www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm. These revised updated budgets are shown in
T able J

- 1 below. The technical revisions corrected data entry errors in the budget calculations and rem oved the emission reductions attributed to AB923 (the South Coast District‘s light and medium duty high emitter program).

CARB adopted the 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins , June 20, 2011, with Appendices on July 21,
2011 an d submitted this SIP revision to EPA on July 29, 2011.

82 See Letter from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, EPA Region 9, dated May 18, 2011

83 See letter, James M. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, EPA Regio n 9, ―RE: Changes to Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets in 2011 Progress Plan,‖ dated June 3, 2011.

84 See letter, James M. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, EPA Region 9, June 3, 2011TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 134 Table J

- 1 Calculation of the Updated PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursor Budgets for the South Coast PM2.5 Nonattainment Area (tons per annual average day)
South Coast Air Basin 2012 2014

VOC NOx PM2.5 VOC NOx PM2.5 Baseline Inventory 162.6 350.8 17.5 146.1 305.7 17.2
Re

- entrained Road Dust (Paved) 18.8 19.0
Re

- entrained Road Dust (Unpaved) 1.0 1.0

Road Construction
Dust 0.2 0.2 State Strategy Adjustments

- 8.7

- 23.7

- 1.4

- 13.6

- 15.1

- 2.8 Adjustments to Baseline

- 0.4

- 1.4

- 0.1

- 0.6

- 1.4

- 0.2 Budgets 154 326 37 132 290 35 Note: Budgets are rounded up to the nearest ton

Table J

- 1 shows how the updated budgets were calculated. The calculation begins with
the initial SIP on

- road mobile source inventory as submitted in Appendix III of the South Coast 2007 AQMP. Two adjustments are made to the inventory to derive the final budget. The first adjustment, shown as the ―State Strategy Adjustment‖ in Table J

- 1, incorporates the i mpacts of both the recession and the Truck and Bus regulations as amended in December 2010. It also includes adjustments for CARB‘s adopted regulations for solid waste collection and public vehicle fleets, heavy

- duty chip reflash, heavy duty truck idling, smog check improvements, and reformulated gasoline . The second adjustment, shown as ―Adjustments to Baseline‖ in Table J

- 1, consists of reductions from AB 1493 (Pavley) and benefits from the on

- road portion of the Carl Moyer program. The updated budgets as revised in June 2011 are listed in Table J

- 2.

Table J

- 2 . Summary of Updated PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursor Budgets for the South

Coast PM2.5 Nonattainment Area (tons per annual average day)

2012 2014

VOC NOx Directly

emitted PM2.5 VOC NOx Directly emitted PM2.5
South Coast Air Basin 154 326 37 132 290 35

Source: ―Proposed 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins,‖ Appendix C, June 20, 2011, posted at www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007s ip/2007sip.htm

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 135 3. Prior Proposed Actions and Current Final Action on the Budgets

a. EPA’s May 6, 2008 Adequacy/Inadequacy Finding on the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

On May 6, 2008, we notified CARB that we had found the ― SIP

- based‖ PM 2.5 budgets for the 2007 South Coast AQMP, as submitted on April 30, 2008, did not meet certain adequacy requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and concluded that they were inadequate for transportation conformity purposes. See letter and enclosures, dated May 6, 2008 from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, a copy of which has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. However, in our May 2008 adequacy determination, we found the ―bas eline‖ PM 2.5 budgets for the RFP years 2009 and 2012 to be adequate. Generally, we found the ―SIP

- based‖ budgets to be inadequate because they reflected control measures not yet adopted in regulatory form and thus not adequately quantified or supported by the plan. In contrast, we found the ―baseline‖ PM 2.5 budgets to be consistent with the plan‘s RFP demonstration and to be based on adopted mobile source regulations that have already been implemented. Our notice of adequacy/inadequacy was published on May 15, 2008 at 73 FR 28110 (corrected on June 18, 2008 at 73 FR 34837) and was effective on May 30, 2008. The finding is available on EPA‘s transportation conformity website at http:/ /www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/pastsips.htm

.

b. EPA’s November 22, 2010 Proposed Action on the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

As explained in the May 15, 2008 Federal Register notice, an adequacy review is separate from EPA‘s completeness and full plan review, and should not be used to prejudge EPA‘s ultimate approval action for the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP and the associated budget could later be disappr oved.

When we had completed a thorough review of the entire South Coast 2007 AQMP for CAA and EPA regulations for PM 2. nonattainment area SIPs, which was described in our November 2010 technical support document and in our proposed action, we concluded that the ―SIP

- based‖ budgets were not precisely quantified because the new emission reductions did not result from adequately specified control measures, and that the plan as a whole would not ensure RFP and attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS and d id not show a clear relationship between the ―SIP

- based‖ budgets and the emissions inventory and control measures . We also determined that we had to propose to disapprove the RFP demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP, and therefore could not propose to approve the RFP budgets. Specifically the budgets, when considered together with all other emissions sources, were inconsistent with the applicable requirements for reasonable further progress and attainment.

Thus, in November 2010 we proposed to disapprove both the ―baseline‖ and the ―SIP

based‖ PM 2.5 budgets for transportation conformity purposes. SCAG and the U.S. Department of Transportation were not using the ―SIP

- based‖ budgets in transportation conformity determinations due the inadequacy finding made in 2008. If the proposed disapproval of theTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 136 budgets had been finalized, then neither the ―baseline‖ or ―SIP

- based‖ budgets could be used in transportation conformity determinations after the effective date of the disapproval. 85

In summary, for the reasons discusse d above, in November 2010 we proposed disapproval of the ―SIP

- based‖ PM 2.5 budgets that we previously had determined to be inadequate. Because we were proposing to disapprove the RFP demonstration, we also proposed to disapprove as well the ―baseline‖ PM 2. 5 budgets for RFP years 2009 and 2012 that we had previously determined to be adequate.

c. Proposed Action on the Revised Budgets (July 2011)

As discussed in sections II.G. and II.H, in our July 2011 amended proposal, we proposed to approve the attainment and RFP demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 AQMP. As indicated above, at the time of our July amended proposal, we had received a letter from CARB indicating that they would revise the budgets to remove emission reductions from the AB 923 pro gram and correct a minor calculation error. 86 EPA could not determine adequate or approve the budgets included in the 2011 Progress Report since we cannot approve SIP credit for the AB 923 program. Our approval was contingent upon our receipt of a complete SIP submittal containing the revised budgets. On June 20, 2011, CARB posted on its website technical revisions to the updated MVEB in the 2011 Progress Report that were referenced in a June 3 rd letter to EPA. See CARB, ―Proposed 8

- Hour Ozone State Impleme ntation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins,‖ Appendix C, June 20, 2011, posted at www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip .htm. These revised updated budgets are shown in Table J

- 2 above

.

d. Final Action on the Revised Updated Budgets

EPA is not separately making an adequacy finding on the revised updated budgets in the 2011 Progress Report but is reviewing the budgets a gainst our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR § 93.318(a)(4) as part of its review of the approvability of the budgets. The results of our adequacy review are shown in the Table J

- 3 below. EPA is not required under its Transportation Conformity rule to find budge ts adequate prior to approving of them.
As discussed in sections II.G. and II.H, in our July 2011 amended proposal, we proposed to approve the attainment and RFP demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 AQMP. As indicated above, at the time of our July amend ed proposal, we had received a letter from CARB indicating that they would revise the budgets to remove emission reductions from the AB 923 program and

85 Note that the RFP budgets that EPA found adequate on May 6, 2008 remain adequate for transportation conformity purposes unless and until a final action disapproving them becomes effective, or the State submits, and EPA finds adequate and/or approves, repla cement budgets.

86 See letter, James M. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, EPA Region 9, June 3, 2011TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 137 correct a minor calculation error. 87 On June 20, 2011, CARB posted on its website technical revisions to the updated MVEB in the 2011 Progress Report that were referenced in a June 3 rd letter to EPA. See CARB, ―Proposed 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Bu dgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins,‖ Appendix C, June 20, 2011, posted at www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm. These revised updated budgets are shown in Table J

- 2 above . EPA could not determine adequate or approve the budgets included in the 2011 Progress Report since we cannot approve SIP credit for the AB 923 program.

We received a SIP revision from CARB on July 29, 2011 with the 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 S tate Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins , June 20, 2011, with Appendices that the CARB Board had adopted on July 21, 2011.

These revised updated budgets are now consistent with the RFP and attainment demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 and meet all other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. We posted these bud gets on our adequacy website for public

comment on July 14, 2011 for a 30

- day comment period wh ich ended on August 15, 2011 (see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm ). We received no comments on our adequacy posting, and have completed our a dequacy r eview on these budgets

.

EPA, therefore, finds the revised updated budgets that CARB submitted on July 29, 2011 to be consistent with the approvable RFP and attainment demonstrations and to find that they meet all other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements including the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4). Therefore, EPA is approving the revised updated budgets because we have received the revised budgets as a complete SIP revision from the State prior to our final action on th e South Coast 2007 AQMP.

Now that the approval of th e budgets is finalized, SCAG and the U.S. Department of Transportation are required to use the revised budgets in transportation conformity determinations. Due to the formatting of the budgets (combining emission changes, recession impacts and reductions from control measures) CARB will need to provide SCAG with emission reductions associated with the control measures incorporated into the budgets for the appropriate analysis years in future conformity de terminations so that they can include these reductions per 40 CFR § 93.122. In addition, f or these conformity determinations, t he motor vehicle emissions from implementation of the transportation plan should be projected and compared to the budgets at the same level of accuracy as the budgets in the plan, for example emissions should be rounded to the whole number (e.g. 11 tpd)

.

87 See letter, James M. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, EPA Regio n 9, June 3, 2011TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 138 4. Action on Trading Mechanism

The 2011 Progress Report also includes a proposed trading mechanism for transportation

con formity analyses that would allow future decreases in NO x emissions from on

- road mobile sources to offset any on

- road increases in PM 2.5 , using a NO x :PM 2.5 ratio of 10:1. Transportation conformity trading mechanisms are allowed under 40 CFR § 93. 124. The b asis for the trading mechanism is the SIP attainment modeling which established the relative contribution of each
PM 2.5 precursor pollutant.

EPA has reviewed the 10:1 NO x :PM 2.5 ratio and ha s found it appropriate ratio for trading
between NO x and direct PM 2.5 for transportation conformity purpose in the South Coast Air Basin for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The method for determining the NOx e quivalent f actors is documented in CARB's 2011 Progress Report, Appendix C: PM 2.5 Reasonable Further Progress
Calculations. The PM 2.5 attainment CMAQ modeling simulation was conducted using projected emission reductions for control measure implementation for 2014. The output of the simulation was averaged by component species for the eight validation sites that represent the Basin. Th is
method is adequate for purposes of assessing the effect of area

- wide emissions changes, such as are used in conformity budgets. See July 2011 TSD. The normalized NOx

- equivalent conversion factors were calculated for PM 2.5 , SOx and ROG. The NOx equivalent factor for
PM 2.5 was approximately 9.9; and the factor for SOx was 15, and the factor for ROG was 0.4.
As noted above, CARB included a trading mechanism to be used in transportation conformity analyses that use the proposed budgets as is al lowed under 40 CFR § 93. 124. This trading mechanism would allow future decreases in NO x emissions from on

- road mobile sources to offset any on

- road increases in PM 2.5 , using a NO x :PM 2.5 ratio of 10:1. To ensure that the trading mechanism does not impact th e ability of SCAG to meet the NO x budget, the NO x emission reductions available to supplement the PM 2.5 budget would only be those remaining
after the 2014 NO x budget has been met. The trading mechanism will be implemented with the following criteria. The trading applies only to:

Analysis years after the 2014 attainment year.
On

- road mobile emission sources. Trades using vehicle NO X emission reductions in excess of those needed to meet
the NO X budget.
Trades in one direction from NO X to direct PM 2.5

. A trading ratio of 10 tpd NO X to 1 tpd PM 2.5

. Clear documentation of the calculations used in the trading would be included in the conformity analysis.

EPA is ap proving the use of this NOx to PM 2.5 interpollutant trading ratio in transportation conformity d eterminations for the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the South Coast nonattainment area. EPA is also approving the use of this ratio in transportation conformity determinations for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS

, but only until such time as EPA finds adequate or approves b udgets developed specifically for the 2006 standard. EPA is not approving, at thisTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 139 time, the use of this ratio in plans for future PM standards or in the District‘s new source review (NSR) permitting program.

EPA believes the 2011 Progress Report includes an approvable trading mechanism for determining transportation conformity after 2014. EPA is approving the trading mechanism and
all the criteria included in the footnote to Table D

- 1 of Appendix D in the 2011 Progress Report as enforceable components of the transportation conformity program for the South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 140 Table J

- 3 

### Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report May 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satis fied? Reference in SIP Document/CommentsTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 141 Table J

- 3 

### Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report May 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satis fied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(i) The plan was endorsed by the

Governor (or designee) and was subject to a public hearing. Both the SCAQMD and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy. The District conducted public works hops, provided public comment periods, and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan on June 1, 2007. Documentation accompanying the AQMP describes a public and agency outreach effort. See, e.g., the SCAQMD‘s Response to Comments on the Draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (February 2007), submitted by CARB on November 28, 2007 as enclosure I

- E, describing nine regional workshops held from October 24 through December 6, 2006 to discuss the draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) releas ed on October 10, 2006. The sequence of public meetings held to discuss the elements of the draft State Strategy for California‘s 2007 SIP (State Strategy) is described in the CARB staff report developed for the CARB Board‘s consideration prior to adoption of the State Strategy. CARB also provide the required public notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its September 27, 2007 public hearing on the South Coast 2007 AQMP. See CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of the 2007 Air Qu ality Management Plan for Attaining the Federal 8

- hour Ozone and PM 2.5 Standards in the South Coast Air Basin and the Coachella Valley. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/ma/2007/ma092707.htm and http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/nonreg/scsip07.pdf

.
CARB also conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held a public hearing prior to its adoption of the 2007 State Strate gy on September 27, 2007. CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of the Proposed State Strategy for California‘s State Implementation PlanTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 142 Table J

- 3 

### Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report May 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satis fied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(i) (cont‘d) CARB also provide the required public notice, opportunity for public comment, and public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009 adoption of revisions to the Strategy. See CARB, Notice of Public Hearing to Consider a Status Report on the State Strategy for California‘s 2007 State Implementation Plan and Consider Approval of a Proposed Revision to the State Implementation Plan Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy, March 24, 2009. CARB also provided a public comment period and held a publi c hearing prior to its adoption of the 2011 Progress Report on April 28, 2011. The SIP was made available for public review on March 29, 2011. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/ planning/sip/planarea/2011_sip_revision_notice.pdf for the public hearing notice and http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/planarea/noticesworkshops.htm for the public hearing docum entation. Each of the four SIP submittals that comprise the South Coast PM 2.5 attainment plan include proof of publication for notices of SCAQMD and CARB public hearings as evidence that all hearings were properly noticed.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 143 Table J

- 3 

### Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report May 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satis fied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii) The plan was developed through

consultation with federal, state and local agencies; full implementation plan documentation was provided and EPA‘s stated concerns, if any, were addressed. Y Consultation with federal, state and local agencies was undertaken; thi s consultation took place with the SCAG interagency consultation working group Members of the consultation group include: EPA, FHW A, FTA, CARB, C altrans, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and the area‘s Metropolitan Planning Organiz ation (MPO), SCAG and county transportation agencies. EPA received a copy of the draft 2011 Progress Report, the South Coast 2007 AQMP and draft State Strategy but provided no written comments. However, in response to EPA‘s requests for additional inform ation, CARB did provide Attachment A included in a May 18, 2011 letter from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, EPA Region 9. Furthermore, in response to EPA discussions, ARB also agreed to revise the MVEBs to remove AB923 credit, via a letter dated June 3, 2011 from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, EPA Region 9. EPA concerns were addressed in the two letters. The revised budgets are posted at the following URL: http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm and were submitted to EPA on July 29, 2011 as part of the 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins , June 20, 2011, with Appendices.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iii) The motor vehicle emission budgets

are clearly identified and precisely quantif ied. Y The motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2012 and 2014 are clearly identified and precisely quantified in Appendix A (page A

- 5) of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision. These budgets reflect control measures that were already adopted at the time the CARB adopted the 2011 Progress Report on April 28, 2011. 2011 Progress Report, Appendix A, p. 3. CARB did not update the budget for 2009 because the 2009 budgets are longer needed for any conformity determination in the South Coast nonattainment area. 2011 Ozone SIP Revis ion, Appendix A, p. A

- 5.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 144 Table J

- 3 

### Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report May 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satis fied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv) The motor vehicle emissions

budget(s), when considered together with all other emission sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further progress and attainment. Y EPA has concluded that the budgets for the year 2012 when considered together with all other emission sources, are consistent with the requirement to demonstrate reasonable further progress for the 1997 annual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 standards. This finding is based on review of the revised RFP demonstrations in Appendix C (Table C

- 1) of the 2011 Progress Report. As documented in Section II.H. of this TSD, EPA is proposing to approve the revised RFP
demonstration. EPA has concluded that the budgets for the year 2014 when consider ed together with all other emission sources, are consistent with the requirement to demonstrate expeditious attainment of the 1997 annual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 standards. This finding is based on review of the revised attainment demonstrations in the 2011 Prog ress Report. As documented in Section II.G. of this TSD, EPA is proposing to approve the revised attainment
demonstration. The revised budgets for direct PM 2.5 include emissions from re

- entrained road dust (paved and unpaved) and road/transit construction activities. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix A, Table A

- 1.The 2011 Progress Report does not include budgets for the PM 2.5 precursor SO
x because on

- road vehicles are projected to be an insignificant contributor to PM 2.5 levels in the South Coast in both 2 012 and 2014. South Coast 2007 AQMP, p. 3

- 17. The 2011 Progress Report also does not include budgets for the PM 2.5 precursor and ammonia because it is not considered an attainment PM 2.5 precursor in the South Coast and thus is not required to be controlled for PM 2.5 attainment. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, pages 4

- 3 and 4

- 4 and section II.C of this TSD. CARB submitt ed revisions to the MVEBs removing the emission reductions associated with AB923 measures, on July 29, 2011 as part of the 2011 8

- Hour Ozone SIP, the MVEBs are now c onsistent with the creditable RFP and
attainment demonstrationsTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 145 Table J

- 3 

### Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report May 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satis fied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(v) The plan shows a clear relationship

among the emissions budget(s), control measures and the total emissions inventory. Y The emission i nventories for all point, area, and mobile sources are contained in Chapter 3 of SCAQMD‘s Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The control strategy that is relied upon for the ―SIP

- based‖ budgets is set out in Chapter 4 of SCAQMD‘s Final 2007 AQM P and Appendix IV

- A, and in CARB‘s Staff report control measures and the total emissions inventory . (http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/southcoast/scstaffreport.pdf) and appendices. The submittal dated April 30, 2008 made changes to the budgets to reflect the use of EMFAC2007, but the changes (relative to those calculated using SCAQMD‘s CEPA model) were minor and the emissions estimates remained consistent with the RFP demonstrations for 8

- hour ozone or PM2.5 in the 2007 South Coast SIP, as suppl emented for 8

- hour ozone RFP on February 1, 2008. The ―offmodel‖ adjustments to the baseline inventory, as referenced in the footnote to the motor vehicle emissions budgets, for the motor vehicle emission budgets, are available on pages 73 (NOx), 76 (ROG) and 79 (PM2.5) of Appendix A, the Emission Inventory Output Tables, of the May 7, 2007 update to the Revised Statewide Strategy for California's 2007 SIP. The relationship of the emission inventory to control measures and the reductions from the measures are described in Appendix A , D and E of the 2011 Progress Report and Attachment 4 included in a May 18, 2011 letter from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, EPA Region 9 Air Division

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 146 Table J

- 3 

### Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report May 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satis fied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(vi) Revisions to previously submitted

control strategy or maintenance plans explain and document any changes to any previous submitted budgets and control measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; any changes to established safety margins (see §93. 101 for definition), and reasons for the changes (including the basis for any changes to emission factors or estimates of vehicle miles traveled). Y CARB submitted revisions to the attainment and RFP demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP as part of th e 2011 Progress Report. See Appendices
A

– D and Attachment 4 included in a May 18, 2011 letter from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director. Attachment A specifically documents the changes in the planning factors, the new heavy duty truck inventory and the revisions to the control measures included in the revised budgets from the original budgets. EPA analyzed the information included in these reports to confirm that the MVEBs are consistent with previous MVEBs and revised as documented

Note that CARB did not update the MVEB for 2009 because the 2009 budgets are longer needed for any conformity determination in the South Coast area. 2011 Progress Report, Appendix D and 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix
A.

CARB submitted re visions to the MVEBs removing the emission reductions associated with the AB 923 program on July 29, 2011 as part of the 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformi ty Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins , June 20, 2011, with Appendices. In combination, all of these reports document these changes, including changes to the previously submitted budgets, and the reasons for them. The revised budg ets are posted at the following URL: http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 147 Table J

- 3 

### Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report May 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satis fied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93.118(e)(5) EPA has reviewed the State‘s

compilation of public comments and response to comments that are required to be submitted with any implementation p lan. Y SCAQMD compiled public comments submitted during the June 1, 2007 public hearing and during the public comment periods. These comments and the responses are included in the February 2007 ―Response to Comments‖ ( http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07/aqmp/modified/Response_to_Comments.pdf ). ARB compiled public comments submitted during the September 27, 2007, November 15, 2007, and April 24, 2008 public hearings and during the publi c comment periods. These comments and the responses are included in adoption hearing transcripts ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/meetings.htm ). Additional written and verbal comments were received during the public comment period and public hearing on the 2011 Progress Report. See CARB Resolution 11

- 24,

p. 3. We have reviewed the compilation of comments and responses and find the responses (where provided) to be acceptable. No issues that might have affect ed our adequacy finding remain unanswered.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 148



### III. Response to CommentsTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 149 List of Comment Letters Received

We received six comment letters in response to our November 22, 2010 proposal (75 FR 71294) and five comment letters on our July 14, 2011 supplemental proposal (76 FR 41562) . We summarize the comments and provide responses to the comments in these letters in this final rule and the TSD insofar as they are relevant to this action.

Commenters on the November 22, 2010 proposal were:

1. [ NRDC ] Adrian Martinez, Project Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, January 21, 2011, ―EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2009

- 0366, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; 2007 South Co ast State Implementation Plan for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter Standards; 2007 State Strategy; PM2.5,‖ with enclosures. These comments were joined by Jane Williams, Executive Director, California Communities Against Toxics

, and Maya Golden

- Krasner, Attorne y, Commu nities for a Better Environment

. 2. [CARB] James Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, January 21, 2011. Attention: Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2009

- 0366. 88

3. [AARR] Kirk Marckwald, Principal, California Environmental Associates, on behalf of the Association of American Railroads, January 20, 2011.Re: California Railroad Industry Comments on EPA‘s Proposed Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; 2007 South Coast State Implementation Plan for 1997 Fine P articulate Matter Standards; 2007 State Strategy.
4. [SCAQMD] Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, January 20, 2011. Re: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; 2007 South Coast Sta te Implementation Plan for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter Standards; 2007 State Strategy PM2.5 (Docket
No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2009

- 0366)
5. [CBE] Maya Golden

- Krasner, Staff Attorney, and Julia May, Senior Scientist, Communities for a Better Environment, January 21, 20 11. Re: Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2009

- 0366 CBE Comments on EPA‘s partial rejection of SCAQMD PM2.5 planning
6. Email, Robin Hall, private citizen, November 24, 2010.

Commenters on the July 14, 2011 proposal were:

1. [ NRDC ] Adrian Martinez, Project Attorney, Nat ural Resources Defense Council, August 15 , 2011, ―EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2009

- 0366, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; 2007 South Coast State Implementation

88 The majority of CARB‘s and the District‘s comments addressed the November 2010 proposed disapprovals and EPA‘s grounds for them. These comments were for the most part addressed by our July 2011 amended proposal.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 150 Plan for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter Standards; 2007 State Strategy; PM2 .5,‖ with enclosures. These comments were joined by Angela Johnson Meszaros, California Communities Against Toxics and Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Maya Golden

- Krauser, Attorney, Commu nities for a Better Environment

. 2. [CBE] Maya Golden

- Krasner, Staff Attorney, Communities for a Better Environment, on behalf of California Communities Against Toxics, Communities for a Better Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, August 15, 2011. Re: Docket No. EP A

- R09

- OAR

- 2009

- 0366, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; 2007 South Coast PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy

.

3. [SCAQMD] Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, August 12, 2011. R e: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; 2007 South Coast State Implementation Plan for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter Standards; 2007 State Strategy PM2.5 (Docket
No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2009

- 0366).
4. [CIAQC] Michael W. Lewis, Senior Vice President, Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, August 15, 2011. RE: EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2009

- 0366. 5. [ARTBA] Lawrence J. Joseph, on behalf of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, dated August 15, 2011. RE: Approval and Promulgat ion of Implementation Plans; State of California; 2007 South Coast PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy, 76 Fed Reg. 41,562 (July 14, 2011) (docket EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2009

- 0366)



### A. Emissions Inventory

Comment : NRDC comments that EPA proposes to approve the inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP because they were current and accurate ―at the time the Plan was developed and submitted,‖ citing 76 Fed. Reg. 41567. NRDC argues that such language
is not in the CAA and th e addition is not a reasonable extension of Congress‘s intent. NRDC argues that Congress did not mean for EPA to rely on inventory data that EPA knew to be incorrect on the basis that the data was thought to be accurate at the time it
was submitted because Congress‘ goal is to ensure the adoption and approval of SIPs that will achieve clean air. NRDC notes that section 172(c)(3) expressly envisions that EPA may require revisions to the inventory ―to assure that the requirements of this part are
met.‖ EPA‘s interpretation would suggest that the only time such revisions are needed is when it is found that the inventory is not current or accurate as of the date it is submitted and this would undermine any assurance that ―the requirements of [Part D] are met.‖

Response : EPA does not dispute the importance of emissions inventories. We evaluated
the emissions inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP to determine whether they satisfy the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and adequately support the PM 2.5 Plan‘s RACM, RFP and attainment demonstrations. Based on this evaluation, we have concluded that the South Coast 2007 AQMP‘s base year emissions inventory was based
on the most current and accurate information available to the State and District at the time that it was developed and submitted and comprehensively addresses all source categories in the South Coast area, consistent with applicable CAA requirements andTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 151 EPA guidance. See 76 FR 41562 at 41566

- 41567 and July 2011 TSD 89 at section II.A.; see also ―General Preamble for Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,‖ 57 FR 13498 at 13502 (April 16, 1992) (―General Preamble‖).

We do not agree with NRDC‘s suggestion that this inventory undermines the at tainment demonstration in the Plan, nor do we agree that revisions to an emissions inventory are needed only when it is found that such inventory is not current or accurate as of the date it is submitted. To the contrary, as discussed in the proposed rule (76 FR 41562, 41567) and in section II.B. below, we have concluded that the State‘s changes to its methodologies for estimating future emissions do not significantly affect the 2002 base year inventories and, consequently, do not undermine the modeling or other analyses that rely on those inventories. Although significant changes to a base year inventory that undermine the assumptions in an attainment demonstration may call for a more comprehensive reevaluation of the modeling and other planning analyses su pporting that demonstration, we conclude based on our technical assessment that such a comprehensive reevaluation is not necessary in this case. We note that states are required to report comprehensive emissions inventories to EPA every three years under t he Air Emissions Reporting Requirements in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. See 40 CFR § 51.30(b).

CAA section 172(b) provides that ―the State containing [a nonattainment] area shall submit a plan or plan revision (including the plan items) meeting the applicab le requirements of [section 172(c) and section 110]‖ on the schedule established by EPA, and section 172(c) contains, inter alia, the requirement that nonattainment plans ―shall include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area.‖ We believe it is reasonable to read these provisions together as requiring that the State submit an inventory that is ―comprehensive, accurate, [and] current‖ at the time the State submitte d it to EPA, rather than requiring that the State continually revise its plan as new emissions data becomes available. See Brief of Respondents, EPA, in Sierra Club , et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., Case Nos. 10

- 71457 and 10

- 71458 (consolidated), May 5, 2011

. S tates could never effectively plan for air quality improvement if they had to constantly revise their inventories as new data became available. Air quality planning is an iterative process and states and EPA must rely on the best available data at the time the plans are created.

Comment : NRDC questions EPA‘s calculations that estimated the emissions changes to the 2002 base year inventory (see 76 FR 41562, at 41567), noting that EPA‘s calculations come from a May 18, 2011 letter from CARB providing suppleme ntal information. NRDC then assets that these numbers do not match with statements in staff reports on the diesel rules; however, NRDC does not provide the statements or data from the staff reports.

Response : As NRDC noted, EPA calculated the change in the 2002 base year emission inventory based on information provided in the 2011 Progress Report Supplement,

89 ―Technical Support Do cument for the Revised Proposed Rulemaking Action on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 and the South Coast Portions of the 2007 State Strategy,‖ Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9, June 29, 2011, ―July 2011 TSD.‖TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 152 transmitted by CARB on May 18, 2011. We took the difference between the ―SIP‖ estimate and the ―Curren t Estimate‖ columns in Attachment 1, Table SC

- 2002, to the May 18 letter and divided by the ―SIP‖ estimate to calculate the percent change in the inventories. We have added language to the TSD to explain these calculations. As we stated in our proposal, s i nce late 2007, California has experienced an economic recession
that has greatly reduced current levels of economic activity in the State‘s construction and goods movement sectors. The recession has resulted in lowered projected future levels of activity i n this sector. 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E. As a result, projected
emission levels from these categories are now substantially lower than the levels projected for 2008 and later in the Plan as submitted in 2007. At this time, California is addressing these recession impacts on future economic activity through adjustments to the baseline inventories for specific source categories. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E, page 2. There are no recession

- related adjustments to the 2002 base year inventory in the South Coast 2007 AQMP. CARB also made technical changes to the inventories for diesel trucks, buses, and certain categories of off

- road mobile source engines as part of its December 2010 rulemaking amending the In

- Use On

- Road Truck and Bus Rule and the In

- Use Off

- Road Engine rule. Id. The State estimates that these changes collectively reduce the 2002 base year total inventory in the South Coast by 4 percent for NO X and 5 percent for PM 2.5 . See 76 FR 41562, at 41567.



### B. Credit for Baseline Measures

Comment : NRDC asserts that EPA‘s proposed rule and TSD fail to clearly and accurately account for the measures that contribute to specific emission reductions, such as the Federal, state, and district rules adopted before October 2006 (―baseline measures‖) that are incorporated into the baseline inventory. NRDC argues that California and SCAQMD must have the data related to these emission reduction estimates, which are critical to the integrity of the Plan, and that an EPA approval of the emissions invento ries in the absence of this data would be arbitrary and capricious. NRDC also argues that this ―gap in data‖ is made more problematic by the fact that EPA does not require California‘s mobile source control measures that have received a waiver of preempti on under CAA section 209 (―waiver measures‖) to be approved into the SIP. Finally, NRDC questions why Table F

- 9 and Table G

- 1 in the TSD for our proposed rule contain significantly different estimates of the emission reductions attributed to baseline

meas ures, and notes that these two tables also contain different 2002 baseline emissions levels.

Response : First, as to the difference between Tables F

- 9 and G

- 1 in the emission reductions attributed to baseline measures

, this difference is due to the SIP re visions that ARB submitted in 2011 to account for CARB‘s revised emissions forecasts and other improvements to the emissions inventories. Table G

- 1 provides a summary of the attainment demonstration as submitted in November 2007. In this original submittal , the
State used a 2006 base year emissions inventory

. 90 See Staff Report on 2007 State

90 EPA had incorrectly labeled the baseline year as 2002 in line A of Table G

- 1. This error has been corrected. See September 2011 TSD at Table G

- 1.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 153 St rategy, September 21, 2007, p. 7, for 2006 baseline emissions estimates. Table F

- 9 reflects several revisions that the State made to the SIP in 2011

, including revi s ions to the projected baseline emissions inventories to account for changes in the methodologies for estimating emissions from the heavy duty truck and construction source categories

. See 2011 Progress Report. Based on this revised SIP submission, which provided a 2002
base year inventory ( see 2011 Progress Report at 9 (Table 2) ) , we provided in Table F

- 9 of our TSD a revised summary of the reductions needed from control strategy measures in the PM2.5 attainment demonstration for the South Coast. Table F

- 9 also identifies adjustments that CARB made to the 2014 projected baseline inventory ( see line E in Table F

- 9 ) based on information provided in Appendix E, Table 2 of the 2011 Progress Report.

Second, as to the commenter‘s assertion about the ―gap in data‖ regarding baseline measures and projected baseline inventories, we disagree that there is any inadequacy in the emissions projections that undermines the RACM, RFP or attainment demonstrations
in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy

. We explained in our amended proposal (76 FR 41562 at 41566

- 41567 ) our reasons for concluding both that the 200 2 base year inventory in the South Coast 2007 AQMP is comprehens ive, accurate, and

current as required by CAA section 172(c)(3) and that the projected baseline inventories fo r 2009, 2012 and 2014 provide adequate bas e s for the RACM, RFP and attainment
demonstrations in the Plan.

With respect to mobile source emissio ns, w e believe that credit for emissions reductions from implementation of California mobile source rules that are subject to CAA section 209 waivers (―waiver measures‖) is appropriate notwithstanding the fact that such rules are not approved as part of th e California SIP. In the TSD supporting our July 14, 2011 proposal ( 76 FR 41562) , we explained why we believe such credit is appropriate. See TSD at section II.F.4.a.i (pp. 97

- 100). Historically, EPA has granted credit for the waiver measures because of special Congressional recognition, in establishing the waiver process in the first place, of the pioneering California motor vehicle control program and because amendments to the CAA (in 1977) expanded the flexibility granted to California in order ― to af

ford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its c itizens and the public welfare‖ (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301

- 2 (1977)). In allowing California to take credit for the waiver

measur es notwithstanding the fact that the underlying rules are not part of the California SIP, EPA treated the waiver measures similarly to the Federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed States to credit in their SIPs without submi tting the program as a SIP revision.

EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motor

- vehicle

- related waiver measures by allowing California to include motor vehicle emissions estimates made by using California‘s EMFAC (and its predecesso rs) motor vehicle emissions factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reductions from motor

- vehicle

- related waiver measures through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updated from time to time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly

- established emissions standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA‘s motor vehicle standards areTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 154 reflected in an analogous model known as M OVES .) T he South Coast 2007 AQMP was developed using a version of the EMFAC model referred t o as EMFAC2007, which EPA has approved for use in SIP development in California. See 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). Thus, the emissions reductions that are from the California on

- road ―waiver measures‖ and that are estimated through use of EMFAC are as ver ifiable as are the emissions reductions relied upon by states other than California in developing their SIPs based on estimates of motor vehicle emissions made through the use of the MO VES model and prior to the release of MOVES made through the use of the MOBILE model

. All other states use the MOVES model in their baseline inventories without submitting the federal motor vehicle regulations for incorporation into their SIPs.

Similarly, emissions reductions that are from California‘s waiver measures for non

- road engines and vehicles (e.g., agricultural, construction, lawn and garden and off

- road recreation equipment) are estimated through use of CARB‘s OFFROAD emissions factor
model. 91 ( Emissions reductions from EPA‘s non

- road engine and vehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as NONROAD). Since 1990, EPA has treated California non

- road standards for which EPA has issued waivers in the same manner as California motor vehicle standards, i.e., allowing credit for standards subject to the waiver process without requiring submittal of the standards as part of the SIP. In so doing, EPA has treated the California non

- road standards similarly to the Federal non

road standards, which are relied upon, but not included in, various SIPs.

Moreov er, to maintain a waiver under CAA section 209(b)(1), CARB‘s on

- road waiver measures can be relaxed only to a level of aggregate equivalence to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP). See TSD at section II.F.4.a.i. In this respect, the FMVCP a cts as a partial backstop to California‘s on

- road waiver measures ( i.e., absent a waiver, the FMVCP would apply in California). Likewise, Federal non

- road vehicle and engine standards act as a partial backstop for corresponding California non

- road waiver measures. The constraints of the waiver process thus serve to limit the extent to which
CARB can relax these on

- road and off

- road waiver measures, thereby serving an anti

backsliding function similar in substance to those established for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193.

CARB‘s EMFAC and OFFROAD models employ complex routines that predict vehicle fleet turnover by vehicle model years and include control algorithms that account for all adopted regulatory actions which, when combined with the f leet turnover algorithms, provide future baseline projections. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 7

- 8. For stationary sources, the California Emission Forecasting System (CEFS) projects future emissions from stationary and area sources (in addition to aircraft and ships) using a forecasting algorithm that applies growth factors and control profiles to the base year inventory. 92 See id. at 7. The CEFS model integrates the projected inventories for both

91 Information about CARB‘s emissions inventories for on

- road and non

- road mobile sources, and the EMFAC and OFFROAD models used to project changes in future inventories, is available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm.

92 Information on base year emissio ns from stationary point sources is obtained primarily from the districts, while CARB and the districts share responsibility for developing and updating information on emissionsTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 155 stationary and mobile sources into a single data base to provide a comprehensive statewide forecast inventory, from which nonattainment area inventories are extracted for use in establishing future baseline planning inventories. See id. The South Coast 2007 AQMP describes how the District developed the future baseline inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP, based in part on the emissions data and baseline projections provided by CARB and other California agencies. Se e generally South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III. The District‘s projections took int o account the controls implemented under SCAQMD rules adopted as of June 2006, most CARB regulations adopted by June 2005, and a specific set of growth rates from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for population, industry, and motor vehicle activity, among other factors. See id. at 2

- 3

. In 2011, CARB updated the baseline emissions projections for several source categories to account for, among other things, more recent economic forecasts and improved methodologies for estimating em issions from the heavy duty truck and construction source categories

. See 2011 Progress Report at Appendix E. These methodologies for projecting future emissions based on growth factors and existing Federal, State, and local controls were consistent with EPA guidance on developing projected baseline inventories. See TSD at section II.A; see also ―Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections,‖ EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
EPA

- 450/4

- 91

- 019, July 1991; ―Emission Projections,‖ STAPPA/A LAPCO/EPA Emission Inventory Improvement Project, Volume X, December 1999 (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume10/x01.pdf)

.

In sum, the 2002 base year and future projected baseline inventories in the South Coast
2007 AQMP were prepared using a complex set of CARB and SCAQMD methodologies to estimate and project emissions from stationary sources, in addition to the most recent emissions factors and models and updated activity levels for emissions associated with mobile sources, including: (1) the latest EPA

- approved California motor vehicle emissions factor model (EMFAC2007) and the most recent motor vehicle act ivity data from SCAG ; (2) improved methodolog ies for estimating emissions from specific source categories; and (3) CARB's non

- road mobile source model (the OFFROAD model)

. See TSD at Section II.A (referencing, inter alia

, South Coast 2007 AQMP at Appendix III and 2007 State Strategy at Appendix F) and 2011 Progress Report. EPA has approved

numerous California SIPs that rely on base year and projected baseline inventories including emissions estimates derived from the EMFAC, OFFROAD, and CEFS models. See, e.g., 65 FR 6091 (February 8, 2000 ) (proposed rule to approve 1

- hour ozone plan for South Coast) and 65 FR 18903 (April 10, 2000) (final rule); 70 FR 43663 (July 28, 2005) (proposed rule to approve PM

- 10 plan for South Coast and Coachella Valley) and 70 FR 69081 (November 14, 2005) (final rule); 74 FR 66916 (December 17, 2009) (direct final rule to approve ozone plan for Monterey Bay). The commenter has provided no information to support a claim that these methodologies for developing base year inventori es and projecting future emissions in the South Coast are inadequate to support the RACM, RFP, and attainment demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 AQMP.

from various area source categories. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 2 1; see also South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III at pp. 1

- 9 through 1

- 15 (describing the SCAQMD‘s and CARB‘s methodologies for developing 2002 base year emissions estimates for stationary point and area sources).TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 156 For all of these reasons and as discussed in our amended proposal (76 FR 41562 at 41566

- 41567 ), we have concluded that the 200 2 base year inventory in the South Coast 2007 AQMP is a ―comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants‖ in the South Coast area, consistent with the requi rements for emissions inventories in CAA section 172(c)(3), 40 CFR 51.1008, and 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. In addition, we conclude that the projected baseline inventories for 2009, 2012 and 2014 were prepared consistent with EPA‘s guidance on development of emissions inventories and attainment demonstrations and, therefore, provide an adequate basis for the RACM, RFP and attainment demonstrations in the Plan.
See TSD at section II.A.



### C. PM 2.5 

### Plan Precursors

Comment: NRDC commented that our proposed rule does not adequately explain why ammonia (NH 3 ) is not a precursor for PM 2.5 formation.

Response: Under the PM 2.5 implementation rule, ammonia is not a PM 2.5 plan precursor unless either EPA or the State provides an appropriate technical demonstration showing
that ammonia emissions from sources in the State significantly contribute to PM 2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area

. See 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(4 ) . Absent such a technical demonstration, the State is not required to address ammonia in its PM 2.5 attainment plan or to evaluate sources of ammonia emissions in the State for control

measures.



### D. Air Quality Monitoring, Air Quality Modeling and Attainment Demonstration

Comment: NRDC states that it has provided significant comments on the 2011 Annual Monitoring Plan for the South Coast Air Basin. NRDC states that the issues raised in those comments apply here, and that they incorporate those comments by reference on the present plan revision. Specifically, the design flaws in the monitoring network, which ignores near highway areas, must be remedied prior to approval of this SIP. In particular, in light of EPA‘s conclusion that higher concentrations of pollutants are linked to t raffic levels and proximity to the roadway, it is clear that a monitoring plan that fails to include monitors within the impact zone of highways fails to satisfy numerous criteria in 40 CF R Part 58, including the requirement to site a monitor at the point of maximum expected concentration in the nonattainment area, and the requirement that the monitoring network be adequate to support a demonstration that the SIP will provide for attainment.

NRDC‘s comment letter submitted to the South Coast Air Quality M anagement District during the review period of the 2011 Annual Monitoring Network Plan states that: ―For the reasons described below, the Air Monitoring Network Plan fails to meet the requirements established in the Clean Air Act and applicable regulations

. Specifically, the Air Monitoring Network Plan fails to adequately monitor near heavily trafficked highways, especially those with a large share of diesel trucks. As it relates to Particulate Matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (―PMTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 157 2.5‖), EPA‘s monitoring regulations require placement of at least one monitor in a population

- oriented area of expected maximum concentration. The comments and the appended materials indicate that the Air Monitoring Network Plan has failed to comply with this provision because it fails to include adequate monitoring near major roadways.‖

Response: EPA has approved previous Annual Monitoring Network Plans (2007

- 2010) submitted by South Coast Air Quality Management District and determined that the
PM 2.5 network covered under the Annual Monitoring Network Plan meets regulatory requirements.

The requirements for the Annual Monitoring Network Pla n are found in 40 CFR 58.10. The relevant parts of this regulation are listed below:

(a)(1) Beginning July 1, 2 007, the State, or where applicable local, agency shall adopt and submit to the Regional Administrator an annual monitoring network plan which shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of an air quality surveillance system that consists of a netw ork of SLAMS monitoring stations including FRM, FEM, and ARM monitors that are part of SLAMS, NCore stations, STN stations, State speciation stations, SPM stations, and/or, in serious, severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas, PAMS stations, and SPM mo nitoring stations. The plan shall include a statement of purposes for each monitor and evidence that siting and operation of each monitor meets the requirements of appendices A, C, D, and E of this part, where applicable. The annual monitoring network plan must be made available for public inspection for at least 30 days prior to submission to EPA. (2) Any annual monitoring network plan that proposes SLAMS network modifications including new monitoring sites is subject to the approval of the EPA Regional Ad ministrator, who shall provide opportunity for public comment and shall approve or disapprove the plan and schedule within 120 days. If the State or local agency has already provided a public comment opportunity on its plan and has made no changes subseque nt to that comment opportunity, and has submitted the received comments together with the plan, the Regional Administrator is not required to provide a separate opportunity for comment.

(3) [NCore: not relevant for PM 2.5 ].

(4) [Pb: not relevant for PM 2.5 ]

(5) [NO2: not relevant for PM 2.5 ]

(6) [SO2: not relevant for PM 2.5 ]

(b) The annual monitoring network plan must contain the following information for each existing and proposed site:

(1) The AQS site identification number.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 158

(2) The location, including s treet address and geographical coordinates.

(3) The sampling and analysis method(s) for each measured parameter.

(4) The operating schedules for each monitor.

(5) Any proposals to remove or move a monitoring station within a period of 18 months following p lan submittal.

(6) The monitoring objective and spatial scale of representativeness for each monitor as defined in appendix D to this part.

(7) The identification of any sites that are suitable and sites that are not suitable for comparison against the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS as described in §58.30.

(8) The MSA, CBSA, CSA or other area represented by the monitor.

(9) The designation of any Pb monitors as either source

- oriented or non

source

- oriented according to Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58.

(10) Any source

- or iented monitors for which a waiver has been requested or granted by the EPA Regional Administrator as allowed for under paragraph 4.5(a)(ii) of Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58.

(11) Any source

- oriented or non

- source

- oriented site for which a waiver has
been r equested or granted by the EPA Regional Administrator for the use of Pb

- PM 10 monitoring in lieu of Pb

- TSP monitoring as allowed for under paragraph 2.10 of Appendix C to 40 CFR part 58.

(12) The identification of required NO 2 monitors as either near

- road or area

wide sites in accordance with appendix D, section 4.3 of this part.

(c) The annual monitoring network plan must document how States and local agencies provide for the review of changes to a PM 2.5 monitoring network that impact the location of a violat ing PM 2.5 monitor or the creation/change to a community monitoring zone, including a description of the proposed use of spatial averaging for purposes of making comparisons to the annual
PM 2.5 NAAQS as set forth in appendix N to part 50 of this chapter. The affected State or local agency must document the process for obtaining public comment and include any comments received through the public notification process within their submitted plan.

(d) [Network Assessment: not relevant for Annual Monitoring Networ k Plan]

(e) [Approval of discontinuations or additions: not relevant for comments]

Comments within the scope of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan, as outlined above in 40 CFR 58.10 and Appendices referenced therein, are addressed in this response.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 159 Netwo rk design requirements for PM 2.5 are specified in 40 CFR 58, Appendix D, Section 4.7.1. The relevant text is provided below:

4.7.1 General Requirements. (a) State, and where applicable local, agencies must operate the minimum number of required PM 2.5 SLA MS sites listed in Table D

– 5 of this appendix. The NCore sites are expected to complement the PM 2.5 data collection that takes place at non

- NCore SLAMS sites, and both types of sites can be used to meet the minimum PM 2.5 network requirements. Deviations fr om these
PM 2.5 monitoring requirements must be approved by the EPA Regional Administrator.

Table D

– 5 of Appendix D to Part 58

— PM 2.5 Minimum Monitoring Requirements

MSA population 1,2 Most recent 3

- year design value

≥85% of any PM 2.5 NAAQS 3 Most recent 3

- year design value <85% of any PM 2.5 NAAQS 3,4

>1,000,000 3 2

500,000

– 1,000,000 2 1

50,000

– <500,000 5 1 0

1 Minimum monitoring requirements apply to the Metropolitan statistical area (MSA).

2 Population based on latest available census figures.

3 The PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) levels and forms are defined in 40 CFR part 50.

4 These minimum monitoring requirements apply in the absence of a design value.

5 Metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) must contain an urbanized area of 50,000 or more population.

(b) Specific Design Criteria for PM 2.5 . The required monitoring stations or sites must be sited to represent community

- wide air quality. These sites can include sites collocated at PAMS. These monitoring stations will typically be at neighborhood or urban

- scale; however, in certain instances where population

oriented micro

- or middle

- scale PM 2.5 monitoring are determined by the Regional Administrator to represent many such locations throughout a metropolitan area,
these smaller scales c an be considered to represent community

- wide air quality.

(1) At least one monitoring station is to be sited in a population

- oriented area of expected maximum concentration. (2) For areas with more than one required SLAMS, a monitoring station is to be si ted in an area of poor air quality. (3) Additional technical guidance for siting PM 2.5 monitors is provided in references 6 and 7 of this appendix.

(c) The most important spatial scale to effectively characterize the emissions of particulate matter from both mobile and stationary sources is the neighborhood scale for PM 2.5 . For purposes of establishing monitoring sites to represent large homogenous areas other than the above scales of representativeness and toTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 160 characterize regional transport, urban or reg ional scale sites would also be needed.
Most PM 2.5 m onitoring in urban areas should be representative of a neighborhood
scale.

The South Coast Air Basin includes all of the Los Angeles

- Long Beach

- Santa Ana MSA and part of the Riverside

- San Bernardino

- Onta rio MSA. Based on the network design criteria specified in 40 CFR 58, Appendix D, Section 4.7.1, the South Coast Air Quality Management District is required to operate six monitors between these two MSAs. There are 19 monitors operated by South Coast AQM D in the South Coast Air Basin (21 total in the two MSAs). The South Coast Air Quality Management District exceeds the number of required monitors.

As stated in Section 4.7.1(c), ―The most important spatial scale to effectively characterize
the emissio ns of particulate matter from both mobile and stationary sources is the neighborhood scale for PM 2.5 .‖ As stated in Section 4.7.1(b), the required monitoring sites must be sited to represent community

- wide air quality, which will typically be at neighborh ood or urban

- scale. Neighborhood and urban

- scale sites require a minimum distance from roadways with AADT >100,000 of 100 m and 160 m, respectively (40 CFR 58, Appendix E, Figure E

- 1). Section 4.7.1(b) does allow for instances where ―population

- oriented micro

- or middle

- scale PM 2.5 monitoring are determined by the Regional Administrator to represent many such locations throughout a metropolitan area, these smaller scales can be considered to represent community

- wide air quality.‖ Such a
determination has not been made for the South Coast Air Basin and therefore the network design remains focused on the neighborhood and urban

- scale as directed by Section 4.7.1(c). EPA has therefore determined that the monitoring network in the South Coast Air Basin meets n etwork design criteria as specified in 40 CFR 58, Appendix D. Further, the Annual Monitoring Network Plans submitted to EPA have met all other requirements as specified in 40 CFR 58.10 and have therefore been approved. EPA has not yet reviewed the 2011 A nnual Monitoring Network Plan but intends to do so within the timeframe required by 40 CFR 58.10, which allows 120 days for review of these plans.

Comment: NRDC commented that, ―When state or local agencies submit an air quality monitoring plan that propo ses modifications or new monitoring sites, the EPA Regional Administrator is required to allow time for public comment.‖

Response: As stated above in the provisions for 40 CFR 58.10, ―If the State or local agency has already provided a public comment op portunity on its plan and has made no changes subsequent to that comment opportunity, and has submitted the received comments together with the plan, the Regional Administrator is not required to provide a separate opportunity for comment.‖ The letter fro m the South Coast Air Quality Management District with its submittal of the 2011 Annual Monitoring Network Plan
indicates that a 30

- day comment period was provided and that no changes were made to the plan subsequent to that comment period; therefore, the Regional Administrator is not required to provide a separate opportunity for comment.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 161 Comment: NRDC comments that monitors in the South Coast Basin are not located to measure PM2.5 in near

- highway environment.

Response: The 1997 and 2006 Monitoring Rule s impose minimum monitoring requirements and specify which monitors‘ data are to be compared to the annual and the
24

- hour PM2.5 NAAQS to determine whether those NAAQS have been attained. The PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in 1997 to protect the public on a n average, community

- wide basis, 93 and both the PM2.5 levels to which the public could be exposed and the types of monitoring sites at which States could determine attainment were codified in the NAAQS and Monitoring Rules themselves. The 1997 annual and 24

- hour NAAQS were set at 15 and 65 ug/m3, respectively, and States were instructed to determine attainment in accordance with Appendix N of 40 CFR Pt 50. See 40 CFR § 50.7(b, c). Appendix N, in turn, requires States to compare ambient PM2.5 levels at those air network monitors the Monitoring Rules deem eligible for making comparisons with the NAAQS in order to determine whether they have been attained. 40 CFR Pt 50, App. N, § 2.4(a) (1997). Appendix D, which was significantly amended by the 1997 and 2006 M onitoring Rules, imposes detailed requirements for siting network monitors, including PM2.5 monitors. To ensure that States collect PM2.5 exposure data comparable to that used in the studies on which the NAAQS were based, the 1997 Monitoring Rule stated th at monitors collecting data for comparison to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS should be located in neighborhood

- scale community

- oriented locations. 40 CFR Pt 58, App. D, § 2.8.1.2.2.

The most important spatial scales to effectively characterize the emissions of

pa rticulate matter from both mobile and stationary sources are the middle scales for PM10 and neighborhood scales for both PM10 and PM2.5. Most PM2.5 monitoring in urban areas should be representative of a neighborhood scale.

In the 2006 PM2.5 Monitoring Rule, EPA retained the 1997 requirements for locating monitors and using their data for determining attainment of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also responded to public comments seeking mandatory monitoring in ―microenvironment or hot spot locations,‖ by ex pressly declining to require such monitoring for either the annual or the 24

- hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 94 Consequently, neither

93 Unlike some other NAAQS, the PM2.5 NAAQS were intended to reduce aggregate population risk from both annual and 24

- hour exposures by lowering the broad distribution of PM2.5 concentrations across the community to a level slightly below that associated with adverse health effects in epidemiologica l studies of the relationship between adverse health effects and average, community

- wide levels of particulate matter. 61 Fed. Reg. at 65,641/2; see 62 Fed. Reg. at 38,655

- 56, 38,665/2

- 3, 38,671/2, 38,672/2, 38,764; 40 C.F.R. § 50.7 (1997); id. Pt 58, App. D, § 2.8.1.2.3 (1997).

94 In the [proposed 2006 Monitoring Rule] EPA said it believed that the 1997 rule‘s design criteria remained appropriate for implementation of the proposed [annual] PM2.5 NAAQS, . . . because these requirements effectively ensured that monitors are placed in locations that appropriately reflect the community

- oriented area wide concentration levels used in the epidemiological studies that support the proposed lowering of the 24

- hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 71 FR 2742. The EPA continues to belie ve this . . . . .

... While an implication of the final monitoring rule provisions regarding siting of PM2.5 monitors is that States may choose not to monitor microenvironment or middle scale locations where some people areTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 162 the 1997 nor the 2006 Monitoring Rule contains any requirement that States place PM2.5 monitors in Middle Scale or Microscale areas (incl uding those in the vicinity of highways or other dominating local sources of PM2.5), and both expressly limit the circumstances in which data from such monitors may be used to demonstrate attainment of the annual NAAQS. See 71 Fed. Reg. at 61,264 (2006). As discussed above, the South Coast Air Quality Management District exceeds the minimum number of required monitors and meets all other requirements of the 1997 and 2006 monitoring rules. EPA has therefore determined that the monitoring network in the
Sou th Coast Air Basin meets network design criteria as specified in 40 CFR 58, Appendix D.

Comment: NRD C comments that reliable scientific evidence shows elevated PM2.5 in the near

- highway environment and that the exposed population in near

- highway enviro nment is significant.

Response: Regardless of the magnitude of near

- highway PM2.5 gradients, the monitoring rules do not require placement of PM2.5 monitors in micro or middle scale locations. The South Coast Air Quality Management District exceeds the nu mber of required monitors. As stated in Section 4.7.1(c), ―The most important spatial scale to effectively characterize the emissions of particulate matter from both mobile and stationary sources is the neighborhood scale for PM 2.5 .‖ As stated in Section 4.7.1(b), the required monitoring sites must be sited to represent community

- wide air quality, which will typically be at neighborhood or urban

- scale. Neighborhood and urban

- scale sites require a minimum distance from roadways with AADT >100,000 of 100 m and 160 m, respectively (40 CFR 58, Appendix E, Figure E

- 1). Section 4.7.1(b) does allow for instances where ―population

- oriented micro

- or middle

- scale PM 2.5 monitoring are determined by the Regional Administrator to represent many such locations through out a metropolitan area, these smaller scales can be considered to represent community

- wide air quality.‖ EPA
has not made such a determination for the South Coast Air Basin and therefore the network design remains focused on the neighborhood and urban

- sc ale as directed by Section 4.7.1(c). EPA has therefore determined that the monitoring network in the South Coast Air Basin meets network design criteria as specified in 40 CFR 58, Appendix D.

Comment: NRDC comments that data from several highway studies were expressly relied upon by US EPA to decide that it must establish a transportation conformity program to review the localized impacts of PM2.5 emissions from highways. NRDC states that EPA concluded that the evidence of localized impacts from highways was sufficiently compelling to require that ―it is essential that a quantitative PM2.5 or PM10
hot

- spot analysis be performed for all projects of air quality concern.‖ NRD C argues that if the evidence of localized impacts was sufficient to justify a natio nal regulatory program to protect against NAAQS violations caused by new highways, it is also

exposed to 24

- hour concentratio ns above the . . . 24

- hour NAAQS, such a result remains consistent with the community

- oriented area

- wide level of protection on which the 24

- hour PM2.5 NAAQS is premised. Thus . . . it is not appropriate to specifically require any number of monitors to be placed in microenvironment or hot spot locations.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 163 compelling enough to require a quantitative analysis to ensure that the SIP will protect against existing localized NAAQS violations caused by highway emissions. NRDC also comments that EPA has developed and issued formal Guidance for the evaluation of highway emissions to implement the Hot Spot conformity program, Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot

- spot Analyses in PM2.5 and
PM10 Nonattainmen t and Maintenance Areas,‖ US EPA (December 2010). 75 FR 79370 (December 20, 2010). NRDC comments that these tools should be required for the determination of the concentrations expected near heavily trafficked highways in the parts of the nonattainment are a with the highest background pollutant concentrations.

Response: EPA‘s Implementation Rule requires that states should prepare attainment demonstrations through modeling that is ―consistent with EPA‘s modeling guidance,‖ and the modeling guidance explain s that future air quality should be estimated at current monitoring sites. 72 Fed. Reg. 20,586 (Apr. 25, 2007).; see ―Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,‖ prepared by EPA‘s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, at 15 (Apri l 2007). The transportation conformity program is established to meet different statutory and regulatory programs than those that are applicable to the SIP action before EPA. Therefore the conformity Hot spot rule and guidance is not applicable to the at tainment test for the South Coast PM2.5 SIP. However, it is worth noting that the conformity hot spot modeling rule and guidance limit the hot spot analysis to locations that are appropriate for siting an FRM PM2.5 monitor. In addition, the attainment dem onstration modeling guidance recommendations specify analysis at spatial resolutions which are consistent with monitoring rule requirements. The SCAQMD attainment demonstration adequately demonstrates attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS at spatial scales that ar e consistent with both the monitoring rule and modeling guidance requirements.

Comment: NRDC comments that large

- scale regional modeling does not predict impact of reductions in highway emissions. The modeling analysis performed for the attainment demons tration uses the CAMx model, a regional airshed model that aggregates emissions and estimates ambient concentrations for a grid that is made up of cells 5 km on a side.
NRD C argues that EPA explained in its guidance regarding PM attainment demonstrations that ―[d]ispersion models are better able to capture the influence of primary PM sources where large concentration gradients may exist. Grid models spread out the PM emissions to the size of the grid (typically 4 or 12 km). This makes it difficult to judge the benefits of control strategies that may affect primary PM sources.‖ 72 Fed. Reg. 20607

- 08.

NRDC also comments that small scale modeling tools are available, and that EPA‘s modeling guidance identifies the problem that NRDC has identified, and sugges ts suitable models for assessing the expected ambient impacts of primary PM emissions on locations that are not represented by the monitoring network. The comment indicates that the ―Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attain ment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,‖ p.19, warns specifically ofTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 164 the possibility that high concentration locations affected by emissions of primary PM will be missed:

Focusing the modeled attainment test only at monitoring sites could result in control targets which are too low if the monitoring network is limited or poorly designed

. We recommend a test which includes a review of the strategy‘s impact at locations without monitors. This exercise provides a supplemental test to de termine whether there is a need for further action despite passing the modeled attainment test at all monitoring sites.

Response: The Implementation Rule requires that states prepare attainment demonstrations through modeling that is ―consistent with EPA ‘s modeling guidance,‖ and the modeling guidance explains that future air quality should be estimated at current monitoring sites. 72 Fed. Reg. 20,586 (Apr. 25, 2007).; see ―Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,‖ prepared by EPA‘s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, at 15 (April 2007). The guidance also recommends that States perform supplemental analyses for unmonitored areas which would support the modeled attainment test by identifying potential ―large

- scale‖ NAAQS violations in areas with inadequate monitoring networks. The guidance recommends an unmonitored analysis at 12km or finer resolution for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and 4 km or finer resolu tion for the 24

- hr PM2.5 NAAQS. The modeling guidance recommendations are consistent with the requirements of the monitoring rules. The modeling guidance unmonitored area analysis spatial scale recommendations are intended to capture neighborhood scale an d larger areas, since the monitoring rules do not require micro or middle scale monitors for either the annual or 24

- hr PM2.5 NAAQS.

In addition to the attainment test which showed attainment at all grid cells with monitors, the SCAQMD performed an unmon itored area analysis at 5 km resolution and showed attainment at all grid cells without monitors. The grid resolution of the South Coast unmonitored area analysis is consistent with the modeling guidance recommendations and appropriately represents unmoni tored neighborhood and larger scale areas.

Comment: NRDC comments that EPA modeling guidance specifically calls for the need to identify unmonitored areas where monitored concentrations are not expected to be representative of local air quality and to app ly Gaussian dispersion models to make up for the limitations of regional scale grid models to determine if additional control measures are needed.

Response: As discussed in the previous comment, the unmonitored area analysis was performed by SCAQMD and shows attainment at all grid cells without monitors, in addition to the attainment test which also showed attainment at all grid cells with monitors.

NRDC states that EPA modeling guidance specifically calls for the need to identify unmonitored areas where monitored concentrations are not expected to be representativeTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 165 of local air quality and to apply Gaussian dispersion models. However, the commenter is confusing two distinct sections and recommendations in the modeling guidance. Section 5.3 of the modeling guidance contains the recommended spatial resolution for the unmonitored area analysis. This section recommends a relatively large scale unmonito red area analysis at typical photochemical grid model resolutions of 12km or 4km. Section 5.3.1 begins a discussion examining impacts from local primary PM2.5

sources at monitoring locations . Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 contain recommendations to potentiall y use a Gaussian dispersion model to estimate impacts of primary PM2.5 sources at existing monitor locations, where data indicates that local gradients of primary PM2.5 exist. The guidance does not recommend the use of Gaussian dispersion models to examin e impacts in non

- monitored areas.

Existing PM2.5 monitors may be located in areas with relatively high primary PM2.5 gradients. In some cases these locations may be micro or middle scale areas where states have voluntarily sited PM2.5 monitors. Attainm ent of the NAAQS must be shown at these monitors. Using a combination of photochemical and dispersion models may be the most credible method of examining attainment issues in such locations. But it should be clear that the use of dispersion models is str ictly voluntary and should be considered on a

case

- by

- case basis. And the modeling guidance does not recommend a similar technique for unmonitored areas (at monitoring scales) where PM2.5 monitors would not be required.

Comment: NRDC comments that the Cl ean Air Act provides no authority to support EPA‘s contention that it may create what are in effect permanent public health sacrifice areas by allowing certain neighborhoods to be exposed to PM2.5 concentrations that exceed NAAQS by merely not monitoring p ollution levels in those areas. To create such a public health sacrifice area would not only violate the express mandate of the Clean Air Act, but would also deprive the individuals and families in those neighborhoods of the equal protection of the laws gu aranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. For the government to permissibly discriminate between citizens, it must have a rational basis for making the distinction. Here there is no rational basis for the State to discriminat e between families in protecting against the adverse health effects of fine particles based on proximity to highways. It is not permissible to adopt an air quality plan that denies to some families the full protection from premature death and disease achie ved when the NAAQS is attained. Neither the Constitution nor the CAA makes proximity to sources or population density a factor that the EPA may rely upon to justify approving an implementation plan that fails to provide equal protection to all families fro m the health effects of air pollution.

Response: As discussed in greater detail in the response above, the 1997 and 2006 Monitoring Rules impose minimum monitoring requirements and specify which monitors‘ data are to be compared to the annual and the 24

- h our PM2.5 NAAQS to determine whether those NAAQS have been attained. The PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in 1997 to protect the public on an average, community

- wide basis, 95 and

95 Unlike some other NAAQS, the PM2.5 NAAQS were intended to reduce aggregate population risk from both annual and 24

- hour exposures by lowering the broad distribution of PM2.5 concentrations across theTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 166 both the PM2.5 levels to which the public could be exposed and the types of monit oring sites at which States could determine attainment were codified in the NAAQS and Monitoring Rules themselves.

Comment: NRDC comments that until California submits an attainment demonstration for PM2.5 that provides for attainment in the near

- highwa y environment, and the measures needed to achieve the reductions required to attain are identified, quantified and adopted in legally enforceable form, it is premature to establish any emission budgets for
PM2.5 emissions from motor vehicles. We therefore ask EPA to continue its disapproval of the submitted motor vehicle emission budgets until these deficiencies in the South Coast SIP are remedied.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters‘ assertions that motor vehicle emissions budgets can only be established after the PM2.5 attainment demonstration is revised to address the commenters‘ concerns about near roadway concentrations and that EPA should disappr ove the submitted budgets.

EPA has completed its detailed and thorough review of the entire PM2.5 SIP for the South Coast Air Basin and, as documented in the preamble to final rulemaking, the technical support document and in responses to other submitted comments, concluded that the submitted SIP complies with Clean Air Act and PM2.5 implementation rule requirements and associated guidance for demonstrating that the area will attain the PM2.5 standard and that the area will make reasonable further progres s toward attaining that standard. In the course of that thorough review of the entire submitted SIP, EPA concluded that the attainment demonstration for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS appropriately provides for attainment in all areas of the South Coast Air Basin. EPA also concluded that the attainment demonstration modeling and the PM2.5 monitoring data used for the attainment demonstration follow the appropriate EPA guidance for modeling and monitoring. Specifically, as described in the responses to other commen ts, the submitted
attainment demonstration included demonstrations for both monitored and unmonitored areas that are consistent with EPA‘s attainment modeling guidance.

As part of this thorough review of the submitted PM2.5 SIP for the area EPA reviewed the motor vehicle emissions budgets and concluded that they are both adequate for transportation conformity purposes and are approvable. The motor vehicle emissions budgets for the RFP years and for the attainment year meet all of the adequacy criteria

c ontained in the transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5)) The requirements of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv) are most relevant to the concerns raised in this comment. Specifically, 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv) states that:

c ommunity to a level slightly below that associated with adverse health effects in epidemiological studies of the relationship between adverse health effects and average, community

- wide levels of particulate matter. 61 Fed. Reg. at 65,641/2; see 62 Fed. Reg . at 38,655

- 56, 38,665/2

- 3, 38,671/2, 38,672/2, 38,764; 40 CFR § 50.7 (1997); id. Pt 58, App. D, § 2.8.1.2.3 (1997).TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 167 The motor vehicle emiss ions budget(s), when considered together with all other emissions sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance (whichever is relevant to the given implementation plan submission).

In this c ase the relevant requirements are reasonable further progress and attainment. EPA‘s thorough review of the SIP resulted in a conclusion that the SIP provides for attainment throughout the entire nonattainment area and, in light of Clean Air Act and PM2.5 implementation rule requirements, is approvable. EPA also concluded that the SIP provides for reasonable further progress as required by the Clean Air Act and the PM2.5 implementation rule because the SIP provides for a level of emissions that will result in attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS throughout the entire area and that the SIP documents generally linear progress toward attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS. The motor vehicle emissions budgets are the on

- road portions of the overall emissions inventories for the attainment year and the RFP years. Therefore, EPA concluded that the motor vehicle emissions budgets meet the requirements of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv).

Also, relevant to this comment are the requirements of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v) which states tha t:

The motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is consistent with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in the submitted control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance plan.

EPA‘s thorough review of the SIP led it to conclude that motor vehicle emissions budgets are consistent with the overall inventory for the area, that the budgets are budgets and the overall inventory are based on adopted control measures and approvable enforceable
commitments and that the entire SIP is approvable as it provides for attainment throughout the area and for RFP. Therefore, the requirements of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v) are also satisfied.

EPA is approving and finding adequate the submitted motor vehicle emissions budgets
for use in tran sportation conformity determinations because all of the transportation conformity rule‘s adequacy criteria have been met and the SIP is approvable as providing for attainment throughout the entire nonattainment area and providing for RFP.

Comment: NRDC com ments that the approach of ignoring the highway emissions violates environmental justice principles. A pervasive example of a current flaw of addressing air pollution in environmental justice communities is EPA‘s approach of condoning the failure to monito r levels of PM 2.5 near highways in the South Coast Air Basin.

Response: Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) esta blishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropria te, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmentalTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 168 effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low

- income populations in the United States.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA‘s role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria of the Clean Air Act, which in this case are found in section 110 and part D of title I of the Clean Air Act, and 40 CFR part 51 (particularly, subpart X) of EPA‘s regulations and which do not include environ mental justice principles as a criterion to judge the acceptability of a SIP or SIP revision. Thus, it does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to approve or disapprove a SIP revision based on environmental justice considerations.

However, we note that some of the most significant control measures relied upon by the South Coast PM 2.5 Plan (such as ―cleaner in

- use heavy duty trucks‖

– see table 5 of our July 14, 2011 proposal) that we are partially approving today anticipate significant
reducti ons in emissions from heavy

- duty diesel

- powered trucks. Such measures, while they would contribute to the region

- wide goal of attaining the PM 2.5 NAAQS, would have the greatest emission reduction benefit in the near

- highway environment.

Comment: NRDC com ments that the attainment demonstration cannot be approved because of change s in the inventory. NRDC asserts that EPA‘s new proposal to approve the air quality modeling in the 2007 PM 2.5 Plan based on the supplemental documentation provided by CARB does n ot address the fundamental problem with the modeling, which is that the modeling fails to provide an accurate picture of whether the region will attain,
and that EPA ―admits that  ̳i deally, new attainment demonstration modeling would be performed to evaluat e the effec t of [the diesel rule updates]...‘‖ NRDC contends that t he Clean Air Act does not allow EPA to approve inventories it knows to be erroneous because new modeling would be too hard. NRDC asserts that EPA must analyze how these errors in the base yea r inventory actually affect the attainment demonstration. NRDC claims that EPA attempts to do this by looking at sensitivity modeling submitted by CARB, which was meant to determine the ―relative effectiveness‖ on design values of
additional reductions of NOx and PM 2.5 emissions in the attainment year. NRDC asserts that EPA claims that the results of this sensitivity modeling support its conclusion that new attainment demonstration modeling would be unnecessary. NRDC contends that t he obvious flaw in EPA‘s reasoning is that it is calculating attainment year design value changes, to the hundredth of a percent, from attainment year design values that it has already admitted are erroneous. NRDC asserts that EPA cannot justify its failure to require updated attainment modeling by back

- calculating from the wrong 2014 design values to claim that the changes to the inventory would be too small to affect the design values. Accordingly, NRDC asserts this approach i s arbitrary and capricious.

Response: While some large emission inventory changes might indeed necessitate new modeling, EPA does not agree that the inventory changes were large enough to substantially affect the modeling conclusions, or to invalidate the attainment demonstration. Ideally

, new modeling would be performed when an area‘s emission inventory is changed. However, since the cost in time and resources of remodeling and consequent reworking of a p lan is not trivial, administrative necessity requir es aTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 169 judgement call about when changes are large enough to merit new modeling. An important criterion in making this judgement is whether the changes would affect the conclusion that the p lan‘s emission reductions are adequate for attaining the NAAQS.
Ano ther consideration is the uncertainty inherent in modeling; although model results may be reported to several decimal places, model performance goals for fractional bias are typically in the range of 30%. (EPA Guidance Appendix B) Small changes in the emi ssion inventory are likely to have a small impact on future year design values. This is not to discount the importance of an accurate emission inventory, but rather to make the point that relatively small changes in inventory estimates do not necessarily invalidate a model application. EPA believes that the base year emission decreases due to the inventory updates are small enough to leave the overall modeling conclusions unchanged. This is a quantitative showing that the emission updates are small enough that they do not invalidate the attainment demonstration.

EPA does not agree with NRDC that starting from the Plan‘s modeled design values, and ending with small design value changes, constitute flaws in the procedure for estimating the effect of the base line inventory revisions. EPA believes that results derived from model sensitivity tests are a reasonable approximation to what would result from new modeling with the updated inventory. EPA‘s procedure based on model sensitivity do es make a number of assu mptions; however, the original modeling is basically sound in how it portrays South Coast Air Basin‘s atmospheric chemistry and transport. The emission changes are small enough that the model response is linear, model sensitivity is similar in the startin g and ending years, and the spatial and temporal distribution of emissions is little changed with the inventory update. EPA believes that these assumptions hold well enough that the procedure provides strong evidence for the attainment demonstration‘s
vali dity

For regulatory purposes, administrative necessity requires a judgement call about whether such problems are substantial enough to compromise regulatory decisions. Years of effort by modeling experts from regulatory agencies and academia went into dev eloping the S outh C oast modeling; it underwent successful diagnostic testing; and it performs well. EPA believes that it should not be discarded, and that it continues to constitute an adequate basis for the attainment demonstration.

As for the small mag nitude of the design value changes resulting from the procedure, EPA does not believe this is a substantive issue. Any procedure (even new modeling) that starts with small emission s changes will necessarily result in small design value changes: within a sm all range, over which the chemistry does not shift fundamentally, ambient concentrations are approximately proportional to emissions. This is not a case of an overly precise tiny number being added to a large erroneous random number, but rather of an adjus tment ratio applied to a number with a lot of solid work behind it. The emission inventory update, involving small NOx changes, would also yield relatively small design value changes. Of course, this assumes the basic soundness of the original modeling, as discussed above.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 170 

### E. RACM/RACT

Comment : CBE states that EPA should require the SCAQMD to complete a new RACM/RACT demonstration including assessment of all available control measures for direct emissions of PM2.5 as well as measures for control of secondary PM2.5 resulting from NOx, SOx, and VOC emissions. CBE also provides a list of potential pollution control and energy efficiency measures that it asserts should be included ―as part of a new, broader, and complete RACM/RACT assessment to demonstrate attainment expeditiously.‖ Finally, CBE asserts that because the South Coast 2007 AQMP is several years old, it is important to reassess and update the control measures in the plan, especially given the SCAQMD‘s failure to demonstrate attainment. CBE is also opposed to what it characterizes as EPA proposed approval of a commitment by CARB to propose measures later, as a lump sum.

Response : Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires that each attainment plan ―provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology), and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.‖ For over 30 years, EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require that States adopt only those ―reasonably available‖ measures necessary for expeditious attainment and to meet RFP requirements. 40 CFR 51.1010; see also 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979) (Part D of title I of the CAA ―does not require that all sources apply RACM if
less than all RACM will suffice for [RFP] and attainment‖); 57 FR 13498 at 13560 (A pril 16, 1992) (―where measures that might in fact be available for implementation in the nonattainment area could not be implemented on a schedule that would advance the date for attain ment in the area, EPA would not consider it reasonable to require implementation of such measures‖); ―Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,‖ November 30, 1999 (1999 Seitz Memo) ( a State may justify rejection of a measure as not ―reasonably available‖ for that area based on technological or economic grounds); and 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005) at 71661 (noting that States ―need adopt measures only if t hey are both economically and technologically feasible and will advance the attainment date or are necessary for RFP‖). EPA‘s interpretation of section 172(c)(1) has been upheld by several courts. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, et al ., 294 F. 3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA , 314 F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 2002).

Under the PM2.5 Implemen tation Rule at 40 CFR 51.1010

, a RACM demonstration must include ―the list of the potential measures considered by the State, and information and analysis suffic ient to support the State‘s judgment that it has adopted all RACM, including RACT.‖ 40 CFR 51.1010(a). In addition, ―[p]otential measures that are reasonably available considering technical and economic feasibility must be adopted as RACM if, considered collectively, they would advance the attainment date by one year or more.‖ As explained in the preamble to the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, Congress provided EPA and States broad discretion to determine what measures to include in anTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 171 attainment plan, and th e language in section 172(c)(1) requiring only ―reasonably available‖ measures and implementation of these measures ―as expeditiously as practicable‖ indicates that Congress intended for the RACT/RACM requirement to be driven by an overall requirement that the measure be ―reasonable.‖ 72 FR 20586 at 20610 (April 25, 2007)

. Thus, the rule of ―reason‖ drives the decisions on what controls to apply, what should be controlled, by when emissions must be reduced, and finally, the rigor required in a State‘s RAC T/RACM analysis. See id

. States may, as part of a RACM analysis, consider the costs of potential control measure s and whether the

measure s can be readily and effectively implemented without undue administrative burden. See i d. ( citing 55 FR 38327 and 66 FR 26969)

.

As discussed in our July 14, 2011 amended proposal, we have evaluated the collection of reasonably available control measures that CARB, the District, and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) have adopted and submitted wit h the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy to meet the RACM/RACT requirement in CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1010. See 76 FR 41562 at 41568

- 41572 and TSD at section II.D. For the reasons discussed in our

ame nded proposal and as further discussed below, we conclude that the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy demonstrate that the State has adopted all reasonably available control measures (including RACT for stationary sources) necessary to
demon strate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements, as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1010. Thus, w e disagree with CBE‘s assertion that the additional measures it has identified are required
RACM under CAA section 172(c)(1) for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast and or that it is necessary to reassess or update the control measures in the plan at this time. We explain more specifically below our reasons for concluding that the
additional con trol options and energy efficiency measures identified by CBE are not required RACM for purposes of attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast.

Comment : CBE objects to what it characterizes as CARB‘s ―promise to  ̳propose‘ measures later, in a lump sum,‖ and argues that this provides the public with no assurance that attainment will be achieved. CBE asserts that individual emission reduction targets
should be attached t o each separate measure and they should be individually required. Finally, CBE argues that ―[a]lternative control measures and emissions trading should not be allowed, because of deficiencies in the reliability of such programs.‖

Response: We disagree wi th CBE‘s contention that it is necessary for the State to commit to individual measures with specific emission reduction targets for each measure. For the reasons discussed in our proposed rule (see 76 FR 41562 at 41575

- 41577) and further below (see respo nses to comments on ―enforceable commitments‖), we conclude that CARB and the SCAQMD have satisfied the criteria that EPA has historically applied in approving attainment demonstration s based in part on enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted measures. The 2007 State Strategy includes commitments to propose defined new measures and an enforceable commitment for emissions reductions sufficient, in combination with existing measures and the District‘s commitments, to attain the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the South Co ast by April 5, 2015. See 76 FR 41562, at 41571 and CARBTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 172 Resolution 07

- 28 (September 27, 2007, A ttachment B, p. 3). As discussed below in our responses to comments on ―enforceable commitments

, ‖ the 2011 SIP revisions chang ed
the total amount of reduction s needed from control strategy measures in 2014 to 44 tpd of VOC reductions, 129 tpd of NO x reductions, and 41 tpd of SO x reductions (the PM2.5 enforceable commitment stayed the same at 9 tpd of directly

- emitted PM2.5). See July 2011 TSD, Table F

- 10. Although CARB‘s commitment provides that it may adopt ―alternative‖ measures (i.e., measures different from the potential control options identified in the South Coast 2007 AQMP or 2007 State Strategy), ultimately the State is obligated to achieve these sp ecific aggregate amounts of emission reductions through the adoption of enforceable measures no later than the beginning of 2014 . See 40 CFR 51.1007(b) (requiring implementation of all control measures needed for expeditious
attainment no later than the b eginning of the year prior to the attainment date). The State‘s commitments to achieve specific amounts of emission reductions by 2014 are enforceable by EPA and citizens under CAA sections 113 and 304, respectively. We note that CARB has already adopted and submitted to EPA either for SIP

- approval or for a CAA section 209 waiver most of the measures it had committed to adopt in the 2007 State Strategy, as revised. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix B, Table B

- 1.

It is unclear what CBE intends by stating that ―alternative control measures and emissions trading should not be allowed‖ because of deficiencies in their reliability.

Comment : CBE asserts that the South Coast 2007 AQMP must set Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) standards for NOx and other PM2.5 precursor emissions from industrial boilers and heaters, and that it should require replacement of old and severely inefficient equipment at oil refineries and other large sources. CBE also asserts that the SCAQMD‘s Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program does not produce the emission reductions that are achievable from industrial boilers and heaters because it allows sources to buy and sell credits. CBE contends that a RACM demonstration should include evaluation of each industrial boiler and heater, including its

age, the type of fuel it use s, and its emissions of criteria pollutants, toxics and GHGs. Additionally, CBE claims that CARB, as part of its recent Greenhouse Gas (GHG) regulatory process under California‘s Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), identified numerous methods for increasing energy efficiency, reducing fuel use, and thus reducing emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors as well as GHGs statewide, and that EPA should require the SCAQMD to carry out the s ame evaluation for industrial boilers and heaters in the South Coast. CBE contends that such energy efficiency measures could also save money. Finally, CBE asserts that Ultra

- Low NOx burners are cost

- effective and must be evaluated as part of a RACM analys is for industrial boilers and heaters.

Response : The SCAQMD had adopted two regulations to control NOx emissions from industrial boilers, steam generators and process heaters in the South Coast: Rule 1146.1 (for boilers with rated heat inputs between 2 an d 5 MMBtu/hour) and Rule 1146 (for boilers with rated heat inputs above 5 MMBtu/hour, with certain exemptions). EPA has approved both of these rules into the SIP. See 67 FR 16640 (April 8, 2002) and 60 FR 46220 (September 6, 1995). EPA recently proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to these rules that further tighten the NOx emission limits in bothTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 173 rules. See 76 FR 40303 (July 8, 2011). 96 As part of that action, we evaluated the stringency of the rules‘ control requirements and proposed to conclude that the rules together require all control measures that are reasonably available for covered boilers, steam generators and process heaters

. See id. and associated technical support documents (TSDs). We also noted that the NOx emissio n limits in both rules are equivalent to California BARCT standards for these types of boilers, steam generators and process heaters. See id. According to the SCAQMD‘s staff report on Rule 1146, most boilers subject to the rule will have to use either ul tra

- low NOx burners or selective catalytic reduction (SCR) controls to meet the rule's emission limits, depending on the size of the boiler. See Final Staff Report, Proposed Amended Rule 1146

- Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Industrial, Institutiona l, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters, at ES

- 1. Boilers with rated heat inputs above 40 MMBtu/hour located at refineries are subject to the NOx and SOx emission caps in SCAQMD‘s RECLAIM program, discussed immediately below. See e

- mail dated September 22, 2011, from Ken Mangelsdorf (SCAQMD) to Idalia Perez (EPA Region 9), re: ―question about refineries and RECLAIM.‖ These adopted measures require all RACM for covered industrial boilers, steam generators and process heaters in the South Coast and provide an adequate basis for approving the RACM demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP with respect to such emission units. We therefore disagree with CBE‘s assertion that the SCAQMD is required to evaluate additional control measure s for industrial boilers and heaters as part of its RACM demonstration for the 1997 PM2.5 standard.

We also disagree with CBE‘s objections to the inclusion of RECLAIM as a RACM
measure. RECLAIM is a market incentive program designed to provide sources flexibility in complying with emissions limitations. Cap and trade programs, like RECLAIM, can take into account emissions control technology by limiting the size of the emissions cap. EPA policy provides that a cap and trade program may satisfy RACT by

e nsuring that the level of emission reductions resulting from implementation of the program will be equal, in the aggregate, to those reductions expected from the direct application of RACT on affected sources within the nonattainment area

. See 59 FR 16690 (April 7, 1994) and "Improving Air Quality wi th Economic Incentive Programs, " EPA

- 452/R

- 01

- 001 (January 2001), at Section 16.7. EPA approved the RECLAIM program into the California SIP in June 1998 based in part on a conclusion that the NOx emission caps in the program satisfied the RACT requirements of CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f) for covered NOx emission sources 97 in the aggregate. See 61 FR 57834 (November 8, 1996) and 63 FR 32621 (June 15, 1998). In 2005 and 2010, the SCAQMD tightened the NOx and SOx e missions caps in Rule 2002 to address California

96 Our proposed limited disapproval was based on specific deficiencies in the compliance provisions in both rules. These enforceability deficiencies do not alter our proposal to conclude that the NOx emission limits in the rule, which are more stringent than the SIP

- approved version of the rule, represent RACT

- level controls. See TSDs at page 3. Note, however, that these measures are not eligible for SIP credit until EPA approves rule revisions correcting the enforceability deficiencies identified in our pr oposal. We expect the State to submit, as expeditiously as practicable, rule revisions to address these deficiencies consistent with its enforceable emission reduction commitments. See 76 FR 41562 at 41569, Table 3.

97 RECLAIM generally applies to facil ities that emit 4 tons or more per year of NOx or SOx in the year 1990 or subsequent years. See Rule 2001.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 174 Health and Safety Code requirements for BARCT, 98 to require that agricultural sources be subject to existing command

- and

- control regulations instead of RECLAIM, and to satisfy a NOx reduction commitment in th e 2003 AQMP. See Technical Support Document for EPA‘s Rulemaking for the California SIP regarding SCAQMD RECLAIM program rules, March 27, 2006, at pp. 5, 6 and Attachment 4. EPA approved the revisions to the NOx and SOx emission caps in Rule 2002 on August 29, 2006 and August 12, 2011 respectively, based in part on conclusions that the revisions continue to satisfy NOx RACT requirements. See 71 FR 51120 (August 29, 2006) and 76 FR 50128 (August 12, 2011). Because REC LAIM achieves reductions of NOx emission s from covered sources that are equivalent, in the aggregate, to the reductions achieved by RACT

- level controls, we conclude that it requires all RACM for covered sources

. See 76 FR at 41569, Table 3.

Comment : CBE asserts that emissions of criteria pollutants, toxics, and GHGs could be reduced by requiring the SCAQMD to implement the findings of industrial energy use audits performed under California‘s AB32 program. Specifically, CBE asserts that the SCAQMD could supplement CARB‘s work under AB32 by : (1) requiring implementation of potential energy efficiency improvements identified through audits; (2) expanding the audit requirements to cover more industrial sources, including certain large sources and oil refineries exempted from CARB‘s program; an d (3) improving the reporting requirements associated with the audits. CBE states that industrial energy efficiency assessments not only reduce pollution but also reduce energy costs and should be required RACM for purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS and other st andards. CBE contends, therefore, that EPA should require the SCAQMD to add such auditing requirements to the South Coast 2007 AQMP in strengthened form with emission reduction targets.

Response : Although we agree generally that improvements in energy ef ficiency can reduce emissions of criteria and other air pollutants, we disagree with CBE‘s assertion that the specific measures associated with energy efficiency that it has identified are required RACM for purposes of attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standard in the South Coast. Under the PM2.5 Implementation Rule at 40 CFR 51.1010(b), ―[p]otential measures that are reasonably available considering technical and economic feasibility must be adopted as RACM if, considered collectively, they would advance the attai nment date by one year or more.‖ CBE asserts only generally that the measures it has identified are reasonably available for implementation in the South Coast considering technical and economic feasibility, and provides no information to support a conclus ion that these additional measures would, individually or collectively with other reasonable measures, advance attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standard by at least one year in the South Coast.

We explained in the preamble to the PM2.5 Implementation Rule ( 72 FR 20586) that although States must conduct a thorough analysis of reasonably available measures, States are not required to analyze every conceivable measure to satisfy the RACM

98 BARCT is defined as ―an emission limitation that is based on the maximum degree of reduction achievable taking into account environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or category of source.‖ See California Health and Safety Code, Section 40406.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 175 requirement in CAA section 172(c)(1). 72 FR at 20612. As long as a State ‘s analysis is ―sufficiently robust in considering potential measures to ensure selection of all appropriate RACT and RACM, and the State provides a reasoned justification for its analytical approach, we will consider approving that State's RACT/RACM strat egy.‖ Id. As discussed in our July 14, 2011 amended proposal, CARB, the SCAQMD, and SCAG have conducted thorough analyses of all reasonable control measures (including RACT 99 for stationary sources) that are available for implementation in the South Coast and provided reasoned justifications for the collection of RACM that the State has adopted or committed to adopt, based on these analyses. See 76 FR 41562 at 41568, 414572 and TSD at section II.D; see also South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix VI. CBE‘s comme nts do not change our conclusion that the State has adopted all RACM and RACT necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements, as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1010.

Comment : CBE asser ts that SC AQMD ―must implement measures [for additional SOx reduction] that were identified in the recent SOx RECLAIM regulation, but not adopted.‖

Response : This comment does not contain sufficient specificity for EPA to respond.

Comment : CBE asserts t hat major flaring and smoking episodes occur regularly at refineries in the region 100 and that the SCAQMD must require that every refinery have a flare minimization plan (FMP) consistent with rigorous control methods achieved by two specific oil refineries in Martinez, California and Flint Hills, Texas. CBE asserts that
FMPs are reasonabl y available measures that could significantly reduce short

- term emissions of particulates, SOx, NOx, and VOC, although they probably would not significantly affect annual emissions levels. CBE states that the SCAQMD‘s flare rule requires implementation of an FMP only if emissions exceed certain levels on an annual basis, and that the South Coast 2007 AQMP does not adequately account for emissions from flaring events, which are episodic. CBE asserts that EPA should require the SCAQMD to: (1) model the ambie nt PM2.5 impacts of large flaring events; (2) revise the SCAQMD flare regulation to require that every refinery implement an FMP consistent with those at Shell‘s refineries in Martinez, California and Flint Hills, Texas; and (3) add a provision to the SCAQ MD flare regulation to prohibit all flaring (with certain exceptions) unless it is consistent with an approved FMP, as provided in the BAAQMD‘s Regulation 12

- 12

- 301 (―Flare Minimization‖). CBE contends that such measures are technologically and economical ly feasible and therefore required RACM.

Response : The SCAQMD regulates refinery flares through Rule 1118 (―Control of Emissions from Refinery Flares‖) , which EPA approved into the SIP on August 28, 2007.
See 72 FR 49196. Although CBE correctly notes t hat Rule 1118 requires FMPs only at refineries that exceed specific annual emissions thresholds (see Rule 1118 at subsection

99 EPA has defined RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technol ogy that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. 44 FR 53762 ( September 17, 1979).

100 CBE references several sources of SCAQMD data as the basis for its estimates of criteria pollutant emissions from these flaring epis odes.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 176 (d)( 3 ) (a) and (e )(1) ), CBE appears to misunderstand several other requirements in the rule that apply to all petroleum refineries and that are essentially equivalent to the FMP requirements in the BAAQMD‘s Rule 12

- 12. We agree that FMPs are reasonably available measures and note that requirements in BAAQMD 12

- 12 401.1 through 401.3 are required of all petroleum refineries under SCAQ MD Rule 1118 sections (c)(2) and (c)(3)

. For example, BAAQMD 12

- 12 401.4 requires a description of prevention

measures addressing specific activities that may cause flaring

. SCAQMD‘s Rule 1118 contains a requirement in section (c)(2)(C) that requires refi nery owners to submit to the SCAQMD ―descriptions of any equipment, processes or procedures the owner or operators plans to install or implement to eliminate or reduce flaring,‖ including the scheduled year of installation or implementation. This requireme nt is essentially equivalent to the requirement in BAAQMD Rule 12

- 12 401.4. Thus, SCAQMD Rule 1118 contains in sections (c)(2) and (c)(3) requirements that, although separate from the requirements for ― flare minimization plans ‖ under section (e) of the rul e, essentially require SCAQMD facilities to submit plans to reduce flaring events similar to those required under BAAQMD Rule 12

- 12. We disagree, therefore, with CBE‘s assertion that the SCAQMD is required to adopt additional control requirements for refin ery flares and conclude that Rule 1118 requires all RACM for these emission sources in the South Coast. 101

We note that SCAQMD's Board Resolution adopting the District's most recent revisions to SC AQMD Rule 1118 directs District staff to evaluate the feasibility of a daily emissions target and to evaluate refinements to the annual emissions targets as warranted. See SCAQMD Board Resolution 2005

- 32 (November 4, 2005)

. Consistent with this directive, we encourage the District to reevaluate the control and compliance requirements in Rule 1118 as new information about feasible controls becomes available, and to adopt any additional control measures that are reasonably available as expeditiously as practicab le consistent with CAA requirements.

Comment : CBE asserts that methane is a reactive VOC, a smog precursor, and a potent GHG, and that EPA should require the SCAQMD to revise its definition of VOC in Rule 102 to remove the exemption for methane. In support of these assertions, CBE states that: (1) a 2002 Harvard University modeling study 102 concludes that methane reductions could be highly effective in reducing ambient ozone levels; (2) SCAQMD's draft 2007 AQMP identified significantly larger amounts of Total Organic Gases (TOG) including
methane from refineries than VOC emissions (10.1 tons per day (tpd) of TOG versus 6 tpd of VOC); (3) the District should require control of all organic gases from oil refineries; and (4) the District should also review its list of other TOG compounds that

101 We note that CBE‘s estimates of emissions from flaring episodes during the 2009

- 2011 time period are consistent with data provided in SCAQMD staff reports submitted to EPA, which show an overall decline in emissions from flaring events since 2004. See, e.g., SCAQMD 2005 Staff Report Table IV

- 2. Generally, it is difficult to develop reliable estimates of emissions from flaring events given uncertainties about the efficiency of a particular flare event. Flares are devices which burn anything in the stream, and the contents of the stream may not be completely combusted, causing an unknown composition of emissions.

102 Fiore, et al, Harvard University, Linking ozone pollution and climate change: The case for controlling methane, 2002

. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/amf0201.pdf

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 177 are exempt f

rom regulation. CBE contends that regulation of methane is a reasonably available control measure that should be required because additional VOC reductions are needed to satisfy RACT/RACM requirements. Finally, CBE claims that the SCAQMD‘s exemption for methane makes enforcement difficult for regulators and also ―makes VOC
control look less cost

- effective than it actually is.‖

Response: The SCAQMD‘s definition of VOC in Rule 102 is consistent with EPA‘s definition of VOC in 40 CFR 51.100(s), which exclu des methane because it has been determined to have negligible photochemical reactivity. 40 CFR 51.100(s)(1); see also 62 FR 44900 (August 25, 1997) (final rule revising definition of VOC to exclude methane and other compounds). EPA approved Rule 102 into the SCAQMD portion of the California SIP on January 8, 2007. See 72 FR 656. Accordingly, pursuant to its SIP

approved definition of VOC, SCAQMD is not required to regulate methane as a VOC for purposes of preparing SIPs to attain the NAAQS. To the exte nt that CBE intended to challenge the exclusion of methane from EPA‘s regulatory definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s), such a challenge is outside the scope of today‘s action on the PM2.5 attainment plan for the South Coast area. Likewise, CBE‘s assertio ns about the effect of methane controls on ambient ozone levels are also outside the scope of today‘s action, which addresses the State‘s plan for attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standard.

As to CBE‘s claims about enforcement difficulties and making VOC control ―look less

cost

- effective than it actually is,‖ these comments do not provide enough specificity for EPA to respond.

Comment : CBE asserts that oil refineries, which contribute to power plant emissions by using substantial amounts of electricity from the grid, should be required to have backup power using clean/alternative energy sources. Specifically, CBE claims that electrical grid shutdowns cause power outages at oil refineries, which in turn cause flaring and significant amounts of air pollution near the refineries. CBE asserts that the SCAQMD should require oil refineries to use alternative energy sources (in place of fossil

- fuel electricity generation), such as wind and solar energy, and that such measures should be required RACM. Based on general information about power plant emissions obtained from PG&E, CBE provides its own estimates of the SOx and NOx emission reductions that could be achieved if oil refineries were to meet some or all of their electricity demands with clean alternative energy sources. CBE contends that the ―large air emissions caused by fossil fuel generation at Power Plants due to oil refinery electricity demand is worthy of phaseout requirements by the AQMD as a measure in the AQMD.‖

Response : Although we generally agree that use of alternative ( i.e., non

- fossil fuel) energy sources to power oil refineries and other large industrial operations would reduce emissions of air pollutants, we disagree with CBE‘s generalized assertion that such measures are required RACM for pur poses of attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast. S ection 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires that States adopt measures that are ―reasonably available‖ and that are necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any R FP requirements. 40 CFR 51.1010. As explained above, States are required to conduct a thorough analysis of reasonably available measures butTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 178 are not required to analyze every conceivable measure to satisfy the RACM requirement in CAA section 172(c)(1). 72 FR at 20612.

As discussed in our July 14, 2011 amended proposal, CARB, the SCAQMD, and SCAG have conducted thorough analyses of all reasonable control measures that are available for implementation in the South Coast and provided reasoned justificati ons for the collection of RACM that the State has adopted or committed to adopt, based on these analyses. See 76 FR 41562 at 41568

- 41572 and TSD at section II.D. Electric generating stations and oil refineries in the South Coast are subject to numerous p rohibitory rules and other control measures that regulate emissions of NOx, SOx, VOC, and PM2.5, among other air pollutants, from various emission points within each facility. See, e.g., 76 FR at 41570, Table 3 and TSD, Appendix B (identifying, e.g., Rule 1105 for fluidized

- be d coal combustion units (FCCUs) and Rules 1146 and 1146.1 for Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters

. ) Power plants in the district are also subject to RECLAIM

. See South Coast Rules 2011 and 2012

. CBE has provided no information to support its general assertion that requiring the oil refining industry to obtain electricity (backup electricity or otherwise) from alternative energy sources instead of from the ele ctrical grid is a ―reasonably available‖ control measure within the meaning of CAA section 172(c)(1). These comments therefore do not change our conclusion that the State has adopted all RACM and RACT necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously a s practicable and to meet any RFP requirements, as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1010.

Comment : CBE states that the SCAQMD is in the process of developing a regulation to control coke drum emissions and that EPA should ensure that this r ule is included in the District‘s RACM/RACT control strategy. CBE also asserts that this rule has been repeatedly delayed due to pressure from the oil industry, and that EPA should ensure that the rulemaking occurs expeditiously. CBE asserts that refiner y coking operations are increasing due to the use of increasingly heavier crude at oil refineries.

Response : EPA does not currently have reliable information about the types and amounts of pollutant emissions from refinery coke drums in the South Coast , and CBE has not provided such information to support its assertions. Consequently we cannot conclude at this time that any such controls would represent RACT in the South Coast. We note that EPA Region 9 staff recently contacted SCAQMD staff to inquire a bout the status of this rule and learned that the District is awaiting information from EPA emission studies to inform the District‘s assessment of the feasibility and cost

- effectiveness of regulating coke drum emissions. 103 EPA has sent requests for informa tion about emissions from coking operations to several facilities in the South Coast. 104 Given the need for additional emission reductions in the South Coast to attain the 1997 PM2.5 standard as well as other standards for which the area is designated nonatt ainment (see 40 CFR 81.305), we

103 See record of phone conversation between Nicole Law and Stanley Tong, USEPA Region 9 Air Division, and Eugene Teszler, SCAMQD, dated Septemb er 14, 2011.

104 See record of phone conversation between Nicole Law, USEPA Region 9 Air Division, and Brenda Shine, USEPA OAQPS, dated September 20, 2011.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 179 encourage the SCAQMD to adopt and implement this rule as expeditiously as practicable consistent with CAA requirements.

Comment : CBE states that it had proposed ―requiring 33% RPS for all power plants within the SCAQMD‖ and asserts that this is ―clearly achievable‖ since it has been adopted as State law.

Response : Assuming CBE intended to assert that the SCAQMD should require all
investor

- owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators within t he South Coast to procure 33 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020 as currently required by the State under California‘s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), and that such a measure is a required RACM under CAA section 172(c)(1) for

purposes of attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast, we disagree. As discussed above, s ection 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires that States adopt measures that are ―reasonably available‖ and that are necessary to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS as exped itiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements. 40 CFR 51.1010. CBE has provided no information to support either an assertion that California‘s 33% RPS under Senate Bill 2 is such a measure or an assertion that some additional RPS to be implem ented by the SCAQMD within the South Coast would be such a measure.

Comment : CBE claims that the RACM analysis for locomotive emissions in the South Coast 2007 AQMP is deficient because the SCAQMD failed to evaluate reasonably available technologies tha t could reduce locomotive and other railyard emissions. In support of this assertion, CBE references two September 2009 public comment letters to CARB and an August 2009 CARB document entitled ―Technical Options to Achieve
Additional Emissions and Risk Red uctions from California Locomotives and Railyards.‖ Citing Association of American Railroads v. South Coast Air Quality Management
District , 622 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2010), CBE contends that the Ninth Circuit ―has indicated that the SCAQMD and the State of California have the authority to reduce emissions from locomotive sources through its determination that [the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995] may not preempt some measures included in a federally approved SIP.‖ CBE asserts that EPA should therefore direct California and the SCAQMD to cure this defect.

Response: We disagree. SCAQMD‘s RACM Demonstration (see appendix VI to the 2007 South Coast AQMP) does list one type of measure with the potential to reduce locomotive and other raily ard emissions (locomotive anti

- idling) as one of the measures the District evaluated as a potential RACM/RACT measure (see table 2 on page VI

- 11 of the 2007 South Coast AQMP, appendix VI). With reference to long duration switch yard locomotive idling measu res , SCAQMD concluded that ―[I]f there are any additional SIP emission reductions that could be accounted for using these innovative technology, they would be addressed by CARB during the rule development of their on

- road and off

- road control measures.‖ 20 07 South Coast AQMP, appendix VI, page VI

- 12. This is a reasonable conclusion in light of the legal challenge to the District‘s own locomotive
anti

- idling rules (SCAQMD Rules 3501, 3502, and 3503 ) . Moreover, CARB has adoptedTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 180 regulations for mobile cargo ha ndling equipment at ports and intermodal rail yards which are designed to use best available control technologies to reduce public exposure to NOx and PM. CARB‘s mobile cargo handling equipment rules are the subject of a current authorization request to EP A. See 76 FR 5586 (February 1, 2011).

We note that, while the Ninth Circuit‘s opinion in the Association of American Railroads v. South Coast Air Quality Management District case opens the door to District regulation of locomotive idling under Federal la w by signaling the potential for
harmonization between such District rules and the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) if the rules are approved into the SIP, there remains uncertainty as to whether the District‘s locomotive anti

- idling rules would be within the scope of the District‘s state

- law regulatory authority. The Ninth Circuit did not decide that issue. 622 F.3d at 1096.

In addition, the documents and court case cited by CBE in support of the idea that there are a number of locomotive

- and railyard

- related measures that may be technologically and economically feasible, as well as legally enforceable, all post

- date the development and submittal of the 2007 South Coast AQMP and 2007 State Strategy. As such, they cannot be u sed to undermine the RACM demonstration for PM2.5 submitted by California for the South Coast several years earlier. The cited documents and court case may influence the development of control measures for future air quality plans for the South Coast, as w ell as other nonattainment areas, but they do not undermine the RACM demonstration in the plan that we are approving in relevant part today.

For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, t hese comments do not change our conclusion that the State has adopted all RACM and RACT necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 standard, as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) a nd 40 CFR 51.1010. See 72 FR at 20612 (noting that although States must conduct thorough analyses of reasonably available measures, States are not required to analyze every conceivable measure to satisfy the RACM requirement in CAA section 172(c)(1)).

Co mment : NRDC asserts that the South Coast 2007 AQMD does not satisfy the RACM requirement in CAA 172(c)(1) because it fails to identify and require implementation of certain reasonably available transportation control measures (TCMs) as expeditiously as

pra cticable. NRDC asserts that ―EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule requires that TCMs either be listed in section 108(f) of the CAA, or reduce transportation emissions by lowering vehicle use or improving traffic flow.‖ Specifically, NRDC asserts that in the ―illustrative list of TCMs in CAA 108(f), the EPA has acknowledged that improvements to bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways are RACM‖ and that the South Coast 2007 AQMD contains very few TCMs to implement such measures. As an example, NRDC
claims th at little more than 11 percent of the 1996 Los Angeles Bicycle Plan‘s proposed bike lanes have been implemented since its development. Finally, NRDC asserts that planning agencies have used the TCM process to ―load the SIP with proposed highway expansion projects that will purportedly achieve emissions reductions‖ and that several ofTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 181 the plan‘s identified TCMs, such as the SR

- 47 diesel truck road expansion project, should not be included as TCMs because they will not actually reduce emissions.

Response : We disagree with NRDC‘s contention that any of the TCMs it has identified are required RACM for purposes of attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standard in the South Coast or that the SCAQMD failed to adequately consider reasonably available TCMs as part of its RACM analysis. Under 40 CFR 51.1010(b), ―[p]otential measures that are reasonably available considering technical and economic feasibility must be adopted as RACM if, considered collectively, they would advance the attainment date by one year or more.‖
NRDC a sserts only generally that the 1996 Los Angeles Bicycle Plan is reasonably available for implementation in the South Coast considering technical and economic feasibility, and provides no information to support a conclusion that this or any other potential TCM would, individually or collectively with other reasonable measures, advance attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standard by at least one year in the South Coast. 105

As discussed in our July 14, 2011 amended proposal, CARB, the SCAQMD, and the Southern Califo rnia Association of Governments (SCAG) 106 have conducted thorough analyses of all reasonable control measures that are available for implementation in the South Coast and provided reasoned justifications for the collection of RACM that the State has adopted or committed to adopt, based on these analyses. See 76 FR 41562 at
41568

- 41572 and TSD at section II.D. With respect to TCMs in particular, SCAG evaluated potential measures identified by public commenters, measures adopted in other nonattainment areas, and potential measures identified by EPA. B icycle projects were
considered along with many other TCMs as part of the RACM analysis to determine if they alone or in combination with other measures would advance the attainment date. See South Coast 2007 AQM P, Appendix IV

- C, p. 36

- 55. Attachment A to Appendix IV

- C of the South Coast 2007 AQMP contains a list of the specific TCMs included as part of the South Coast 2007 AQMP. The 1996 LA Bicycle Plan is not a part of the approved SIP for the South Coast. Whe n an individual bike project has funding for right of way or construction in the first two years of the TIP, it is included in TCM

- 1, SCAG's overall TCM program. 107 NRDC‘s comments do not change our conclusion that the State has adopted all RACM and RACT necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 standard, as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1010. See 72 FR at 20612 (noting that although States must conduct thoroug h analyses of reasonably available measures, States

105 Appendix IV

- C to the South Coast 2007 AQMP indicates that implementation of all of the TCMs in SCAG ‘s Transportation Strategy (including transit and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) projects, in addition to bicycle and pedestrian projects) is expected to achieve the following total amounts of emission reductions: 0.18 tpd of direct PM2.5, 3.48 tpd of NOx, a nd 1.04 tpd of ROG (VOC). See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix IV

- C at Table 7. Assuming the 1996 Los Angeles Bicycle Plan, if fully implemented, would achieve only a fraction of these amounts of emission reductions, it is highly unlikely that this

measur e would advance attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standard in the South Coast by at least a year. See Table I

- 1 in the TSD for a summary of the emission reductions that would achieve one year‘s worth of RFP (52.8 tpd of NOx, 30.8 tpd of VOC, 1.1 tpd of PM2.5 a nd 2.8 tpd of SOx).

106 SCAG is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) responsible for the transportation strategy and transportation control measures in the South Coast nonattainment area.

107 See record of conversation between Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, and Jonathan Nadler, SCAG, September 19, 2011.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 1 82 are not required to analyze every conceivable measure to satisfy the RACM requirement in CAA section 172(c)(1)). SCAG included a description of the process used to identify the potential RACM measures con sidered. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix IV

C.

We also disagree with NRDC‘s characterization of EPA‘s transportation conformity regulations and EPA‘s position with respect to the TMCs identified in CAA section 108(f). EPA‘s transportation conformity regulations in 40 CFR part 93 establish the criteria and procedures for timely implementation of TCMs approved into a SIP, including the specific steps and funding sources needed to fully implement each TCM, but do not require adoption and implementation of any particular TCM . As to CAA section 108(f), we note that following the 1990 CAA Amendments EPA revised its previous interpretation of the RACM requirement by eliminating the presumption that all TCMs listed in CAA section 108(f) are RACM for all areas

. See 57 FR 13598 at 13560 (April 16, 1992) (stating that ―[l]ocal circumstances relevant to the reasonableness of any potential control measure involve practical considerations that cannot be made through a national presumption‖ and that States should co nsider TCMs on an area

- specific basis and ―consider groups of interacting measures, rather than individual measures‖). Thus, States are required to adopt only those TCMs identified in CAA section 108(f) that are reasonably available for implementation in t he specific nonattainment area. Id. We note that EPA cannot require that any measure be listed in section 108(f) of the CAA, as only Congress is authorized to amend the CAA.

Finally, we agree that SR

- 47 should not be listed as a TCM. We understand fro m SCAG staff that the SR

- 47 project (Project ID LA0D45) was inadvertently included as a TCM in the 2007 SIP in a table labeled ―System Management

– Railroad Consolidation Programs,‖ on page A

- 12 of Attachment A of Appendix IV

- C of the South Coast 2007 AQMP . This error has been corrected and this project is no longer listed as a TCM in the 2008 RTIP. 108

Comment: NRDC asserts that the RACM/RACT analysis is deficient because it fails to provide any discussion of controls for condensable PM2.5 emissions. NRDC references 40 CFR 51.1002(c) to support its assertion that ―[t]he transition period allowing agencies to ignore controls on condensable emissions expired on January 1, 2011,‖ and also quotes EPA‘s statement in the preamble to the PM2.5 Implementation Rule (72 FR at 20652) that ―[w]e expect States to address the control of direct PM2.5 emissions, including condensables with any new actions taken after January 1, 2011.‖ NRDC states that EPA
should advise CARB and the District that consideration of reasonabl y available controls on condensable emissions will be required in a revised RACM/RACT submittal.

Response : EPA‘s PM2.5 implementation rule states that ―[a]fter January 1, 2011, for purposes of establishing emissions limits under 51.1009 and 51.1010, State s must establish such limits taking into consideration the condensable fraction of direct PM2.5 emissions.‖ 40 CFR 51.1002(c). Prior to this date, the rule required that nonattainment area SIPs identify and evaluate sources of PM2.5 direct emissions and PM2.5 attainment

108 See electronic mail, Rongsheng Luo, SCAG, to Wienke Tax, US EPA Region 9, August 31, 2011.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 183 plan precursors as part of the RFP and RACM/RACT demonstrations but did not specifically require states to address condensable PM2.5. See id. 109 Because the attainment, RFP and RACM demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 Stat e Strategy were adopted on June 1, 2007 and September 27, 2007, respectively, California was not required to address condensable PM in establishing the emissions limits contained in these demonstrations as originally submitted, or in adopting any other
PM emission limits under 40 CFR sections 51.1009 and 51.1010 prior to January 1, 2011. Consistent with these requirements, EPA has evaluated the reasonable further progress (RFP) and reasonably available control measures (RACM) demonstrations in the South Co ast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy and concluded that these elements of the Plan appropriately address all sources of direct PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 attainment plan precursors (SO2, NOx, and VOC) in the South Coast area. See 76 FR 41562 at 41574. 110

The South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy rely on several rules regulating direct PM emissions as part of the PM2.5 control strategy ( e.g., Wood Burning Fireplaces (Rule 445, adopted March 7, 2008), Wood Stoves and Under

- Fired Charbroilers (Rule 1138, adopted November 14, 1997), and Particulate Matter (PM) Control Devices (Rule 1155, adopted December 4, 2009 ))

. See 2011 Progress Report, Appen dix F, Table 4. EPA has not yet acted on any District rule adopted or revised after January 1, 2011 that regulates direct PM2.5 emissions. As part of our action on any such rule, we will evaluate the emission limits in the rule to ensure that they approp riately address CPM, as required by 40 CFR 51.1002(c). We note that the SIP

- approved version of Rule 1138 requires testing according to the District‘s Protocol, which requires measurement of both condensable and filterable PM in accordance with SCAQMD Tes t Method 5.1. See Rule 1138 paragraph (c)(1) and (g) and SCAQMD Protocol paragraph 3.1. 111 We also note that the SIP

- approved version of Rule 1155 requires measurement of both condensable and filterable PM in accordance with SCAQMD Test Methods 5.1, 5.2, o r 5.3 as applicable. See Rule 1155 paragraph (e)(6). 112

109 See also Letter dated April 25, 2011, from Lisa P. J ackson, EPA, to Paul Cort, EarthJustice, denying Petition for Reconsideration with respect to the deferral of the requirement to establish emission limits for CPM until January 1, 2011.

110 In our proposed rule, we noted that the SCAQMD has deferred limits for condensable particulate matter (CPM) in its rules but that this limited deferral does not affect the South Coast 2007 AQMP‘s RACM/RACT and expeditious attainment demonstrations. 76 FR 41562 at 41566, n. 13. We also noted that we would evaluate any P M2.5 rule adopted or revised by the District after January 1, 2011 to assure that it appropriately addresses CPM. See id.

111 See SCAQMD Protocol, Determination of Particulate and Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Restaurant Operations, November 14, 1997 (available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/R9Testmethod.nsf/0/3D4DEB4D21AB4AAF882570AD005DFF69/$file/SC%2 0Rest%20emiss.pdf).

112 See SCAQMD Test Method 5.1, Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary Sources Using a Wet Impingement Train , March 1989 (available at http://aqmd.gov/tao/methods/stm/stm

005

- 1.pdf ); SCAQMD Test Method 5.2, Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary Sources Using Heated Probe and Filter , March 1989 (available at http://aqmd.gov/tao/methods/stm/stm

005

- 2.pdf ); and SCAQMD Test Method 5.3, Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary Sources Using an in

- Stac k Filter , October 2005 (available at http://aqmd.gov/tao/methods/stm/stm

- 005

- 3.pdf).TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 184 Comment. NRDC asserts that the contingency measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP should be included in the RACM/RACT demonstration.

Response: We disagree. For many of the same reasons that EPA is disapproving the contingency measures identified in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

, many of these

measures would not be approvable elements of a RACM/RACT demonstration and in any case are not required RACM for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South
Coas t . For example, for CTY

- 01, ―Offsetting the Potential Emission Increase Due to the Change in Natural Gas Specifications,‖ the District has provided neither cost
effectiveness information nor information about the types or amounts of pollutant
reductions th is measure would achieve. T herefore, EPA cannot determine at this time whether such a measure is reasonably available considering technical or economic feasibility or whether it would contribute to advanc ing attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast . The District characterizes the measure as an offsetting measure for potential increases in emissions, so it is not even clear CTY

- 01 will provide

any additional reductions of PM2.5 or PM2.5 plan precursors

. S ee South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix IV

- A, page 167

. The reductions associated with CTY

- 02, ―Clean Air Act Emission Fees for Major Stationary Sources,‖ do not occur until after 2023, and
therefore clearly would not contribute to advanc ing attainment date of th e 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. CTY

- 03, ―Banning Pre

- Tier 3 Off

- Road Diesel Engines during High Pollution Days,‖ similarly lacks quantification of emissions reductions and cost

- effectiveness data. As we noted in our July 14, 2011 proposed rulemaking, CTY

- 04, ―Accelera ted Implementation of CARB‘s Mobile Source Control Measures,‖ would require additional rulemaking at the District level and potentially substantial and lengthy additional rulemaking at the State level to be implemented. S ee 76 FR 41562, at 41579. Therefore

, we do not believe the reductions could occur in time to advance the attainment date for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS . In summary, we have concluded that the contingency measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP are not approvable as contingency measures under CAA

se ction 172(c)(9) and for many of the same reasons, these measures are not required RACM for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Moreover, NRDC provides no information to support a claim that any of these measures would individually or collectively advance t he attainment date of the South Coast area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by at least one year

. 40 CFR 51.1010.



### F. Comments on State and District Control Measures

Comment : ARTBA requests that EPA designate this rulemaking as having nationwide scope or effect pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(1) based on its belief that certain California statewide measures include in

- use controls that are inconsistent with section 209 of the CAA and that are adoptable by states outside not only California but also EPA Region IX. ARTBA notes that the D.C. Circuit has never addressed many of the preemption issues raised below. Accordingly, ARTBA concludes that the section 307(b)(1) determination is necessary to ensure nationwide uniformity in the interpretation and enforcement of th ese important CAA preemption issues.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 185 Response : CAA section 307(b)(1) generally provides that judicial review of EPA action in approving a SIP or SIP revision may be filed only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Thus, final EPA acti ons on revisions to the California SIP, such as the South Coast PM 2.5 Plan, are generally subject to timely challenges filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However, judicial review of an EPA SIP action may be filed only in the U.S. Cou rt of Appeals for the District of Columbia if such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if, in taking such action, the EPA finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.

We do not believe that our action approving the South Coast PM 2.5 Plan as a revision to the California SIP is based on a determination of ―nationwide scope or effect.‖ ARTBA does not identify which specific state in

- use controls the association is referring to, but we assume ARTBA i s referring to CARB‘s in

- use truck rule and drayage truck rule, CARB‘s in

- use nonroad equipment rule, and CARB‘s rule regarding ships at port, and CARB‘s commercial harbor craft rule (which are referred to in the plan as ―cleaner in

- use heavy

- duty trucks,‖ ―cleaner in

- use off

- road equipment (> 25 ph)‖), ―ship auxiliary engine cold ironing & clean technology,‖ and ―clean up existing harbor craft.‖) . While we recognize that the plan relies on these state in

- use controls to demonstrate attainment of the PM 2.5 N AAQS in the South Coast, the specific in

- use controls themselves are not the subject of today‘s action. In other words, we are not taking action to approve the in

- use controls as a part of the action we are taking today on the plan, but anticipate final ac tion on the in

- use controls in other final actions. Moreover, our action today relates to only two regions within the state of California, and the provisions reviewed are specific to California. Today‘s decision does not affect any other State. Thus, our a pproval of the plan under CAA section 110 is not one of ―nationwide scope or effect.‖

With respect to nonroad vehicles and equipment, to the extent section 209(e) is at all relevant, other states are free to adopt and enforce California in

- use emissions standards and other related requirements, but only after EPA has authorized the California standards under CAA section 209(e)(2)(A). See CAA section 209(e)(2)(B). EPA is not any taking action in this document under section 209(e), and thus the potential wi despread effect that concerns ARTBA will not occur as a consequence of this rulemaking. Moreover, such State action would be a separate action by a separate State and would be handled separately.

With respect to on

- road engines and vehicles, California and the other states have the same authority, and are subject to the same limitations, in establishing in

- use emissions standards and other related requirements and thus, even if EPA were to be approving California‘s on

- road in

- use emissions standards in t his rulemaking, which it is not, the potential for nationwide effect would not occur as a consequence of this rulemaking.

While any action taken by EPA in one rulemaking may have some precedential effect on other actions, this does not make every action taken by EPA an action one of ―nationwide scope or effect.‖ This action applies only in California and is relevant only to a particular
California

- specific PM 2.5 plan. Therefore, we disagree that today‘s action on the South
Coast PM 2.5 Plan would be of ―na tionwide scope or effect.‖TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 186 Comment : ARTBA asserts that the lawfulness of the California and SCAQMD measures will hinge on litigation between ARTBA and EPA currently underway in the Ninth Circuit, No. 11

- 71897, and the D.C. Circuit, No. 11

- 1256, and ARTBA requests that EPA stay action on this proceeding pending the resolution of ARTBA‘s litigation. ARTBA further requests that, because ARTBA is litigating the nationwide standards under which EPA will decide the important preemption issues in this case and b ecause EPA‘s decision on California measures would lead to other states‘ adopting (or being compelled to adopt) California measures as RFP for their SIPs, EPA stay consideration of nonroad rules pending resolution of the ARTBA litigation.

Response : In se ttlement of a lawsuit seeking to compel EPA action on the 2007 South Coast AQMP and related portions of the 2007 State Strategy [ Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA , No. 2:10

- cv

- 06029 (C.D. Cal.)], which includes the South Coast PM 2.5 Plan, EPA is sub

ject to a consent decree deadline of September 30, 2011 to take final action on the South Coast PM 2.5 Plan, and thus, any stay of the rulemaking beyond that date is not possible. In any event, other than the general preemption issues that ARTBA has raised, and that EPA has addressed in various forums, the current lawsuit cited above by ARTBA challenges EPA‘s approval of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District‘s (SJVUAPCD‘s) Rule 9510 [―Indirect Source Review (ISR‖)], which

turns on an interpretation of CAA section 110(a)(5), which is not germane to EPA‘s
action on the South Coast PM 2.5 Plan.

Comment : ARTBA states that California has adopted a novel series of statewide measures that set emission standards and other requirements for in

- use on

- road and nonroad vehicles and fleets of those vehicles. In addition to seeking credit for these statewide measures, ARTBA notes that SCAQMD also seeks credit for that district‘s local implementation of the Surplus Off

- Road Opt

- In for NOx (―SOON‖) pr ogram under which large construction fleets must seek ―SOON‖ funding to acquire clean

- than

required equipment, with the cost partially deferred by government funds and that the South Coast PM 2.5 Plan also includes a contingency measure (CTY

- 03) that would ban

pre

- Tier 3 off

- road diesel engines on ―high pollution advisory‖ days.

ARTBA asserts that all of these measures share the characteristic of setting fleetwide standards for CAA

- required vehicles that differ from

– and are more stringent than

– the
vari ous standards and other requirements that title II of the CAA applies to those vehicles, and concludes that the California statewide measures that rely on in

- use controls or impose in

- use fleet measures are preempted. With respect to California‘s in

- use

co ntrols for construction and other diesel

- powered equipment, ARTBA believes that preemption applies both for equipment above and below the 175

– horsepower threshold and that the proposed contingency measures (CTY

- 03) to ban pre

- Tier 3 off

- road diesel engines on ―high pollution advisory‖ days is a preempted in

- use standard

– particularly for equipment under 175 horsepower

– for the same reasons. Because these SIP and contingency measures are beyond California‘s and SCAQMD‘s authority, ARTBA
believes that CAA s ection 110(a)(2)(E)(i) prohibits EPA‘s approving these measures as part of the SIP.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 187 Response : In relevant part, CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires SIPs to provide necessary assurances that the State will have adequate authority under State law to carry ou t a SIP and is not prohibited by any provision of Federal or State law from carrying out such SIP. As a general matter, we agree that States must provide such assurances for SIPs and SIP revisions. In the CARB Resolution approving the plan, the State of Ca lifornia provided the necessary assurances of adequate legal authority to implement the South Coast PM 2.5 Plan. See CARB Resolution 07

- 41 (September 27, 2007).

To the extent that ARTBA challenges EPA‘s approval of the South Coast PM 2.5 Plan based on the plan‘s reliance on the emission standards and other requirements for in

- use

on

- road measures, such as CARB‘s truck rule and drayage truck rule, we expect to approve the rules into the SIP prior to the effective date of this action, and n o comments have been received on our proposed approval of the rules [ 76 FR 40652 (July 11, 2011)] that call into question the authority of the State to enforce those rules. To the extent that ARTBA challenges EPA‘s approval of the plan based on the plan‘s reliance on standards and other preempted requirements for in

- use nonroad vehicles, we simply note that EPA authorizations under CAA section 209(e) bestow enforceability on the State of California as to the emissions standards and other requirements covere d by the authorizations, and we anticipate EPA action on CARB‘s authorization requests for the in

- use nonroad rules upon which the plan relies prior to the effective date of today‘s action. 113 These rules are needed to support emissions reduction credit for certain State measures, including ―cleaner in

- use off

- road equipment (> 25 h p ),‖ ―ship auxiliary engine cold ironing & clean technology,‖ and ―clean up existing harbor craft.‖ See table 5 on page 41571 of the July 14, 2011 proposed rule. If the authorizati ons are issued, there will be no prohibition under any Federal law that we are aware of that would prevent California from enforcing the related standards and achieving the associated emissions reductions relied upon by the plan. If EPA denies CARB‘s autho rization requests for the in

- use nonroad rules, or if no decision is forthcoming, prior to the effective date of today‘s action, we will take appropriate remedial action to ensure that our action on the plan is fully supportable or to reconsider that actio n.

With respect to SCAQMD‘s SOON program, EPA notes that the District implements the SOON program through its Rule 2449 (―Control of Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions from
Off

- Road Diesel Vehicles‖), adopted May 2, 2008. SCAQMD Rule 2449 has been
submitte d to EPA for approval into the SIP (submittal date July 18, 2008), but EPA has not taken any action on that submittal, nor is EPA taking action on Rule 2449 in connection with today‘s action on the South Coast PM 2.5 Plan. We recognize that the
South Coast PM 2.5 Plan does take emissions reduction credit for the SOON program, but EPA has not allowed the credit in taking action on the plan, and thus the issue of the

113 The notices of opportunity for public hearing and comment on the relevant requests for authorizations were published at 73 FR 58585 (October 7, 2008), 73 FR 67509 (Nov ember 14, 2008), and 75 FR 11880 (March 12, 2010) for CARB‘s in

- use nonroad equipment rule; at 76 FR 38153 (June 29, 2011) for CARB‘s
in

- use commercial harbor craft rule; and at 76 FR 38155 (June 29, 2011) for CARB‘s at

- berth rule that is intended to reduc e emissions from auxiliary diesel engines on ocean

- going marine vessels at

- berth in California ports.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 188 enforceability of the associated emissions reductions is not germane to our approval of the pla n.

With respect to the contingency measure referred to as CTY

- 03, which ARTBA opposes, EPA proposed to disapprove the contingency measures, including CTY

- 03, see 76 FR at 41579, and is finalizing that proposed disapproval in today‘s document.

Comment : ARTBA provides a lengthy discussion of the principles of Federal preemption in the context of State regulation of emissions from mobile sources under the Clean Air Act and its various amendments over time. In so doing, ARTBA identifies a number of instanc es where ARTBA‘s interpretation of the CAA and relevant case history differs from that of EPA and offers a number of legal arguments supporting its views.

Response : Except to the extent we have discussed above, ARTBA does not tie this discussion of preem ption to the SIP action EPA is taking today, namely, final partial approval and partial disapproval of the South Coast PM 2.5 Plan and related portions of the 2007 State Strategy. For this reason, and because EPA has addressed ARTBA‘s general comments on pr eemption several times in earlier proceedings, we are not addressing those general comments here.

Comment: AAR asserts that CARB‘s control measure known as ARB

- OFRD

- 02 anticipates a 90% NO x and PM reduction from the uncontrolled baseline and projects a 4.3 tons per day (tpd) of NO x emissions reductions in the South Coast by 2014. AAR further asserts that, as such, ARB

- OFRD

- 02 is not consistent with the timeframe and emission reductions level s contained in EPA‘s regulations for achieving emissions reductions from locomotive engines and locomotive fuel.

Response: ARB

- OFRD

- 02 is the identifier used in the 2007 South Coast AQMP to refer to the State measure known as ―Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Locomotives.‖ The State‘s measure anticipates that EPA‘s ―tier 4‖ locomotive standards, proposed in 2007 and promulgated in 2008 (73 FR 25098, May 6, 2008), would likely not provide significant additional emissions reductions of NO x and PM from lo comotives in the time necessary to contribute to attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast given an attainment date of 2015. Thus, the control measure calls for CARB staff ―to work with the railroads to bring the cleanest locomotives into California service‖ (Revised Draft State Strategy (April 26, 2007), page 114). As noted by AAR, the 2007 State Strategy estimates a reduction of NOx of 4.3 tons per day (tpd) in 2014 in the South Coast due to this measure. See page 61 of Revised Draft State Strategy (April 26, 2007). However, the State Strategy indicates that such estimates are for informational purposes only. CARB has not committed to achieving the 4.3 tpd reduction specifically from this measure but has committed to aggregate emissions reductions t hat would be achieved through any
combination of measures.

Since adoption of the 2007 State Strategy, CARB staff have been working with neighborhood groups, the railroads, and other interested stakeholders to, among other things, develop emissions reduct ion targets at certain rail yards in the South Coast toTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 189 which the railroads would commit (referred to as the ―2010 Commitments‖). See CARB
Resolution 10

- 29 (June 24, 2010). Final approvals of the 2010 Commitments are still being negotiated, and there are n o plans to submit the 2010 Commitments as a part of the SIP; thus, our proposed approval of the attainment demonstration for PM 2.5 Plan does not rely on any emissions reductions from this control measure (see 76 FR 41562, July 14, 2011, at 41571, Table 5), nor does today‘s final approval. Therefore, the difference in the timing of emissions reductions under ARB

- OFRD

- 02 relative to those expected under EPA‘s locomotive regulations does not undermine our approval of the South Coast PM 2.5 Plan.

Comment: CI AQC briefly reviews the state rulemaking process that culminated in CARB rules that establish requirements for in

- use off

- road vehicles and in

- use on

- road diesel

- fueled vehicles. CIAQC notes that, through the state rulemaking process, CARB modified the und erlying data assumptions and modified the applicable rules accordingly. CIAQC believes that CARB‘s changes to the rules, while providing some relief, do not provide sufficient relief. In particular, CIAQC points to the reduction in resources available to t he construction industry to meet CARB‘s requirements due to the economic downturn in California and asserts that the cumulative economic impact of repowering, replacing, retiring, and/or retrofitting offroad equipment and construction trucks is beyond what companies can afford, and that this point needs to be considered by EPA. CIAQC further requests that EPA review and analyze the compliance methods and technologies that are required under the CARB rules to evaluate their viability. CIAQC believes that the methods and technologies that are required are untenable or impractical
and involve installation of add

- on diesel technologies that do not work in the field.

Response: CIAQC‘s comments relate to CARB‘s in

- use nonroad vehicles and in

- use on

road diesel

- p owered vehicles rules, rather than the South Coast PM 2.5 plan, which was the subject of EPA‘s proposed action published on July 14, 2011 (76 FR 41562). In today‘s final action, we are approving, in relevant part, a plan that relies on emissions reductions from these rules, but we are not taking action the rules themselves in this document. In any event, in reviewing and acting on state implementation plans (SIPs), it is EPA‘s role to determine whether the plan meets the requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance. EPA may not disapprove a rule submitted by a state as part of a SIP based on whether the requirements in the rule are too costly or may not be economically or technologically feasible [see Union Electric Company v. EPA ;, 427 U.S. 246, 265 (1976)] so long as the rule otherwise meets the minimum requirements of the Clean Air Act.



### G. Comments on Enforceable Commitments

Comment: California Communities Against Toxics, Communities for a Better Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council and Physicians for Social Responsibility

– Los Angeles (commenters) ass ert that the South Coast PM2.5 Plan fails
to include enforceable control measures that meet the requirements of the CAA and that EPA cannot rely on ―enforceable commitments‖ as a substitute for adopted control measures to ―close the shortfall in the contro l strategy

. ‖ Commenters claim that EPA‘s action ―breaks with its long

- standing interpretation that an attainment SIP must includeTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 190 currently adopted emissions limitations and other control measures‖ that achieve the needed emissions reductions. Specifical ly, commenters state that CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) require SIPs to contain ―enforceable emission limitations ... as may be necessary or appropriate‖ to achieve attainment. Commenters note that CAA section 110(k)(4) allows EPA to grant ―cond itional approval‖ of a SIP lacking certain statutory elements ―based on a commitment of the state to adopt specific enforceable measures‖ by a certain date, and that this provision provides that the conditional approval automatically becomes a disapproval if the State fails to comply with the commitment within one year. Commenters state that courts have rejected similar attempts to circumvent the statute‘s limitations on conditional approvals and cite Sierra Club v. EPA

, 356 F.3d 296, 298(D.C. Cir. 2004) a s overturning EPA‘s conditional approval of SIPs based in part on the fact that the commitments identified no specific measures the state would implement. In further support of their assertions that EPA may not allow States to submit ―promises to develop u nspecified future enforceable measures as a substitute for‖ enforceable control measures, the commenters reference CAA sections 107(a), 110(a)(1), 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(C), the nonattainment plan requirements of part D, title I of the Act, EPA regulation s in 40 CFR part 51, and EPA‘s General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments (57 FR 13498, 13567 (April 16, 1992)

.

Response: A s discussed in our amended proposal , the CAA allows approval of enforceable commitments tha t are limited in scope where circumstances warrant the use of such commitments in place of adopted control measures. See 76 FR at 41575

- 41577. As pertinent to the comment, Sierra Club involved EPA‘s conditional approval under section 110(k)(4) of SIPs lac king in their entirety RACM and ROP demonstrations and contingency measures based on letters submitted by states that committed to cure these deficiencies. The court rejected EPA‘s construction of section 110(k)(4) as contrary to the unambiguous statutory language requiring the state to commit to adopt specific enforceable measures. Sierra Club at 302. The court found that EPA‘s construction turned the section 110(k)(4) conditional approval into a means of circumventing SIP deadlines. Id. At 303.

EPA does not dispute the holding of Sierra Club . However that case is not germane to EPA‘s approval of CARB ‘s and the District‘s commitments here because the Agency is not approving those commitments under section 110(k)(4). The relevant precedent is
inst ead BCCA. The facts in BCCA were very similar to those presented here. In BCCA

, EPA approved an enforceable commitment in the Houston ozone SIP to adopt and implement unspecified NOx controls on a fixed schedule to achieve aggregate emission
reductions. Pe titioners claimed that EPA lacked authority under the CAA to approve a SIP containing an enforceable commitment to adopt unspecified control measures in the future. The court disagreed and found that section 110(k)(4) conditional approvals do not supplant EPA's practice of fully approving enforceable commitments:

Nothing in the CAA speaks directly to enforceable commitments. The CAA does, however, provide EPA with great flexibility in approving SIPs. A SIP may contain "enforceable emission limitations and other controlTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 191 measures, means, or techniques . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate" to meet the CAA's requirements.... Thus, according to the plain language of the statute, SIPs may contain "means," "te chniques" and/or "schedules and timetables for compliance" that the EPA considers "appropriate" for attainment so long as they are "enforceable." See id

. § 7410(a)(2)(A) . "Schedules and timetables" is broadly defined as "a schedule of required measures inc luding an enforceable sequence of actions or operations leading to compliance with an emission limitation, prohibition or standard." 42 U.S.C. § 7602(p) . The remaining terms are not defined by the Act. Because the statute is silent on the issue of whether enforceable commitments are appropriate means, techniques, or schedules for attainment, EPA's interpretation allowing limited use of an enforceable commitment in the Houston SIP must be upheld if reasonable.

BCCA at 839

- 840. The court upheld EPA‘s approva l of the commitment, finding that ―EPA reasonably concluded that an enforceable commitment to adopt additional control measures on a fixed schedule was an  ̳appropriate‘ means, technique, or schedule or timetable for compliance‖ under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6). Id . at 841. Thus the court recognized that sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) provide a basis for EPA to approve enforceable commitments as distinct from the commitments contemplated by section 110(k)(4) ) , which are not in fact enforceab le but instead lead to SIP disapproval if not honored . See also Environmental Defense v. EPA , 369 F.3d 193, 209

- 210 (2nd Cir. 2004). (similarly upholding enforceable SIP commitments) As a result, contrary to commenters‘ contention, section 110(k)(4) is n ot a bar to EPA‘s approval of CARB ‘s and the District‘s enforceable commitments and that approval under section 110(k)(3) is permissible as an appropriate means, technique or schedule or timetable for compliance under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6).

Comment : Commenters state that EPA has not determined whether the commitments are in fact enforceable. Commenters state that courts ―may only enforce SIP strategies‖ and that ―[m]ere approval of an aspirational goal or non

- specific promise into the SIP d oes not convert that goal or promise into an enforceable commitment.‖ In support of these assertions, commenters cite Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates v. Metropolitan Transp. Comm’n , 366 F.3d 692, 701 (9 th Cir. 2004) and Citizens for a
Better Env ironment v. Metropolitan Tranp. Comm’n , 746 F. Supp. 976, 980 (N.D.Cal. 1990) [known as CBE II]. In addition, commenters single out El Comite Para El Bienstar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam , 539 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9 th Cir. 2008), stating that in
El Comite the court explained that because an inventory in a SIP is not a ―standard or limitation‖ as defined by the CAA, it was not an independently enforceable aspect of the SIP. Thus, the commenters reason, in order to be enforceable, not only must a state‘s

com mitment to adopt additional measures to attain emission standards be specific and announced in plain language, but any data or rubric that will be used to determine when and how the state will adopt those measures must be enforceable. Commenters state that the commitments in the South Coast SIP are so vague that they cannot possibly be enforced against the State and that there is no requirement that the State take any specificTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 192 actions. T he commenters conclude that the commitments cannot be considered enfor ceable under Ninth Circuit case law, because they are not strategies based on
enforceable emissions standards or limitations.

Response: U nder CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the Act, as well as timetables for compliance. Similarly, section 172(c)(6) provides that nonattainment area SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations and such other control measures, means or techniques "as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment‖ of the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.

Control measures, including commitments in SIPs, are enforced directly by EPA under CAA section 113 and also through CAA section 304(a) which provides for citizen suits to be brought against any person who is alleged ―to be in violation of ... an emission standard or limitation....‖ ―Emission standard or li mitation‖ is defined in subsection (f)
of section 304. 114 As observed in Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. James Busey et al ., 79 F.3d 1250, 1258 (1 st Cir. 1996):

C ourts interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction have largely focused on whether the particul ar standard or requirement plaintiffs sought to enforce was sufficiently specific. Thus, interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction as limited to claims "for violations of specific provisions of the act or specific provisions of an applicable implementation p lan," the Second Circuit held that suits can be brought to enforce specific measures, strategies, or commitments designed to ensure compliance with the NAAQS, but not to enforce the NAAQS directly. See, e.g., Wilder, 854 F.2d at 613

- 14 . Courts have repeate dly applied this test as the linchpin of citizen suit jurisdiction. See, e.g., Coalition Against Columbus Ctr. v. City of New York, 967 F.2d 764, 769

- 71 (2d Cir. 1992) ; Cate v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 904 F. Supp. 526, 530

- 32 (W.D. Va. 1995) ; Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, 1454

- 59 (N.D. Cal.), modified, 746 F. Supp. 976 (1990)

.

Thus courts have found that the citizen suit provision cannot be used to enforce the aspirational goal of attaining the NAAQS, but can b e used to enforce specific strategies to achieve that goal including enforceable commitments to develop future emissions
controls

.

We describe CARB ‘s and the District‘s commitments in the 2007 State Strategy (revised in 2009 and 2011) and the 2007 AQMP in detail in our proposal and amended proposal (75 FR 71294 and 76 FR 41562). The 2007 State Strategy includes commitments to propose defined new measures and an enforceable commitment for emissions reductions sufficient, in combination with existing measu res and the District‘s commitments, to
attain the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast by April 5, 2015. For the South Coast, the State‘s emissions reductions commitments

, as submitted in 2007 and revised by the 2009 State Strategy Update were to achieve 152 tpd NOx, 46 tpd VOC, 9 tpd of direct PM2.5

114 EPA can also enforce SIP commitments pursuant to CAA section 113.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 193 and 20 tpd SOx in the South Coast area by 2014. See 76 FR 41562, at 41572; 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 20. 115

T he SCAQMD ‘s commitment s as submitted in 2007 (and revised in 2011 ) were to

a chieve 10.8 tpd NOx, 10.4 tpd VOC, 2.9 tpd direct PM2.5 and 2.9 tpd SOx by 2014. See 76 FR 41562, Table 2, at 41569; see also 2011 Progress Report, Appendix F, Table 1, and SCAQMD Board Resolution 11

- 9 , March 4, 2011. As discussed above, the 2011 SIP revis ions revised the State‘s total emissions reduction commitments to 129 tpd of NOx, 44 tpd of VOC, 9 tpd of PM2.5, and 41 tpd of SOx, which the State remains obligated to achieve through the adoption of enforceable measures by 2014. See TSD, Table F

- 9; see also CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B at p. 4

. Thus, CARB ‘s commitments are clearly distinguishable from the aspirational goals, i.e., the SIP‘s overall objectives, identified by the Bayview court and cited by the commenter. CARB ‘s commitments here a re to adopt and implement measures that will achieve specific reductions of NOx, VOC, direct PM2.5 and SOx emissions by 2014

. These are not mere aspirational goals to ultimately achieve the standards. Rather, the State and District have committed to adopt enforceable measures no later than 2014 that will achieve these specific amounts of emission reductions prior to the attainment date of April 5, 2015. All of these control measures are subject to State and local rulemaking procedures and public participati on requirements, through which EPA and the public may track the State/District‘s progress in achieving the requisite emission reductions. EPA and citizens may enforce these commitments under CAA sections 113 and 304(a), respectively, should the State/Distr ict fail to adopt measures that achieve the requisite amounts of emission reductions by the beginning of 2014. See 40 CFR § 51.1007(b) (requiring implementation of all control measures needed for expeditious attainment no later than the beginning of the ye ar prior to the attainment date). We conclude that these enforceable commitments to adopt and implement additional control measures to achieve aggregate emission reductions on a fixed schedule are appropriate means, techniques, or schedules for compliance under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) of the Act.

Commenters cite Bayview as support for their contention that the plan‘s commitments are unenforceable aspirational goals. Bayview does not, however, provide any such support. That case involved a prov ision of the 1982 Bay Area 1

- hour ozone SIP, known as TCM 2, which states in pertinent part:

Support post

- 1983 improvements identified in transit operator‘s 5

- year plans, after consultation with the operators adopt ridership increase target for 1983

- 1987.
EMISSION REDUCTION ESTIMATES: These emission reduction estimates are predicated on a 15% ridership increase. The actual target would be determined after consultation with the transit operators.

115 We note that in our proposed rule at 76 FR 41562, p. 41571 we reference the 2007 State Strategy, p. 63 and CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B. p.6. Page 63 of the 2007 State Strategy was replaced with the information in the 2009 State Strategy Status Report.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 194 Following a table listing these estimates, TCM 2 provided t hat ―[r]idership increases would come from productivity improvements....‖

Ultimately the 15% ridership estimate was adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the implementing agency, as the actual target. Plaintiffs subsequently attempte d to enforce the 15% ridership increase. The court found that the 15% ridership increase was an unenforceable estimate or goal. In reaching that conclusion, the court considered multiple factors, including the plain language of TCM 2 (e.g., ―[a]greeing t o establish a ridership  ̳target‘ is simply not the same as promising to attain that target,‖ Bayview at 698); the logic of TCM 2, i.e., the drafters of TCM 2 were careful not to characterize any given increase as an obligation because the TCM was contingen t on a number of factors beyond MTC‘s control, id . at 699; and the fact that TCM 2 was an extension of TCM 1 that had as an enforceable strategy the improvement of transit services, specifically through productivity improvements in transit operators‘
five

- year plans, id . at 701. As a result of all of these factors, the Ninth Circuit found that TCM 2 clearly designated the productivity improvements as the only enforceable strategy. Id . at 703.

The commitments in the 2007 State Strategy (revised in 2009 and 2011) and South Coast 2007 AQMP are in stark contrast to the ridership target that was deemed unenforceable in Bayview . The language in CARB ‘s and the District‘s commitments, as stated multip le times in multiple documents, is specific; the intent of the commitments is clear; and the strategy of adopting measures to achieve the required reductions is completely within
CARB ‘s and the District‘s control. Furthermore, as stated previously, CARB a nd the District identify specific emission reductions that they will achieve, how they could be achieved and the tim e by which these reductions could be achieved, i.e., by 2014.

Commenters also cites CBE II at 980 for the proposition that courts can only enforce ―express‖ or ―specific‖ strategies. However, as discussed below, there is nothing in the
CBE cases that supports the commenter‘s view that the CARB and District commitments are neither express nor s pecific. In fact, these cases support our interpretation of CARB ‘s and the District‘s commitments.

Citizens for a Better Environment v. Deukmejian , 731 F.Supp.1448 (N.D. Cal. 1990), known as CBE I , concerned in part contingency measures for the transporta tion sector in the 1982 Bay Area 1

- hour ozone SIP. The provision states: ―"If a determination is made that RFP is not being met for the transportation sector, MTC will adopt additional TCMs within 6 months of the determination. These TCMs will be design ed to bring the region back within the RFP line." The court found that ―[o]n its face, this language is both specific and mandatory.‖ Id . at 1458. In CBE I

, CARB and MTC argued that TCM 2 could not constitute an enforceable strategy because the provision fails to specify exactly what TCMs must be adopted. The court rejected this argument, finding that ―[ w] e discern no principled basis, consistent with the Clean Air Act, for disregarding this unequivocal commitment simply because the particulars of the con tingency measures are not provided. Thus we hold that that the basic commitment to adopt and implement additional measures, should the identified conditions occur, constitutes a specificTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 195 strategy, fully enforceable in a citizens action, although the exact contours of those measures are not spelled out.‖ Id . at 1457. 116 In concluding that the transportation and stationary source contingency provisions were enforceable, the court stated: ―Thus, while this Court is not empowered to enforce the Plan's overall objectives [footnote omitted; attainment of the NAAQS]

-- or NAAQS

-- directly, it can and indeed, must, enforce specific strategies committed to in the Plan.‖ Id . at 1454.

Commenters‘ reliance on CBE II is misplaced. It also involves in part the contingency measures in the 1982 Bay Area Plan. In CBE II , defendants argued that RFP and the NAAQS are coincident because, had the plan‘s projections been accurate, then achieving RFP would have resulted in attainment of the NAAQS. The court rejected this argument

, stating that:

the Court would be enforcing the contingency plan , an express strategy for attaining NAAQS. Although enforcement of this strategy might possibly result in attainment, it is distinct from simply ordering that NAAQS be achieved without anch oring that order on any specified strategy. Plainly, the fact that a specified strategy might be successful and lead to attainment does not render that strategy unenforceable.

(Emphasis in original). CBE II at 980.

CARB ‘s commitments here are analogous to the terms of the contingency measures in
the CBE cases. CARB and the District commit to adopt measures, which are not specifically identified, to achieve a specific tonnage of emission reductions. Thus, the commitment to a specific tonnage reduction i s comparable to a commitment to achieve RFP. Similarly, a commitment to achieve a specific amount of emission reductions through adoption and implementation of unidentified measures is comparable to the commitments to adopt unspecified TCMs and stationary source measures. The key is that commitment must be clear in terms of what is required, e.g., a specified amount of emission reductions or the achievement of a specified amount of progress (i.e., RFP). CARB ‘s and the District‘s commitments are thus clea rly a specific enforceable strategy rather than an unenforceable aspirational goal.

Commenter‘s reliance on El Comite is also misplaced. The plaintiffs in the district court attempted to enforce a provision of the 1994 California 1

- hour ozone SIP known a s the Pesticide Element. The Pesticide Element relied on an inventory of pesticide VOC emissions to provide the basis to determine whether additional regulatory measures would be needed to meet the SIP‘s pesticides emissions target. To this end, the Pest icide Element provided that ― CARB will develop a baseline inventory of estimated 1990 pesticidal VOC emissions based on 1991 pesticide use data....‖ El Comite Para El

116 In this passage, the court was referring specifically to the stationary so urce contingency measures in the Bay Area plan which contained a commitment to adopt such measures if emission targets were not met. The Plan identified a number of potential stationary sources but did not commit to any particular one. In discussing the tr ansportation contingency measures, the court applied this same reasoning. Id . at 1456

- 1457.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 196 Bienestar de Earlimart v. Helliker, 416 F. Supp. 2d 912, 925 (E.D. Cal. 2006). CARB subse quently employed a different methodology which it deemed more accurate to calculate the baseline inventory. The plaintiffs sought to enforce the commitment to use the original methodology, claiming that the calculation of the baseline inventory constitute s an ―emission standard or limitation.‖ The district court disagreed:

By its own terms, the baseline identifies emission sources and then quantifies the amount of emissions attributed to those sources. As defendants argue, once the sources of air pollut ion are identified, control strategies can then be formulated to control emissions entering the air from those sources. From all the above, I must conclude that the baseline is not an emission "standard" or "limitation" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 7604 (f)(1)

- (4)

.

Id . at 928. In its opinion, the court distinguished Bayview and CBE I , pointing out that in those cases ―the measures at issue were designed to reduce emissions.‖ Id

.

On appeal, the plaintiffs shifted their argument to claim that the baseline inventory and the calculation methodology were necessary elements of the overall enforceable commitment to reduce emissions in nonattainment areas. The Ninth Circuit agreed with

t he district court‘s conclusion that the baseline inventory was not an emission standard or limitation and rejected plaintiffs‘ arguments attempting ―to transform the baseline inventory into an enforceable emission standard or limitation by bootstrapping it to the commitment to decide to adopt regulations, if necessary.‖ Id . at 1073.

While commenters cite the Ninth Circuit‘s El Comite opinion, its utility in analyzing the CARB and District commitments here is limited to that court‘s agreement with the
distr ict court‘s conclusion that neither the baseline nor the methodology qualifies as an independently enforceable aspect of the SIP. Rather, it is the district court‘s opinion, in distinguishing the commitments in CBE and Bayview , that provides insight into the situation at issue in our action. As the court recognized, a baseline inventory or the methodology used to calculate it, is not a measure to reduce emissions. It instead ―identifies emission sources and then quantifies the amount of emissions attribute d to those sources.‖ In contrast, as stated previously, in the 2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011) and 2007 AQMP SIP, CARB and the District commits to adopt and implement measures sufficient to achieve specified emission reductions by a date certai n. As described above, a number of courts have found commitments substantially similar to CARB ‘s here to be enforceable under CAA section 304(a).

Comment: Commenters state that the commitments do not satisfy EPA‘s three

- part test for enforceable commitme nts. First, commenters state that EPA admits that the State and District have no idea at all how they will achieve the remaining 11% of the NOx, 3% of VOC and 8% of PM2.5. Commenters state that this is hardly a ―limited‖ or minimal portion of the long

- ov erdue reductions and cite BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA , 355 F.3d 817, 840

- 41 (5 th Cir. 2003)(commitments for only six percent of the overall reductions).
Commenters state it is arb itrary and capricious for EPA to conclude that 11% is approximately within the 10% range that EPA has historically accepted in approvingTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 197 attainment demonstrations. Commenters believe EPA‘s strategy trivializes the task of achieving 70 tpd of reductions over the next 3 years and believes it is even more arb itrary given the importance of NOx reductions for attainment.

Response: We disagree with the commenters‘ assertion that CARB and the District do
not know how they will achieve the remaining reductions needed for attainment in the South Coast

. As discussed in our amended proposal

, the South Coast 2007 AQMD relies principally on adopted rules either approved into the SIP or given waivers under CAA section 209 to achieve the emissions reductions needed to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 standard in the South Coast by April 5, 2015, including b aseline (pre

- 2007) measures that continue to achieve emission reductions through 2014. 76 FR at 41576. The balance of the needed reductions is currently in the form of enforceable commitments that account for 11% of the NOx, 7% of the VOC and 8% of the P M2.5 emission reductions needed from 2002 levels to attain. See id. 117 These SIP

- approved or CAA

- waived control measures and enforceable commitments satisfy the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) to include ―enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements‖ of the CAA. See id. at n. 31. Although CARB‘s and the District ‘s enforceable commitments to additional emission reductions are expressed in aggregate tonnages and not tied to specific measures, both
CARB and the District have provided a list of potential measures that may achieve th e additional reductions needed to attain the stand ard, together with expeditious rule development, adoption, and implementation schedules consistent with EPA‘s policy on acceptable enforceable commitments

. See id. at 41576, 41577

We also disagree with the commenters‘ assertions that these remaining amounts are not ―limited‖ and that it is arb itrary and capricious for EPA to conclude that 11% is approximately within the 10% range that EPA has historically accepted as appropriate for enforceable commitments in approving attainment demonstrations. The State of Texas‘ enforceable commitment for the Houston/Galveston area, the approval of which was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in BCCA , represented 6 percent of the reduct ions needed for attainment in the area. We note that the court in BCCA did not conclude that any amount greater than 6 percent of the reductions needed would be unreasonable. We believe that the 11% of NOx, 7% of VOC and 8% of PM2.5 reductions, as stated in our amended proposal, also fit within the parameters of a ―limited‖ amount of the reductions needed for attainment and nothing in the BCCA decision contravenes that. See also 76 FR 41562 at 41576, n. 34, and footnote 117 below.

Finally, we disagree w ith the commenters‘ assertion that EPA‘s strategy ― trivializes ‖ the task of achieving 70 tpd of NOx reductions over the next three years. As explained in our amended proposal, CARB has adopted and submitted a 2009 State Strategy Status Report and a 2011 P rogress Report, which update and revise the 2007 State Strategy. These

117 The VOC commitment was revised in our final action. See the final rulemaking, section III. ―Approval Status of the Control Strategy Measures and Enforceable Emiss ions Reduction Commitment,‖ and Table F

10 above.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 198 reports show that CARB has made significant progress in meeting its enforceable commitments for the South Coast and several other nonattainment areas in California. Additional ongoing p rograms that address locomotives, recreational boats, and other measures have yet to be quantified but are expected to reduce NOX and direct PM2.5 emissions in the South Coast by 2014. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E, page 2. The District has already exceeded its commitment for reducing VOC and SOx emissions and is working to meet the commitment to reduce NOx and directly

- emitted PM2.5. See Tables 2 and 3. The District is also continuing to work to identify and adopt additional
measures that will reduc e emissions. Beyond the rules discussed above, both CARB and the District have well

- funded incentive grant programs to reduce emissions from the on

and offroad engine fleets. Reductions from several of these programs have yet to be quantified and/or credi ted in the attainment demonstration. Finally, we note that the South Coast has experienced significant improvements in its PM2.5 air quality in the past few years.

Given the evidence of the State‘s and District‘s efforts to date and their continuing effo rts to reduce emissions, we conclude that the State and District are capable of meeting their enforceable commitments to achieve the necessary reductions needed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the South Coast nonattainment area by April 5, 2015.

Co mment: For the second factor, commenters state that the State has not shown that they are capable of achieving its reductions because they have done little more than assert that they are committed to meeting the requirements of federal law

– but have not included any indication of how they will meet the requirements. Commenters assert that given the slow progress to date, it seems unlikely that the reductions of the magnitude remaining

– 70.5 tpd NOx, 11 tpd VOC and 1.3 tpd PM2.5

– can be achieved without a plan more focused and robust than the vague commitment to somehow get the needed reductions.

Response: We disagree. As explained in our amended proposal, the State‘s and District‘s efforts to date and their continuing efforts to reduce emissions (dis cussed above and in our proposed rule), indicate they are capable of meeting their specific enforceable commitments to achieve the necessary reductions by 2014. 76 FR 41562 at 41568

- 41572 and 41575

- 41577 and July 2011 TSD at Sections II.D and II.F.

Comm ent: Finally, for the third factor, commenters state that it is unclear with the changing landscape of many of the measures whether any of these commitments will take place within a reasonable and appropriate period of time. Commenters state that EPA fai ls to explain how in the context of an approval in late 2011, the state and air district will be able to complete even the requisite rulemaking process, much less actually achieve the reductions required by 2014.

Response: Commenters assume that the only path open to the State to fulfill its commitments is the adoption of new measures. We disagree. The list of measures provided by CARB in the 2011 Progress Report, Appendix B, Table B

- 1. represents a fraction of the rules and programs adopted and implement ed by the State. See TSD Appendix A. CARB has not provided, nor has it been required to provide, an evaluationTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 199 of the effectiveness of its entire control program in reducing emissions in the South Coast area. Given that the State has preliminarily demon strated, based on a limited set of measures, that all of the needed SOx reductions, and approximately 90 percent or more of the reductions of NOx, VOC, and PM2.5 reductions needed for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standard in the South Coast have already be en achieved, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that the balance of the needed reductions will also be achieved by 2014. See 76 FR 41562, p. 41575, Table 7 and September 2011 TSD, Table F

- 10.

Comment: Commenters assert that although EPA has previous ly allowed conditional approval of SIPs based on ―commitments to complete the adoption of specific enforceable measures within a short period of time,‖ EPA has never before allowed a
five

- year extension of the statutory deadline for the submission of contr ol measures yet to be specified by the State.

Response : EPA is not granting a five year extension under section 110(k)(4) of the CAA

. Rather, EPA is granting California‘s request for an attainment date extension to April 5, 2015 under CAA section 172( a)(2)( A ). We are granting this extension of the attainment date for the reasons discussed in our amended proposal . 76 FR 41562 at 41577.

Comment: NRDC asserts that EPA is allowing the South Coast to ―adjust‖ the 2014 baseline emissions inventory to accou nt for California‘s recent slowdown in economic growth. NRDC states that the Act requires that improvements in air quality are the result of permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.

Response: The commenters correctly note that the 2014 baseline emissions inventory in the South Coast 2007 AQMP have been adjusted to account for California‘s recent slowdown in economic growth. As explained in Section II.B (Emission Inventory ) of the TSD, however, CARB‘s revisions to the 2014 baseline inventory took into account not only updates to the State‘s economic forecasts but also a variety of other factors (out

- of

state VMT estimates, cumulative mileage, equipment populations, load factors, and hours of use, etc.) used to calculate emissions from trucks, buse s, and certain off

- road equipment categories. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E.

The commenters‘ assertion that the CAA requires improvements in air quality to result from permanent and enfo rceable emissions reductions appears to be based on an incorrec t understanding of the statutory basis for EPA‘s action. EPA is not determining that emission ―reductions‖ related to the economic recession are ―enforceable‖ measures under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6). Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA require s that each implementation plan submitted by a State include ―enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques... as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable r equirements of [the CAA].‖ Section 172(c)(6) contains substantively identical requirements for all nonattainment area plans. Baseline emissions inventories, however, are not ―enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniqu es‖ or ―schedules and timetables for compliance‖ that are necessary or appropriate to meet CAA requirements. See El Comite Para El Bienestar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam , 539 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding that a baseline inventory is not an enforceab le ―standard or limitation‖ as defined by the CAA and is not, therefore, anTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 200 independently enforceable aspect[] of the SIP‖). Rather, base year and baseline emissions inventories provide the basis for, among other things, the State‘s development of progres s milestones and control strategies for attaining the NAAQS consistent with the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 172(c)(2)

. See General Preamble at 13503

- 13510 (discussing planning inventory requirements for ozone nonattainment areas)

. In short , emissions inventories provide estimates of current and future emissions that, in turn, provide the starting point for the State‘s attainment demonstration and enforceable control strategy.
Nothing in the CAA precludes a State from revising a submitted plan to take into account revised emissions estimates and growth projections. All projections of future emissions

generating activity, including the projections in the South Coast 2007 AQMP as originally submitted, are based on projections of population, employment and other growth factors, all of which can increase or decrease as economic conditions change. However, reliance on projections from reputable sources of economic behavior based on established methods of predicting such behavior is the historic practice for development
of emissions inventories. CARB‘s revised projections of future emissions

- generating activity are based on reputable sources, represent the most current understanding of expected economic conditions through at least 2014 , and were subject to extensive public
review and comment before CARB adopted its 2011 SIP revisions containing these updated projections

. Given the magnitude of the economic recession‘s impact on
emissions

- generating activity in the South Coast and other parts of California, and the resulting impact on the State‘s assessment of the control strategy necessary to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standard, we conclude that it is appropriate to take these updated emissions projections into account as part of our action on the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy. Other than asserting generally that CARB and EPA should not rely on the revised economic data to determine the reductions needed for attainment and that future conditions may change, the commenters provides no
information to undermine the State‘s revised economic data or the r elated changes to the projected inventor ies

. For these reasons and as explained in our amended proposal (76 FR 41562, at 41567), we are concluding that CARB‘s 2 011 SIP revisions, which updated the State‘s projected (―baseline‖) emissions inventories based on improved methodologies for estimating emissions and more recent growth factors, reduced the total amount of emission reductions needed for attainment and tha t the control strategy in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, as revised in 2011, demonstrates expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast.

Comment : The District and CARB commented that they have adopted all feasible

m easures and for areas such as the S outh Coast , a higher percentage of enforceable commitments should be allowed. They argue that 30 percent can be a ―limited‖ amount given their circumstances and that EPA‘s 10 percent level is arbitrary. They also argue

t hat EPA has not explained why 30% is excessive especially given that the reductions are coming from already adopted rules (the in

- use off

- road equipment and in

- use truck rule). Finally, they argue that it is illogical for EPA to state that the State/Distri ct are capable of fulfilling its commitments (i.e., satisfy prong 2) but that the size of the commitments is too high to approve and that it is incongruous for EPA to commend the State/District onTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 201 their rulemaking schedules, stating that they are reasonabl e and appropriate, and then to find that they do not meet the appropriate timeframe (i.e., third prong) of the commitments criteria.

Response : T he question of whether 30 percent constituted a limited amount of commitments is now moot given the revised comm itment is now in the 10 percent range. Also, in our November 2010 proposal, we noted that the commitments did not meet the third factor (reasonable and appropriate period of time) because EPA was not proposing to extend the attainment date to April 5, 2015. However, as discussed in our July 2011 amended proposal and further above, we are now approving the attainment demonstration
and the extension of the a ttainment date to April 5, 2015, based in part on our conclusion that the State and District‘s rule adoption schedules provide sufficient time to achieve by 2014 the few remaining reductions needed to attain by April 5, 2015.

Comment : The District comments that there is no requirement that measures must be EPA approved before the SIP can be approved. They also comment that it is unfair to hold them having approximately 90% of their emissions reductions adopted and approved by EPA an d compare them to Houston because Houston‘s SIP was approved 7 years after it was due to EPA

, and South Coast‘ s PM2.5 SIP is being acted on approximately 21⁄2 years after it was due to EPA

.

Response : As discussed above, CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires th at SIPs include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the Act, as well as timetables for compliance. Similarly, section 172(c)(6) provides that nonattainment area SIPs must in clude enforceable emission limitations and such other control measures, means or techniques

― as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment‖ of the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. The timing of a State‘s submittal or EPA‘s action on that submittal does not alter these substantive requirements of the Act. We discussed in responses to comments above ou r reasons for approving the 2007 PM 2.5 Plan based in part on the limited amount of needed emission reductions that remain as enforceabl e commitments, consistent with EPA‘s past practice.



### H. Comments on Reasonable Further Progress

Comment: CBE commented that the RFP demonstration is unapprovable due to shortfalls in SO 2 in 2009 and in NOx and PM 2.5 in 2012.

Response: Under the PM2.5 implementation rule, an RFP plan must demonstrate that in each applicable milestone year, emissions will be at a level consistent with generally
linear progress in reducing emissions between the base year and the attainment year. See 40 CFR 51.1009(d)

. T he goal of the RFP requirements is for areas to achieve generally linear progress toward attainment. The RFP requirements were included in the Clean Air Act to assure steady progress toward attaining air quality standards, as opposed to deferring implementat ion of all measures until the end date by which the standard is to be attained. 75 FR 20586, at 20633

.TSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 202 As we noted in our July 14, 2011 proposed rulemaking, although the South Coast experienced a shortfall of 9 tpd for SOx in 2009, this shortfall is mad e up by the reductions estimated for 2012, and the area meets its 2012 SOx milestone. We note that the shortfall in 2012 for NOx is less than 1% of the 2002 baseline inventory, and the
shortfall in PM 2.5 reductions in 2012 is also about 1% of the 2002 baseline inventory, while 2012 SOx reduction milestones are met and 2012 VOC reduction milestones are exceeded by 20 tpd. (TSD, p. 116) In addition, we note d that we were not evaluating the provisions of th e updated South Coast 2007 AQMP that address contingency measures for failure to meet the 2009 RFP benchmarks. Information available to EPA and the public shows that the South Coas t met its 2009 RFP benchmarks for 2009 for directly

emitted PM2.5, NOx, and VOC. SOx emissions are higher than the linear benchmark but achieve the benchmark levels in 2012 due to recently adopted rules controlling emissions of SOx. See 2011 Progress Report, Table C

- 2 and section II.H of the TSD. Therefore, contingency measures fo r failure to meet the 2009 RFP benchmark no longer have meaning or effect under the CAA and therefore do not require any review or action by
EPA.

In addition, as noted above, the purpose of RFP contingency measures is to provide continued progress while the SIP is being revised to meet a missed RFP milestone. Failure to meet the 2009 benchmark would have required California to revise the South Coast 2007 AQMP to assure that the next milestone was met and that the plan still provided for attainment. Califo rnia has, in fact, prepared and submitted a revision to the South Coast 2007 AQMP that provides for RFP in 2012 and for attainment by 2015. ( TSD, p. 122 ) For all of these reasons we conclude that the South Coast 2007 AQMP provides for generally linear prog ress towards attainment, consistent with the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1009. The State has also submitted a SIP revision in the form of the 2011 Progress Report to address the missed 2009 SOx milestone which assures that the 2012 SOx milestone will be met.



### I. Comments on Contingency Measures

Comment: In their January 20, 2011 comment letter, the SCAQMD agrees that the SIP must contain contingency measures that should be implemented if the area fails to meet the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. However, the District argues that the requirement for these measures to be fully adopted in rule form at time of plan submittal is unrealistic.

Response : EPA understands that for some areas the CAA requirement for contingency

me asures is difficult; however, the Act is clear on these requirements. Under CAA section 172(c)(9), all PM 2.5 attainment plans must include specific contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to meet RFP (RFP contingency measures) and continge ncy measures to be implemented if an area fails to attain the PM 2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (attainment contingency measures). These contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that are ready to be implemented quick ly without significant additional action by the State. 40 CFR § 51.1012 (―contingency measures must take effect without significant further action by theTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 203 State or EPA‖) ; see also 57 FR 13498, at 13510

- 11. They must also be measures not relied on in the pla n to demonstrate RFP or attainment and should provide SIP

- creditable emissions reductions equivalent to one year of RFP. Finally, the SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for the contingency measures and specify a schedule for their implementation. 72 FR 20586, p. 20642. We noted that the purpose of RFP contingency measures is to provide continued progress while the SIP is being revised to meet a missed RFP milestone. See 76 FR 41562, at 41580. This timely continued progress would not be possible if signif

icant additional rulemaking action needed to be taken at the District or State level before a measure could be fully adopted and implemented. For the reasons provided in both of our proposals, we are disapproving the proposed contingency measures in the So uth Coast 2007 AQMP , which include measures that are not yet fully adopted, because they do not meet the requirements for contingency measures in CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1012 . See 76 FR 41562, at 41580.

Comment : In its August 12, 2011 comment letter, the SCAQMD recognizes that the SIP must contain contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date; however, they again state that they believe the requirement to have such measures adopted at the time of plan submittal is unrealistic. They point out that under the California Clean Air Act, the SCAQMD is required to evaluate all feasible measures in SIP development to achieve the maximum emissions reductions possible. Therefore, they belie ve it is unreasonable to expect that there are additional rules that would achieve one year‘s worth of RFP reductions beyond what is already adopted. Nevertheless, the SCAQMD outlines a three pronged approach to
demonstrate that sufficient emissions reduct ions can be identified to meet the requirement for 1

- year‘s worth of RFP reductions for contingency measures. The three prongs are (1) PM2.5 air quality improvements have significantly exceeded the RFP milestone targets by more than one year‘s worth of re ductions, (2) relying on continued emissions reductions beyond 2014 based on adopted regulations for the 2007 ozone plan, and (3) quantifying excess emissions reductions that were not originally included in the 2007 PM2.5 SIP. The District provides additio nal detailed information for each of these prongs in an attachment to their comments.

Response: EPA understands the unique air quality challenges in the South Coast area and appreciates the District‘s efforts to identify additional measures that may serve as contingency measures for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. We note, however, that contingency measures should consist of available control measures beyond those required to attain the standards, and may go beyond those measures consider ed to be RACM for the area. See 72 FR 20586 at 20643 . We commit to work with the State and District to identify new or existing control measures and programs not currently included in the South Coast 2007 AQMP that may satisfy the CAA section 172(c)(9) r equirements for contingency measures for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Comment: In both their January 21, 2011 and August 15, 2011 comment letters, NRDC supports our proposed disapproval of the contingency measures. NRDC raise s two issues
related to t he contingency measures. First, it assert s that the contingency measures lack enforceability. Second, it note s that the District does not describe the criteria regardingTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 204 how the monies in the proposed ozone nonattainment fee contingency measure will be spent, and does not provide mechanisms for ensuring that emissions reductions are enforceable. ( We address NRDC ‘s third comment about contingency measures in relation

to RACM in our responses to RACM comments above ).

Response: In both our 2010 proposal a nd our 2011 amended proposal

, we proposed to disapprove the Plan‘s contingency measure provisions and we are disapproving those provisions in today‘s action. See 75 FR 71294, 71311

- 71312 and 76 FR 41562, 41580. In particular, we stated the following: The S outh Coast 2007 AQMP includes suggestions for several measures that do not meet the CAA‘s minimum requirements (e.g., no additional rulemaking, surplus to attainment and RFP needs). The AQMP, however, indicates that the measures proposed by the District ar e not adopted, and does not quantify the expected emissions reductions in order to gauge whether they provide reductions equivalent to one year‘s worth of RFP. For the reasons stated above, we are disapprov ing the District‘s contingency measure provisions in the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM 2.5 . 76 FR 41562, at 415780 (July 14, 2011).

Regarding NRDC‘s second point, we agree that for CTY

- 02, ―Clean Air Act Emission Fees for Major Stationary Sources,‖ the District does not describe how the monies for the
CAA nonattainment fees will be spent, nor does it provide mechanisms for ensuring that emissions reductions are enforceable. These are among the reasons that we provided for disapproving this contingency measure in both our November 2010 and July 2011 proposed rulemakings. We also noted that the 2007 AQMP does not identify the quantity of emissions reductions that the District intended to use to meet the contingency measure requirement and therefore, we are unable to determine if the proposed measures are SIP

c reditable or sufficient to provide in combination with other measures the roughly one

year‘s worth of RFP needed. For these reasons, we determined that the measures submitted did not currently meet the CAA requirements for contingency measures. We will als o continue to work with the District to assure that its incentive programs are designed to produce reductions that are surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent in accordance with EPA‘s guidance.



### General Comments

Comment: NRDC commented t hat the m id

- course review is an inappropriate time to correct deficiencies. NRDC asserts that EPA‘s regulations set out the MCR as a mechanism to provide a check on the plan once an approvable attainment plan is set in place. NRDC comments that the long delays in r eviewing and approving clean air plans in California has resulted in a situation where the mid course review is not used for its intended purpose. In the future, NRDC would like to work more closely with EPA to ensure that deadlines for actions on major cl ean air plans happens quickly.

Response: Under the PM 2.5 implementation rule at 40 CFR 51.1011, a midcourse review must include: (1) A review of emissions reductions and progress made in implementing control measures to reduce emissions of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 attainment plan precursorsTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 205 contributing to PM 2.5 concentrations in the area; (2) An analysis of changes in ambient air quality data for the area; (3) Revised air quality modeling analysis to demonstrate attainment; and (4) Any new or revised control me asures adopted by the State, as necessary to ensure attainment by the attainment date in the approved SIP of the nonattainment area. 40 CFR 51.1011(b).

California‘s 2011 Progress Report contains updated information regarding the South Coast area‘s progre ss toward attaining the 1997 PM 2.5 standard, as well as a review of the implementation status of control measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy. Nothing in the CAA or EPA‘s implementing regulations prohibits a State
from submit ting SIP revisions to address deficiencies in a prior SIP submittal, as part of a midcourse review or otherwise. We note that we are not determining in this action that the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, as revised, satisfy the requirement s of 40 CFR 51.1011 for purposes of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. We encourage NRDC and other public commenters to continue participating in both EPA‘s and the State/District‘s rulemaking processes to ensure that plans for attaining the NAAQS are developed and im plemented in a timely manner consistent with CAA requirements.

Comment: The second NRDC comment on the MCR asserts that ― the proposed rule and the TSD rely upon or request significant new information from CARB and SCAQMD, ‖ much of which was not provided i n any of the documentation. NRDC indicates it will provide supplemental comments when those data are available.

Response: This comment does not contain sufficient specificity for EPA to respond.

Comment: SCAQMD contends that the denial of the five

- year extension request to 2015
for the PM 2.5 attainment date should not be automatic. SCA Q M D concludes that EPA should approve the plan fully, and if this is not possible, should approve the plan conditionally u nder Clean Air Act (CAA) section 172(c)(4) based on the commitment in the South Coast 2007 AQMP by CARB and the District to adopt enforceable measures to achieve emissions reductions to achieve the NAAQS.

Response: The PM2.5 Implementation Rule requires t hat EPA approve an extended attainment date at the time that it approves the attainment demonstration for the relevant

area, consistent with the attainment date timing provision of CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1004(a) . See 40 CFR 51.1004(b). Fo r the reasons discussed in our July 2011 amended proposal and further in responses to comments above, EPA is now approving both the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy for the South Coast area and the State‘s reque st to extend the attainment date for the area to April 5, 2015. Therefore, SCAQMD‘s comments regarding EPA‘s proposed denial of its five

- year extension request and the possibility of a conditional approval are now moot.

Comment: The District notes that the 10 tpd federal assignment for NOx emissions has been backstopped by the State and District; however, they continue to request EPA‘s acceptance of the 10 ton federal assignment especially in light of new NAAQS whereTSD for the Final Rulemaking

o n the South Coast 2007 AQMP for P M 2.5 September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 206 more cost effective federal sources (in lieu of more costly state and local measures) could will allow help the area attain.

Response: As we stated in our proposals, the CAA does not authorize a State to assign responsibility to the Federal government for meeting SIP requirements, and ther efore we cannot accept the 10 tpd NOx emissions reductions the District and State had assigned to the Federal government in the South Coast 2007 AQMP. See 75 FR 71294 at 71309 ( November 22, 2010 ) and 76 FR 41562 at 41577 ( July 14, 2011 ) . In a SIP revision adopted by CARB on April 28, 2011, and submitted on May 18, 2011, SCAQMD and CARB committed to achieve additional emission reductions that would serve as a ―backstop‖ for the 10 tpd NOx federal assignment. We are approving the State's and District's comm itments to achieve the se additional emissions reductions , which were previously attributed to the F ederal government

.

Comment: Robin Hall‘s comment requested that we not add a carbon tax to his state.

Response: This comment is outside the scope of our action. EPA‘s action on California‘s plan for attaining the 1997 PM 2.5 standard in the South Coast area does not involve a carbon tax

.

### Appendix A

– CARB Rules and Measures

### A

. Complete List of State Measures

Appendix Table A

- 1 is a list of all measures adopted by CARB from 1990 until the end of 2006. This period covers the 18 years prior to the development of the 2007 State Strat egy and the South Coast 2007 AQMP. The table should include any substantive rules that would still be generating emissions reductions in the South Coast nonattainment area during the 2002

- 2014 period covered by the Plan and thus reflected in the baseline f or the Plan.
This list does not include the limits on pesticide emissions adopted by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation nor the State‘s inspection and maintenance program adopted by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair.
Measures that are categorized as Not Applicable are either solely administrative (e.g., permit fees, state ambient air quality standards), do not address particulate matter or a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor in the South Coast nonattainment area (e.g ., a sbestos air toxic control measure), or otherwise do not affect emissions in the South Coast nonattainment area (e.g., test methods).

Appendix Table A

- 1



### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

Antiperspirant/Deodorants

. . T 17, CCR, 94500

- 94506 11/09/89 Consumer products

Transported Pollutants (Ozone)

. . T 17, CCR, 70500 12/04/89 Not applicable

Emission Control System Warranty

. . T 13, CCR, 2035

- 2041, 1977 12/14/89 On

- road

Non

- vehicular Test Methods . . T 17, CCR, 94002, 94003 17, &26, 94146

- 94149, 94132, 94135, 94139, 94140 01/11/90 Not applicable

Certification Procedure for Aftermarket Parts. VC 27156 & 38391 02/08/90 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in Surfacing Applications

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 Not applicable

Test Method for Asbestos in Serpentine Aggregate

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 94147, Method 435 04/12/90 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90704, 93300

- 93347 05/10/90 Not applicable

Airborne Air Toxic Measure for Ethylene Oxide from Sterilizers & Aerators

. . T 17, CCR, 93108 05/10/90 Not applicableAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. . T 17, CCR, 90800.1, 90800, 90802

- 90803 05/10/90 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Invento ry Criteria and
Guidelines

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300

- 93347 06/14/90 Not applicable

Consumer Products Regulations for the BAAQMD

. . T 17, CCR, 94520

- 94526 06/14/90 Consumer products

Criteria for Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard

. . T 17, CCR, 70303 & 70304 06/14/90 Not applicable

Emission Standards for Medium Duty Vehicles

. . T 13, CCR, 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1968.1, 2061, 2112, 2139 06/14/90 On

- road

Wintertime Limits for Sulfur in Diesel Fuel

. . T 13, CCR, 2255 06/21/90 Fuels

Dioxins Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Medical
Waste Incinerators

. . T 17, CCR, 93104 07/12/90 Not applicable

Emission s Reduction Accounting Procedures for
California Clean Air Act

. . T 17, CCR, 70700

- 70704 07/12/90 Not applicable

Identification of Inorganic Arsenic as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/12/90 Not applicable

Evaporative Emission Standards

. . T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 On

- road

Transport Mitigation Regulations

. . T 17, CCR, 70600

- 70601 08/09/90 Not applicable

Air Toxic Fee Schedule & Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guidelines

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90704, 93300

- 93347 09/13/90 Not applicable

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), Phase I

. . T 13, CCR, 2251.5 09/27/90 Fuels

Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels

. . T 13, CCR, 1900, 1904, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1960.1.5, 1960.5 and 2111, 2112, 2125, and 2139, 2061. 09/28/90 On

- road

Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not applicable

Phase I

- Consumer Products

. . T 17, CCR, 94507

- 94517 10/11/90 Consumer productsAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

Controls for Abrasive Blasting

. . T 17, CCR, 92000, 92200, 92400, 98500, 98510, 92520, 92530 11/08/90 Not applicable

Heavy Duty Diesel Smoke Emission Testing

. . T 13, CCR, 2180

- 2187 11/08/90 On

- road

Revision to Designation Criteria . . T 17, CCR, 60200

- 60204, 60208 11/08/90 Not applicable

Identification of Vinyl Chloride as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 11/13/90 Not applicable

Conflict of Interest Code

. . T 17, CCR, 95001, et. seq. 12/13/90 Not applicable

Emission Standards for Utility and Lawn and Garden Engines

. . T 17, CCR, 2400 et. seq. 12/13/90 Off

- road

Identification of Chloroform as a Toxic Air Contaminant

.

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 12/13/90 Not applicable

Limit on Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuel

. . T 13, CCR, 2256 12/13/90 Fuels

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. . T 17, CCR, 90800.2, 90801, 90803 02/24/91 Not applicable

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations

. . T 17, CCR, 90621.2, 90620, 90622 04/11/91 Not applicable

Non

- Vehicular Test Methods . . T 17, CCR, 94131, 94132, 94142 04/11/91 Not applicable

Administrative Hearing Procedures

. . T 17, CCR, 60075.1, 60075.47 05/09/91 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 06/13/91 Not applicable

Agricultural Burning Guidelines

. T 17, 80130, 80150, 80250, 80260, 80290 07/11/91 Not applicable

Identification of Metallic & Inorganic Nickel Compounds

as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, 93000 08/08/91 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostics for Light

- Duty Trucks and Light & Medium

- Duty Motor Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1977, 1968.1 09/12/91 On

- road

Identification of Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/10/91 Not applicableAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for SO 2 . T 17, CCR, 70100, 70200, 70201 10/10/91 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1977 11/12/91 On

- road

Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60200, 60209 11/14/91 Not applicable

Low Emission Vehicles amendments revising reactivity adjustment factor (RAF) provisions and adopting a RAF for M85 transitional low emission vehicles . T 13, CCR,
1960.1 11/14/91 On

- road

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase II

. T 13, CCR, 2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260

- 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Fuels

Wintertime Gasoline Program

. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2298, 2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 Fuels

Specifications for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuel

. T 13, & 26, CCR, 2290, 2291, 2292.1, 2292.2, 2292.3, 229 2.5 , 2292.6, 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 12/12/91 Fuels

Heavy Duty Diesel Cycle Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2420

- 2427 01/09/92 Off

- road

Phase II

- Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94502, 94505, 94514, 94503.5, 94506, 94507

- 94513, 94515 01/09/92 Consumer products

Identification of Formaldehyde as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 03/12/92 Not applicable

Specifications for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuels

. T 13, & 26, CCR, 2290

- 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 03/12/92 On

- road

Atmospheric Acidity Protection Fees

. T 17, CCR, 90621.3 04/09/92 Not applicable

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.3, 90803 04/09/92 Not applicable

Criteria for Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 70303, 70304 05/14/92 Not applicable

Standards and Test Procedures for Alternative Fuel Retrofit Systems

. T 13, CCR, 2030, 2031 05/14/92 On

- road

Transported Air Pollutants

. T 17, CCR, 70500 05/28/92 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90701, 90704, 90705 07/09/92 Not applicableAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

Identification of 1.3 Butadiene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/09/92 Not applicable

Phase 2 RFG certification fuel specifications

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1956.8(d) 08/13/92 On

- road

CFC Refrigerants in Air Conditioning Systems . T 13, CCR, 2500 09/10/92 Not applicable

Substitute Fuel or Clean Fuel Incorporated Test Procedures

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 2317 11 /12/92 On

- road

Notice of General Public Interest for Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94507

- 94517 11/30/92 Consumer products

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emission of Toxic Metals from Non

- Ferrous Metal Melting

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93107 12/10/92 Not applicable

Criteria for Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 70303.5, 60200

- 60203, 60205, 70303 12/10/92 Not applicable

Smoke Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & Gasoline Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2190

- 2194, 2180

- 2187, 1956.8(b) 12/10/92 On

- road

Certification Requirements for Low Emission Passenger Cars, Light

- Duty Trucks & Medium Duty Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1976, 2061, 1900 01/14/93 On

- road

Transport Mitigation Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 70600, 70601 03/11/93 Not applicable

1

- year Implementation Delay in Emission Standards for Utility Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2400, 2403

- 2407 04/08/93 Off

- road

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90622,
90621.4 04/08/93 Not applicable

Identification of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants as Toxic Air Contaminants

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93001, 39665,
39666 04/08/93 Not applicable

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.4, 90803 04/08/93 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guidelines

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300

- 93347 06/10/93 Not applicable

Urban Transit Buses . T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2112 06/10/93 On

- roadAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 07/08/93 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II . T 13, CCR, 1968.1 07/09/93 On

- road

Mitigation Transport Pollutants

. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 08/12/93 Not applicable

Wintertime Oxygenate Program

. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2251.5, 2263(b), 2267, 2298, 2259, 2283, 2293.5 09/09/93 Fuels

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93109, 93110 10/14/93 Not applicable

Diesel Fuel Regulations

- Emergency

. T 13, CCR, 2281(h), 2282(1) 10/15/93 Fuels

Conflict of Interest

. T 17, CCR, 90500 11/18/93 Not applicable

Criteria for Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60200

- 60202, 60204, 60206, 60208, 70300

- 70306 11/18/93 Not applicable

Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 2410

- 2414, 2111

- 2140 01/03/94 Off

- road

Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures

. T 13, CCR, 1976 02/10/94 On

- road

SCAQMD's Reclaim Consideration 03/10/94 Stationary Sources

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.5, 90803 04/14/94 Not applicable

Predictive Model for Phase II CaRFG

. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262

- 2270 06/09/94 Fuels

Small Refiner Diesel

. T 13, CCR, 2282(e)(1) 07/24/94 Fuels

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 07/28/94 Not applicable

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2403(c), 11(a)(1)(I)(ii), 4(a)(1)(I)(ii) 07/28/94 Off

- road

Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94540

- 94555 09/22/94 Consumer products

Diesel Fuel Certification

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b)&(d), 1960.1(k), 2292.6 09/22/94 Fuels

Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60204 11/09/94 Not applicableAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & Gasoline Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2190

- 2194, 2180

- 2187, 1956.8(b) 11/09/94 On

- road

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II

. T 13, CCR,1963.1, &
Certification Procedures 12/08/94 On

- road

Periodic Smoke Inspection Program

. T 13, CCR, 2190 12/08/94 On

- road

Specification for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuels (M100)

. T 13 CCR, 2292.1 12/08/94 Fuels

Aerosol Coating Products and Alternative Control Plan

. T 17, CCR, 94520

- 94528, 94540

- 94543, 94547... 03/23/95 Consumer products

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.6, 90803 04/27/95 Not applicable

Employee

- Based Trip Reductions Emission Formula

. T 13, CCR, 2330, 2331, 2332 06/29/95 Not applicable

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems . T 17, CCR, 94010

- 94015, 94150

- 94160, 94000

- 94004, 94007. 06/29/95 Vapor Recovery

Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures. 06/29/95 On

- road

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1976, 1978 and incorporate test procedures 06/29/95 On

- road

Test Method for Oxygen in Gaso line

. T 13, CCR, 2251.5(c), 2258(c), 2263(b) 06/29/95 Fuels

Retrofit Emission Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.9, 2030, 2031, and incorporate test procedures 07/27/95 On

- road

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, and Aerosol Coating Products

. T 17, CCR, 94500

- 94506, 94508, 94521 09/28/95 Consumer products

Low Emission Vehicle Standards 3 (LEV 3)

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1965, 2101, 2061, 2062, and incorporate test procedures 09/28/95 On

- road

Test Methods for CaRFG 13, CCR, 2263(b) 10/26/95 FuelsAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

Required Additives in Gasoline (Deposit Control Additives)

. T 13, CCR, 2257 and incorporates testing procedures. 11/16/95 Fuels

CaRFG Housekeeping & CARBOB

. T 13, CCR, 2263.7, 2266.5, 2260, 226 2.5 , 2264, 2265, 2272 12/14/95 Fuels

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95 On Road/Off Road

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR,
90700

- 90705 and Appendix A 01/25/96 Not applicable

CaRFG Variance Requirements

. T 13, CCR, 2271 (Emergency) 01/25/96 Fuels

Relaxation of Carbon Mo nox ide Emission Standards for Utility Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2403 and incorporating test procedures 01/25/96 Off

- road

Postpone Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements

. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1, 1976 03/28/96 On

- road

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90803, 90800.7 04/25/96 Not applicable

Basin Boundaries for Agricultural Burning (Mojave Desert, South Coast & Salton Sea)

. T 17, CCR, 60104, 60109, 60114, 80280, 80311 05/30/96 Not applicable

Regulation Improvement and Repeal

. T 17, CCR, 93301

- 93355, Appendix A

- E ( emissions invento ry) 05/30/96 Not applicable

Regulation Improvements and Repeals (fuel additives)

. T 13, CCR, 2201, 2202 05/30/96 Fuels

Emissions Inventory Criteria & Guideline Report

. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 07/25/96 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR,
90701

- 90705 Appendix A to §§ 90700

- 90705 09/26/96 Not applicable

Stationary Source Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94105, 94107, 94114, 94135, 94141, 94143, 94161 09/26/96 Not applicable

Wintertime Requirements for Utility Engines & Off

Highway Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 2403 09/26/96 Off

- road

Diesel Fuel Certification Test Methods

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Fuels

Diesel Fuel Test Methods

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 FuelsAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, Aerosol Coating Products (ARB Test Method 310)

. T 17, CCR, 94506(a), 94515(a), 94526 11/21/96 Consumer products

Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60201

- 60209 11/21/96 Not applicable

Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products Amendments

. T 17, CCR, 94508

- 94515, 99517, 94321 11/21/96 Consumer products

Transport Pollutants

. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 11/21/96 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II, Technical Status

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 2030, 2031 12/12/96 On

- road

Consumer Products (Hair Spray) Amendments

. T 17, CCR, 94509, 94513, 94514 03/27/97 Consumer products

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Propane Limit Specification Delay

. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 03/27/97 Fuels

Portable Equipment Registration Program

. T 13, CCR,
2450

- 2465 03/27/97 Off

- road

Identification of Inorganic Lead as Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC)

. T 17, CCR, 93000 04/24/97 Not applicable

Interchangeable Emission s Reduction Credits

. T 17, CCR, 91500 05/22/97 Not applicable

Postpone Enhanced Evaporative Emission Requirements for Ultra

- Small Volume Vehicle Manufacturers

. T 13, CCR, 1976 and incorporate test procedures 05/22/97 On

- road

Consumer Products (Mid

- Term Measures) Amendments

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94513 07/24/97 Consumer products

Off

- Cycle Emissions Supplemental Federal Test Procedures (SFTPs)

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 2101 and incorp orate test procedures 07/24/97 On

- road

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR 90701

- 90705 and Appendix A 11/13/97 Not applicable

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201 & 60205 11/13/97 Not applicable

Consumer Products (Hairspray Credit Program)

. T 17, CCR, 94502, 94509, 94522, & 94548 11/13/97 Consumer products

Heavy Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program/Periodic Smoke Inspection Program

. T 13, CCR, 2180

- 2188 and
2190

- 2194 12/11/97 On

- roadAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17,CCR 90800.... 01/29/98 Not applicable

Small Off

- Road Engines (SORE)

. T 13, CCR, 2400,2410

- 2414 03/26/98 Off

- road

Classifying Minor Violations

. T 17, CCR, 60090

- 60095 04/23/98 Not applicable

Heavy Duty Vehicle Regulations: 2004 Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2036, 2112 and test procedures 04/23/98 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating . T 17, CCR, 93102 05/21/98 Not applicable

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Model Flexibility

. T 13, CCR, Sections 2260, 2262.1, 2262.3, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.7 and 2265 08/27/98 Fuels

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems . T 17, CCR, 94010

- 94015 and 94150, 94156, 94157, 94158, 94159, 94160,
94162 08/27/98 Vapor Recovery

Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant . T 17, CCR, 93000 08/27/98 Not applicable

Gasoline Deposit Control Additive Regulation

. T 13, CCR, 2257, and incorporating test procedures 09/24/98 Fuels

Air Toxics ― Hot Spots ‖ Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR,
90701

- 90705 and Appendix A 10/22/98 Not applicable

Area Designations and Criteria for the National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone

. T 17, CCR, 60301, 60202, 60205, 60206, 70300

- 70306, 70303.1 10/22/98 Not applicable

Large Off

- Road Spark

- Ignition Engine Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 2430 et seq., and 2411

- 2414 10/22/98 Off

- road

Stationary Source Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94101

- 94104, 94106, 94108

- 94113, 941T 17

- 94124, 94137
and revision of Method 12. 10/22/98 Not applicable

Low Emission Vehicles Standards (LEV 2) and Compliance Assurance Program (CAP 2000)

. T 13, CCR,1961 & 1962 (both new); 1900, 1960.1, 1965, 1968.1, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2101, 2106, 2107, 2110, 2112, 2114, 2119, 2130, 2137

- 2140, 2143

- 2148 11/05/98 On

- road

Aftermarket Parts for Off

- Road Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2470

- 2476 11/19/98 Off

- roadAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

Consumer Products

- LVP

- VOC Definitions And Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94506, 94506.5, 94508(a)(78), 94515 and 94526, and the amendment of ARB Method
310 11/19/98 Consumer products

Consumer Products, Aerosol Coatings & Antiperspirants and Deodorants

. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94508, 94521, 94522, and 94524 11/19/98 Consumer products

1997 & Later Model Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2410

- 2414, 2415 12/10/98 Off

- road

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 Marine Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2440 et seq 12/10/98 Off

- road

Exhaust Standards for (On

- Road) Motorcycles

. T 13, CCR, 1958 12/10/98 On

- road

Revisions to Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program

. T 13, CCR, 2450

- 2463 12/10/98 Off

- road

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 2600

- 2610 12/10/98 On

- road

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Increasing the Oxygen Content)

. T 13, CCR, sections 226 2.5 (b) and 2265(a)(2) 12/11/98 Fuels

Specifications for Liquid Petroleum Gas Used as a Motor Vehicle Fuel

. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 Fuels

Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requirement for Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump Labeling for
MTBE . T 13, CCR, 226 2.5 , and 2273 06/24/99 Fuels

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17, CCR, 94011, 94153, 94155, and incorporated test procedures, CP

- 201,
TP

- 201.4, and TP

- 201.6 06/24/99 Vapor Recovery

Clean Fuels Regulation Requirements

. T 13, CCR, sections 2300

- 2317, and 2303.5, 2311.5 07/22/99 On

- road

Portable Container Spillage Control Measure

. T 13, CCR, 2470

- 2478 09/23/99 Off

- road

Administrative Hearing Procedures

. T 17, CCR, 60040 and 60075.1

- 60075.45 10/22/99 Not applicable

California Consumer Products Regulation Mid

- Term
Measures II

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, and 94513 10/28/99 Consumer products

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards

. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/18/99 Not applicableAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (Phase out of MTBE, standards, predictive model)

. T 13, CCR, 2260, 2261, 2262.1, 226 2.5 , 2263, 2264, 2264.2, 2265, 2266 etc... 12/09/99 Fuels

Off

- Road Compression Ignition Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2144, 2400, 2401, 2403, 2420, 2421, 2423

- 2427, & appendix A to article
2.1. 01/27/00 Off

- road

Transit Bus Standards . T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, 1956.4, 1956.8, 1965 02/24/00 On

- road

Agricultural Burning Guidelines

. T 17 Amendments 80145, 80T 179, 80100

- 80102, 80110, 80120, 80130, 80140, 80150, 80155, 80160, 80T 170, 80180, 80200, 80210, 80230, 80240, 80250, 80260, 80270, 80280, 80290, 80300, 80310, 80311, 80320, 80330 03/23/00 Not applicable

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (Emergency Filing CP

- 201, section 18) . T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00 Vapor Recovery

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (In Station Diagnostics and Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery)

. T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00 Vapor Recovery

Air Toxic Control Measure for Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair
Facilities

. T 17, CCR, 93111 04/27/00 Other

Consumer Products Aerosol Adhesives Control Measure

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94512, 94513 05/25/00 Consumer products

Aerosol ( Paint) Coatings Products

. T 17, CCR, 94700, 94701, 94521

- 94524, 94526 06/22/00 Consumer products

Air Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos Containing Serpentine

. T 17, CCR, 93106 07/20/00 Not applicable

Conflict of Interest Code

. T 17, CCR, 95001, 95002, 95005, and subchapter 9 09/28/00 Not applicable

Rice Straw Conditional Burn Permit Program

. T 17, CCR, 80101, 80156

- 80158 09/28/00 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90705 tables 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 4 10/26/00 Not applicable

Antiperspirant and Deodorant Reg ulations. T 17, CCR, 94502, 94504 10/26/00 Consumer products

Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone

. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/16/00 Not applicableAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

CaRFG Phase 3 Follow

- up Amendments

. T 13, CCR, sections 2260, 2261, 2262.3, 226 2.5 , 2263, 2264, 2265, 2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2272, 2273, 2282, 2296, 2297, 2262.9 and incorporated test procedures 11/16/00 Fuels

CaRFG Phase 3 Test Methods . T 13, CCR, sections 2263(b) 11/16/00 Fuels

Heavy Duty Diesel Engines "Not

- to

- Exceed (NTE)" Test
Procedures

. T 13 CCR, 1956.8, 2065 12/07/00 On

- road

Light

- and Medium Duty Low Emission Vehicle Alignment with Federal Standards

. Exhaust Emission Standards for Heavy Duty Gas Engines . T 13, CCR, 1956.8 &1961 12/07/00 On

- road

Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation Update

. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1(k), 1961, 1962 & incorporated Test
Procedure 01/25/01 On

- road

Ozone Transport Assessment

. T 17, CCR, 70500 & 70600 04/26/01 Not applicable

Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure and Standardization of Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment

. T 13, CCR, 1900(b), 1962(b) 1962.1 06/28/01 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos from Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining

. T 17, CCR, 93105 07/26/01 Not applicable

Marine Inboard Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2139, 2140, 2147, 2440

- 2442, 2443.1

- 2443.3, 2444, 2445.1, 2445.2, 2446, 2444.2 and incorporation of documents by
reference 07/26/01 Off

- road

Air Toxic Control Measures for Auto and Mobile Equip Refinishing Coatings containing Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium Compounds

. T 17, CCR, 93112 09/20/01 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR,
90700

- 90705 10/25/01 Not applicable

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Methods and Compliance Procedures . T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94153, 94155, 94163, 94164, 94165 & incorporated procedures 10/25/01 Vapor Recovery

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards for 2007 and Later

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporated test procedures 10/25/01 On

- roadAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 94200

- 94214 11/15/01 Other

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Defects . T 17, CCR, 94006 and incorporated document. 11/15/01 Vapor Recovery

Low Emission Vehicle Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1,1960.5, 1961, 1962 and incorp o ra te test procedures and guidelines 11/15/01 On

- road

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule

. T 13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1

- 60060.7 12/13/01 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor Residential Waste Burning

. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/21/02 Other

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations . T 13, CCR, 2601

- 2605, 2606 & appendices C & D, and 2607

- 2610 02/21/02 On

- road

On

- Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments . T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 On

- road

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In

Use Compliance Requirements . T 13, CCR, 2700

- 2710 05/16/02 On

- road

Review of California Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates

. T 17, CCR, 70100,70200, and 70100.1 06/20/02 Not applicable

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments

. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 2271, 2272, 2265, and 2296 07/25/02 Fuels

Revision to Transit Bus Regulations Amendments . T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.4,1956.8, and 2112, & documents incorporated by reference 10/24/02 On

- road

Administrative Civil Penalties Program

. T 17, CCR,
60065.1

- 60065.45 and 60075.1

- 60075.45 12/12/02 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from School Bus Idling . T 13, CCR, 2480 12/12/02 On

- road

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendmen ts (specifications for De Minimi s Levels of Oxygenates and MTBE Phase Out Issues)

. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262.6, 2263, 2266.5, 2272, 2273, 2260, 2273.5 12/12/02 FuelsAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Procedures . T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94163, 94164, and 94165 and procedures incorporated by reference, and 94166, 94167, and incorporation by reference. 12/12/02 Vapor Recovery

Low Emission Vehicles II

. Align Heavy Duty Gas Engine Standards with Federal Standards; minor administrative changes . T 13, CCR, 1961, 1965, 1956.8, 1956.1, 1978, 2065 and documents incorporated by reference 12/12/02 On

- road

Zero Emission Vehicle Amendments for 2003 . T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 1961(a) and (d), 1900, 1962, and documents incorporated by reference 03/25/03 On

- road

Ozone Transport Mitigation Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 70600 and 70601 05/22/03 Not applicable

Off

- Highway Recreation Vehicles

. T13, CCR, 2415 07/24/03 Off

- road

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.75, 90800.9, 90804, 90800.8, 90801, 90802, and 90803 07/24/03 Not applicable

Specifications for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel

. T 13 & T 17, CCR, 1961, 2281, 2282, 2701, 2284, 2285, 93114, and incorporated test procedure 07/24/03 Fuels

Solid Waste Collection Vehicles . T 13, CCR, 2020, 2021, 2021.1, 2021.2 09/24/03 On

- road

Small Off

- Road Engines (SORE)

. T 13, CCR, 2400

- 2409, 2405.1, 2405.2, 2405.3, 2750

- 2754, 2754.1, 2754.2, 2755

- 2767, 2767.1, 2768

- 2773 and the documents incorporated by reference 09/25/03 Off

- road

Revised Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity Values

. T 1, CCR, 94700. 12/03/03 Consumer products

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate for Transport Refrigeration Units . T 13, CCR, 2022 & 2477 12/11/03 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines

. T 17, CCR 93115 & documents incorp orate by reference 12/11/03 Other

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In

Use Compliance Requirements (Amendments)

. T 13, CCR, 2701

- 2707 & 2709 12/11/03 On

- roadAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

Area Designation Criteria and Area Designations for State
PM 2.5 and Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 6020 2, 60205, 60210 01/22/04 Not applicable

CA Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule

. T 13, CCR, 1969 01/22/04 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel

- Fueled Portable Engines

. T 17, CCR,93116, 93116.1, 93116.2, 93116.3, 93116.4, and 93116.5 02/26/04 Off

- road

Modifications to the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) Regulations

. T 13, CCR Amendments to 2450

- 2465, and repeal of 2466 02/26/04 Off

- road

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine

- Chip Reflash

. T 13, CCR, 2011, 2180.1, 2181, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2192, and 2194 03/27/04 On

- road

Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic System Requirements for 2007 and Subsequent Model Heavy Duty Engines

. T 13, CCR, 1971 05/20/04 On

- road

Consumer Products & Methods 310/ATCM for Para

Dicholorobenzene

. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94506, 94507, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94512, 94513, 94515, and 94526, and ARB Method 310, which is incorporated by reference 06/24/04 Consumer products

Urban Bus Engines/Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, and 1956.4, 06/24/04 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from Diesel Fueled Commercial Vehicle Idling

. T 13, CCR, 2485 07/22/04 On

- road

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing Facilities. Emergency Filing

. T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04 Vapor Recovery

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T17, CCR,
94011 07/22/04 Vapor Recovery

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment Defects List . T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated document 08/24/04 Vapor Recovery

Greenhouse Gas

. T 13, CCR, 1961.1, 1900, 1961 and Incorporated Test Procedures 09/23/04 On

- roadAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase 3

. T 13, CCR, 2260, 2262, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.9, 2263, 2265 (and the incorporated ―California Procedures‖), and
2266.5 11/18/04 Fuels

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harbor C raft & Locomotives

. T 13, CCR, 2299, 2281, 2282, and 2284, and T 17, CCR,
93117 11/18/04 Fuels

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Extension

. T 17, CCR, 94011 and certification procedure 11/18/04 Vapor Recovery

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources . T 17, CCR 90805 and 90806; and 90800.8 and 90803 11/18/04 Not applicable

Emergency Regulation for Temporary Delay of Diesel Fuel Lubricity Standard

. T 13, CCR, 2284 11/24/04 Fuels

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Hexavalent Chromium and Nickel from Thermal Spraying

. T 17, CCR, 9310 2.5 12/09/04 Not applicable

Off

- Road Compression Ignition Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2427 12/09/04 Off

- road

Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205,
60210 01/20/05 Not applicable

Transit Fleet Rule

. T 13, CCR, 2023, 2023.1, 2023.2, 2023.3, 2023.4, 1956.1, 2020, 2021, repeal 1956.2, 1956.3, 1956.4 02/24/05 On

- road

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone

. T 17, CCR, 70100, 70100.1, and 70200 04/28/05 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines (amendments) . T 17, CCR, 93115 05/26/05 Other

Definition of Large Confined Animal Facility

. T 17, CCR 86500 and 86501 06/23/05 Not applicable

On

- Board Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model

- Year Heavy

- Duty Engines (HD OBD)

. T 13, CCR, 1971.1 07/21/05 On

- road

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit

. Emergency Rule

. T 13, CCR, 2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 FuelsAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

2007

- 2009 Model

- Year Heavy Duty Urban Bus Engines and the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, and 1956.8 09/15/05 On

- road

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 2 of 2]

. T 13, CCR 2467.2, 2467.3, 2467.4, 2467.5, 2467.6, 2467.7; repeal of 2467.8, and adoption of new 2467.8 and 2467.9. 09/15/05 Off road

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 1 of 2] . T 13, CCR, 2467 and 2467.1 09/15/05 Off road

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and
In

- Use Trucks, Beginning in 2008

. T 13, CCR section1956.8 and the incorporated document 10/20/05 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships Onboard Incineration . T 17, CCR, 93119 11/17/05 Off road

Marine Inboard Sterndrive Engines

. T 13 CCR 2111, 2112, 2441, 2442, 2444.2, 2445.1, 2446, 2447, and incorporated document 11/17/05 Off

- road

Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel

- Electric Engines Operated on Ocean

- Going Vessels within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline

. T 13, CCR, 2299.1 and T 17, CCR, 93118 12/08/05 Off

- road

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Duty Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities

. T 13, CCR, 2022 and
2022.1 12/08/05 On

- road

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and
Intermodal Rail Yards

. T 13, CCR, 2479 12/08/05 Off

- road

AB1009 Heavy

- Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program

. T 13, CCR, 2180, 2180.1, 2181, 2182, 2183, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2187, and 2188, 2189 01/26/06 On

- road

Identification of Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air
Contaminant

. T 17, CCR, 93000 01/26/06 Not applicable

Diesel Verification Procedure, Warranty & In

- Use

. T 13, CCR, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2706, 2707, and 2709. 03/23/06 On

- road

Technical Amendments to Evaporative Exhaust and Evaporative Emissions Test Procedures

. T 13, CCR, 1961,1976 and 1978. 05/25/06 On

- roadAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment. (Large Off

Road Spark Ignition Engines > 1 liter) T 13, CCR 2430, 2433, 2434. Adopt 2775, 2775.1, 2775.2, 2780, 2781, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 2788, and 2789. 05/26/06 Off

- road

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule

. T 13, CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06 On

- road

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17 CCR 94011 and incorporated certification 06/22/06 Vapor Recovery

Portable Equipment Registration Program

. T 13, CCR, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, and 2465 06/22/06 Off

- road

Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines . T 13, CCR, 2411

- 2413, 2415 & documents incorporated by
reference 07/20/06 Off

- road

Heavy

- Duty In

- Use Compliance Regulation

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.8, and documents incorporated by reference 09/28/06 On

- road

On

- Board Diagnostic II

. T 13, CCR, 1968.2, 1968.5, 2035, 2037 and 2038 09/28/06 On

- road

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 94201, 94201.1, 94203, 94204, & 94207

- 942142 10/19/06 Other

Zero Emission Bus Regulation . T 13, CCR, 2023.1, 2023.3, & 2023.4 10/19/06 On

- road

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guidelines

. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 and document incorporated by reference 11/16/06 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships and Ocean

- Going Ships Onboard Incineration (amendments)

. T 17, CCR, 93119 11/16/06 Off

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines (amendments, Agricultural Eng. Exemption removal)

. T 17, CCR, 93115.1

- 93115.15.t. 11/16/06 Other

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality
Standards

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, & 60210 11/16/06 Not applicable

Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94513 & 94523 11/17/06 Consumer productsAppendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Category

Emergency Regulation for Portable Equipment Registration Program

, Airborne Toxic Control Measures and Portable and Stationary diesel

- Fueled Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2452, 2455, 2456, 2461; T17 CCR 93115, 93116.2,
93116.3 12/06/06 Off

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations

. T 17, CCR,
93102.1

- 93102.16 12/07/06 Not applicable

Voluntary Accelerated Retirement Regulation

. T 13, CCR, 2601

- 2610 and appendices A

- D 12/07/06 On

- road

### B

. State Rules that Do Not Address Direct PM 2.5 

### or PM 2.5 

### Attainment Plan

Precursor s in the South Coast Nonattainment Area

A substantial number of the measures adopted by CARB since 1990 do not affect direct
PM 2.5 or a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor emissions in the South Coast nonattainment area

. The se types of measures include fee rules, identification of toxic air contaminants, area boundary designations, and controls for pollutants other than direct PM 2.5 (or PM), NO x , VOC, or SO 2

. Appendix Table A

- 2 provides a list of these measures.

Appendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address PM 2.5 

### in the South Coast Nonattainment Area
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Transported Pollutants (Ozone)

. T 17, CCR, 70500 12/04/89 Not an emission s reduction

measure

Non

- vehicular Test Methods . T 17, CCR, 94002, 94003 17, &26, 94146

- 94149, 94132, 94135, 94139, 94140 01/11/90 Not an emission s reduction

measure
Test Method for Asbestos in Serpentine Aggregate

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 94147, Method 435 04/12/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in Surfacing Applications

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 Not a PM emissions reduction

measure
Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.1, 90800, 90802

- 90803 05/10/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90704, 93300

- 93347 05/10/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Dioxins Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Medical
Waste Incinerators

. T 17, CCR, 93104 07/12/90 Not a PM emissions reduction

measure
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guidelines

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300

- 93347 06/14/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Criteria for Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard

. T 17, CCR, 70303 & 70304 06/14/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Emission s Reduction Accounting Procedures for California Clean Air Act

. T 17, CCR, 70700

- 70704 07/12/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Identi fication of Inorganic Arsenic as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/12/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Transport Mitigation Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 70600

- 70601 08/09/90 Not an emissions reduction

measureAppendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address PM 2.5 

### in the South Coast Nonattainment Area
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Air Toxic Fee Schedule & Emissions Invento ry Criteria and Guidelines

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90704, 93300

- 93347 09/13/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Revision to Designation Criteria . T 17, CCR, 60200

- 60204, 60208 11/08/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Identification of Vinyl Chloride as a Toxic Air
Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 11/13/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Identification of Chloroform as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 12/13/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Conflict of Interest Code

. T 17, CCR, 95001, et. seq. 12/13/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- V ehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.2, 90801, 90803 02/24/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Non

- Vehicular Test Methods . T 17, CCR, 94131, 94132,
94142 04/11/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure.
Acid Deposition Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90621.2, 90620, 90622 04/11/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure. Obsolete.

Administrative Hearing Procedures

. T 17, CCR, 60075.1, 60075.47 05/09/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 06/13/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Agricultural Burning Guidelines

. T 17, 80130, 80150, 80250, 80260, 80290 07/11/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Identification of Metallic & Inorganic Nickel Compounds as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 2 6, 93000 08/08/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure
State Ambient Air Quality Standard for SO 2 . T 17, CCR, 70100, 70200, 70201 10/10/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Identification of Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/10/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60200, 60209 11/14/91 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Identification of Formaldehyde as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 03/12/92 Not an emissions reduction

measureAppendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address PM 2.5 

### in the South Coast Nonattainment Area
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Atmospheric Acidity Protection Fees

. T 17, CCR,
90621.3 04/09/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.3, 90803 04/09/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Criteria for Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 70303, 70304 05/14/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Transported Air Pollutants

. T 17, CCR, 70500 05/28/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90701, 90704, 90705 07/09/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Identification of 1.3 Butadiene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/09/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure

CFC Refrigerants in Air Conditioning Systems . T 13, CCR, 2500 09/10/92 Not a PM or PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors emissions reduction

measure
Criteria for Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 70303.5,
60200

- 60203, 60205, 70303 12/10/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Transport Mitigation Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 70600, 70601 03/11/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Identification of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants as Toxic Air Contaminants

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93001, 39665,
39666 04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90622, 90621.4 04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.4, 90803 04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guidelines

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300

- 93347 06/10/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 07/08/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Mitigation Transport Pollutants

. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 08/12/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93109, 93110 10/14/93 Not a PM or PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors emissions reduction

measure

Conflict of Interest

. T 17, CCR, 90500 11/18/93 Not an emissions reduction

measureAppendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address PM 2.5 

### in the South Coast Nonattainment Area
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Criteria for Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60200

- 60202, 60204, 60206, 60208, 70300

- 70306 11/18/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.5, 90803 04/14/94 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 07/28/94 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60204 11/09/94 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.6, 90803 04/27/95 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Employee

- Based Trip Reductions Emission Formula

. T 13, CCR, 2330, 2331, 2332 06/29/95 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR, 90700

- 90705 and Appendix A 01/25/96 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Relaxation of Carbon Monoxide Emission Standards for Utility Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2403 and incorporating test procedures 01/25/96 Carbon monoxide requirement

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90803, 90800.7 04/25/96 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Basin Boundaries for Agricultural Burning (Mojave Desert, South Coast & Salton Sea)

. T 17, CCR, 60104, 60109, 60114, 80280, 80311 05/30/96 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Regulation Improvement and Repeal

. T 17, CCR, 93301

- 93355, Appendix A

- E ( emissions invento ry) 05/30/96 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Emissions Inventory Criteria & Guideline Report

. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 07/25/96 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR, 90701

- 90705 Appendix A to §§ 90700

- 90705 09/26/96 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Stationary Source Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94105, 94107, 94114, 94135, 94141, 94143, 94161 09/26/96 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60201

- 60209 11/21/96 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Transport Pollutants

. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 11/21/96 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Identification of Inorganic Lead as Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC)

. T 17, CCR, 93000 04/24/97 Not an emissions reduction

measureAppendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address PM 2.5 

### in the South Coast Nonattainment Area
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Interchangeable Emission s Reduction Credits

. T 17, CCR, 91500 05/22/97 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR
90701

- 90705 and Appendix A §§ 90700

- 90705 11/13/97 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Area Designations '97

. T 17, CCR, §§ 60201 & 60205 11/13/97 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17,CCR 90800.... 01/29/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Classifying Minor Violations

. T 17, CCR, 60090

- 60095 04/23/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating . T 17, CCR, 93102 05/21/98 Not an e missions reduction

measure

Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant . T 17, CCR, 93000 08/27/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Stationary Source Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94101

- 94104, 94106, 94108

- 94113, 941T 17

- 94124, 94137 and revision of Method 12. 10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Administrative Hearing Procedures

. T 17, CCR, 60040 and 60075.1

- 60075.45 10/22/99 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Area Designations and Criteria for the National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone

. T 17, CCR, 60301, 60202, 60205, 60206, 70300

- 70306, 70303.1 10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Air Toxics ― Hot Spots ‖ Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90701

- 90705 and Appendix A 10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards

. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/18/99 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Agricultural Burning Guidelines

. T 17 Amendments 80145, 80T 179, 80100

- 80102, 80110, 80120, 80130, 80140, 80150, 80155, 80160, 80T 170, 80180, 80200, 80210, 80230, 80240, 80250, 80260, 80270, 80280, 80290, 80300, 80310, 80311, 80320, 80330 03/23/00 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Air Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos Containing Serpentine

. T 17, CCR, 93106 07/20/00 Not a PM or PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors emissions reduction

measure

Conflict of Interest Code

. T 17, CCR, 95001, 95002, 95005, and subchapter 9 09/28/00 Not an emissions reduction

measureAppendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address PM 2.5 

### in the South Coast Nonattainment Area
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Rice Straw Conditional Burn Permit Program

. T 17, CCR, 80101, 80156

- 80158 09/28/00 Not a South Coast control measure (Sacramento Valley air basin only)

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90705 tables 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 4 10/26/00 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone

. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/16/00 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Ozone Transport Assessment

. T 17, CCR, 70500 & 70600 04/26/01 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR, 90700

- 90705 10/25/01 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Review of California Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates

. T 17, CCR, 70100,70200, and 70100.1 06/20/02 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Administrative Civil Penalties Program

. T 17, CCR, 60065.1

- 60065.45 and 60075.1

- 60075.45 12/12/02 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Ozone Transport Mitigation Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 70600 and 70601 05/22/03 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.75, 90800.9, 90804, 90800.8, 90801, 90802, and 90803 07/24/03 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Area Designation Criteria and Area Designations for State
PM 2.5 and Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210 01/22/04 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources . T 17, CCR 90805 and 90806; and 90800.8 and 90803 11/18/04 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210 01/20/05 Not an emissions reduction

measure
State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone

. T 17, CCR, 70100, 70100.1, and 70200 04/28/05 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Definition of Large Confined Animal Facility

. T 17, CCR 86500 and 86501 06/23/05 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Identification of Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, CCR, 93000 01/26/06 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Invento ry Criteria and Guidelines

. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 and document incorporated by reference 11/16/06 No t an emissions reduction

measureAppendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address PM 2.5 

### in the South Coast Nonattainment Area
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality
Standards

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, & 60210 11/16/06 Not an emissions reduction

measure

### C

. State Fuel Measures

CARB has adopted a number of revisions to its reformulated gasoline program and clean diesel program since 1990, as well as measures addressing other motor vehicle fuels and fuel
standards for off

- road sources. Appendix Table A

- 3 is a list o f these revisions.

Appendix Table A

- 3 

### Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Wintertime Limits for Sulfur in Diesel Fuel

. T 13, CCR,
2255 06/21/90 Renumber ed to section 228 1. Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Limit on Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuel

. T 13, CCR,
2256 12/13/90 Renumber ed to section 2282

. Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) (listed as 4/15/01 adoption in FR)

Diesel Fuel Regulations

- Emergency

. T 13, CCR, 2281(h), 2282(1) 10/15/93 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Small Refiner Diesel

. T 13, CCR, 2282(e)(1) 07/24/94 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Diesel Fuel Test Methods

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Approved 75 FR 26653 ( 5/12/10 )

Specifications for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel

. T 13 & T 17, CCR, 1961, 2281, 2282, 2701, 2284, 2285, 93114, and incorporated test procedure 07/24/03 Approved 75 FR 26653 ( 5/12/10 )

Emergency Regulation for Temporary Delay of Diesel Fuel Lubricity Standard

. T 13, CCR, 2284 11/24/04 Temporary delay of standard. Expired

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harbor C raft & Locomotives

. T 13, CCR, 2299, 2281, 2282, and 2284, and T 17, CCR,
93117 11/18/04 See CARB 6/29/09 Letter

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), Phase I

. T 13, CCR, 2251.5 09/27/90 RVP standard for period between 1992 and 1996

. Obsolete.

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase II

. T 13, CCR, 2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260

- 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Wintertime Gasoline Program

. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2298, 2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Predictive Model for Phase II CaRFG

. T 13, CCR, 2261,
2262

- 2270 06/09/94 Superseded by 11/18/04 &
6/14/07 rules

Test Method for Oxygen in Gasoline

. T 13, CCR, 2251.5(c), 2258(c), 2263(b) 06/29/95 Section 2251.5

- obsolete; section 2258 wintertime; section 2263, supersededAppendix Table A

- 3



### Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Wintertime Oxygenate Program

. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2251.5, 2263(b), 2267, 2298, 2259, 2283, 2293.5 09/09/93 Carbon monoxide control measure

Test Methods for CaRFG 13, CCR, 2263(b) 10/26/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

Required Additives in Gasoline (Deposit Control Additives)

. T 13, CCR, 2257 and incorporates testing procedures. 11/16/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 &
6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Housekeeping & CARBOB

. T 13, CCR, 2263.7, 2266.5, 2260, 226 2.5 , 2264, 2265, 2272 12/14/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 &
6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Variance Requirements

. T 13, CCR, 2271 (Emergency) 01/25/96 Superseded by 11/18/04 &
6/14/07 rules

Regulation Improvements and Repeals (fuel additives)

. T 13, CCR, 2201, 2202 05/30/96 R epealed sections

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Model Flexibility

. T 13, CCR, Sections 2260, 2262.1, 2262.3, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6,
2262.7 and 2265 08/27/98 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

Gasoline Deposit Control Additive Regulation

. T 13, CCR, 2257, and incorporating test procedures 09/24/98 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Increasing the Oxygen Content)

. T 13, CCR, sections 226 2.5 (b) and 2265(a)(2) 12/11/98 Wintertime gasoline for South Coast and Imperial County

.
Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requirement for Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump Labeling for
MTBE . T 13, CCR, 226 2.5 , and 2273 06/24/99 Not applicable to the SC area/Obsolete

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (Phase out of MTBE, standards, predictive model)

. T 13, CCR, 2260, 2261, 2262.1, 226 2.5 , 2263, 2264, 2264.2, 2265, 2266 etc... 12/09/99 2262.1 renumber to 2262.4; 2264 (designation of alternative limits) not approved; otherwise

super seded by 11/18/04 and
6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Test Methods . T 13, CCR, sections 2263(b) 11/16/00 Superseded by 11/18/04 &
6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Follow

- up Amendments

. T 13, CCR, sections 2260, 2261, 2262.3, 226 2.5 , 2263, 2264, 2265, 2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2272, 2273, 2282, 2296, 2297, 2262.9 and incorporated test procedures 11/16/00 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments

. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 2271, 2272, 2265, and 2296 07/25/02 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rulesAppendix Table A

- 3



### Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (specifications for De Minimus Levels of Oxygenates and MTBE Phase Out Issues)

. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262.6, 2263, 2266.5, 2272, 2273, 2260, 2273.5 12/12/02 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rule

. Approved 75 FR 26653 ( 5/12/10 ) (except for section 2272 (CARFG3 standards for small refineries) and 2273.5 (requirement to identify gasoline containing ethanol when delivered to retail station))

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase 3

. T 13, CCR, 2260, 2262, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.9, 2263, 2265 (and the incorporated ―California Procedures‖), and
2266.5 11/18/04 Approved 75 FR 26653 ( 5/12/10 )

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit

. Emergency Rule

. T 13, CCR, 2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 Operative for September and October 2005 only

. Obsolete.

Specifications for Liquid Petroleum Gas Used as a Motor Vehicle Fuel

. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 No identifiable emission s reductions

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Propane Limit Specification Delay

. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 03/27/97 Expired

### D

. State On

- Road Mobile Sources Measures

Appendix Tables A

- 4 and A

- 5 list measures adopted by C ARB since 19 90 for on

- road and off

- road sources.

Appendix Table A

- 4



### On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Certification Procedure for Aftermarket Parts

. VC 27156 &
38391 02/08/90 Compliance provisions

Emission Standards for Medium Duty Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1968.1, 2061, 2112, 2139 06/14/90 Waiver granted September 16, 1994 (59 FR 48625 (9/22/94))

Evaporative Emission Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 Waiver granted August 25, 1994 (59 FR 46979 (9/13/94))

Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1904, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1960.1.5, 1960.5 and 2111, 2112, 2125, and 2139, 2061. 09/28/90 Waivers granted January 7, 19 93 & April 6, 19 98 (58 FR 4166 (1/13/93) & 63 FR 18403 (4/15/98))

Heavy Duty Diesel Smoke Emission Testing. T 13, CCR, 2180

- 2187 11/08/90 Inspection program

Onboard Diagnostics for Light

- Duty Trucks and Light & Medium

- Duty Motor Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1977, 1968.1 09/12/91 Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96)) Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1977 11/12/91

Low Emission Vehicles amendments revising reactivity adjustment factor (RAF) provisions and adopting a RAF for
M85 transitional low emission vehicles . T 13, CCR, 1960.1 11/14/91 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 18, 1993

Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuel Certification Fuel Specification. T 13 & 26, CCR, 2290

- 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 3/12/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994

Standards and Test Procedures for Alternative Fuel Retrofit Systems

. T 13, CCR, 2030, 2031 05/14/92 Compliance provisions

Phase 2 RFG certification fuel specifications

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1956.8(d) 08/13/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994

Substitute Fuel or Clean Fuel Incorporated Test Procedure s. T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 2317 11 /12/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994

Smoke Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & Gasoline Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190

- 2194, 2180

- 2187, 1956.8(b) 12/10/92 Inspection programAppendix Table A

- 4



### On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Certification Requirements for Low Emission Passenger Cars, Light

- Duty Trucks & Medium Duty Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1976, 2061, 1900 01/14/93 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 21, 1994

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II . T 13, CCR, 1968.1 07/09/93 Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Urban Transit Buses . T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2112 06/10/93 Found within the scope September 28, 2004 ( 69 FR 59920 (October 6,
2004 ) )

Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures

. T 13, CCR, 1976 02/10/94 Waiver granted July 28, 1999 (64 FR 42689 (8/5/99))

Diesel Fuel Certification. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b)&(d), 1960.1(k), 2292.6 09/22/94 Confirm within the scope finding requested September 14, 1995

Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190

- 2194, 2180

- 2187, 1956.8(b) 11/09/94 Inspection program

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II. T 13, CCR,1963.1, &
Certification Procedures 12/08/94 Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 2190 12/08/94 Inspection program

Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures. 06/29/95 Found within the scope September 28, 2004 (69 FR 59920 (10/6/04))

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1976, 1978 and incorporate test procedures 06/29/95 Waiver granted August 13, 2002 (67 FR 54180 (8/21/02))

Retrofit Emission Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.9, 2030, 2031, and incorporate test procedures 07/27/95 Compliance provision

Low Emission Vehicle Standards 3 (LEV 3)

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1965, 2101, 2061, 2062, and incorporate test procedures 09/28/95 Confirm within the scope finding requested October 8, 1996.

Postpone Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements

. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1, 1976 03/28/96 Found within the scope January 18

, 200 1 (66 FR 7751 (1/25/01))

Diesel Fuel Certification Test Methods

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Confirm within the scope finding requested November 24, 1997

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II, Technical Status

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 2030, 2031 12/12/96 Initial notice 69 FR 5542 (February 5, 2004)

Postpone Enhanced Evaporative Emission Requirements for Ultra

- Small Volume Vehicle Manufacturers

. T 13, CCR, 1976 and incorporate test procedures 05/22/97 Found within the scope July 28, 1999 (64 FR 42689 (8/5/99))Appendix Table A

- 4



### On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Off

- Cycle Emissions Supplemental Federal Test Procedures (SFTPs)

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 2101 and incorp orate test procedures 07/24/97 Waiver granted September 30, 2004 (69 FR 60996 (10/14/04))

Heavy Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program/Periodic Smoke Inspection Program

. T 13, CCR, 2180

- 2188 and
2190

- 2194 12/11/97 Inspection program

Heavy Duty Vehicle Regulations: 2004 Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2036, 2112 and test procedures 04/23/98 Confirm within the scope finding requested December 26, 2001

Low Emission Vehicles Standards (LEV 2) and Compliance Assurance Program (CAP 2000)

. T 13, CCR,1961 & 1962 (both new); 1900, 1960.1, 1965, 1968.1, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2101, 2106, 2107, 2110, 2112, 2114, 2119, 2130, 2137

- 2140, 2143

- 2148 11/05/98 Waiver granted April 11, 2003 (68 FR 19811 (4/22/03))/found within the scope (1999 ZEV amendments) December 21, 2006 (7 1 FR 78190 (12/28/06))

Exhaust Standards for (On

- Road) Motorcycles

. T 13, CCR, 1958 12/10/98 Waiver granted July 27, 2006 (71 FR 44027 (8/3/06))

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 2600

- 2610 12/10/98 Establishes standards for a voluntary accelerated retirement program

. Revised 2/21/ 06 and 12/7/06

Clean Fuels Regulation Requirements

. T 13, CCR, sections 2300

- 2317, and 2303.5, 2311.5 07/22/99 Removal of obsolete provisions, streamlining and other minor changes to 9/1990 rule.

Transit Bus Standards . T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, 1956.4, 1956.8, 1965 02/24/00 Combination of fleet requirements, emission standards, and zero

emission bus standards

. Federal & state emission standards are the
same for 2010 MY buses.

Light

- and Medium Duty Low Emission Vehicle Alignment with Federal Standards

. Exhaust Emission Standards for Heavy Duty Gas Engines . T 13, CCR, 1956.8 &1961 12/07/00 Waiver granted for LDV & HDV April 11, 2003 (68 FR 19811 (4/22/03))

Initial notice on within

- the

- scope finding request for HDGE: 72 FR 27114 (May 14, 2007).

Heavy Duty Diesel Engines "Not

- to

- Exceed (NTE)" Test Procedures

. T 13 CCR, 1956.8, 2065 12/07/00 Confirm within the scope finding requested December 26, 2001.

Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation Update

. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1(k), 1961, 1962 & incorporated Test Procedure 01/25/01 Found within the scope December 21, 2006 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))Appendix Table A

- 4



### On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure and Standardization of Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment

. T 13, CCR, 1900(b), 1962(b) 1962.1 06/28/01 Found within the scope December 21, 2006 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards for 2007 and Later

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures 10/25/01 Waiver granted August 19, 2005 (70 FR 50322 (8/26/05))

Low Emission Vehicle Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1,19 60.5, 1961, 1962 and incorporate test procedures and guidelines 11/15/01 Found within the scope April 21,
2005 (70 FR 22034 (4/28/05))

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule

. T 13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1

- 60060.7 12/13/01 Compliance provision

. Very similar to EPA regulations at 40 CFR
86.1808.01

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations . T 13, CCR, 2601

- 2605, 2606 & appendices C & D, and 2607

- 2610 02/21/02 Establishes standards for a voluntary accelerated retirement program

. Revised 12/7/06

.
On

- Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments . T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 Initial notice 69 FR 5542 (2/5/04)

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In

- Use Compliance Requirements . T 13, CCR, 2700

- 2710 05/16/02 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit technology.

Revision to Transit Bus Regulations Amendments . T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.4,1956.8, and 2112, & documents incorporated by reference 10/24/02 Slight relaxation in requirements over 2000 rule.

Low Emission Vehicles II

. Align Heavy Duty Gas Engine Standards with Federal Standards; minor administrative changes . T 13, CCR, 1961, 1965, 1956.8, 1956.1, 1978, 2065 and documents incorporated by reference 12/12/02 Waiver granted August 19, 2005 (70 FR 50322 (8/26/05)) for all but HDGE. HDGE standards adopted to harmonize with EPA‘s. Initial noti ce on within

- the

- scope finding request for HDGE: 72 FR 27114 (5/14/07).

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from School Bus Idling . T 13, CCR, 2480 12/12/02 No emissions reductions claimed.

Zero Emission Vehicle Amendments for 2003 . T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 1961(a) and (d), 1900, 1962, and documents incorporated by reference 03/25/03 Found within the scope December 21, 2005 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))Appendix Table A

- 4



### On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Solid Waste Collection Vehicles . T 13, CCR, 2020, 2021, 2021.1, 2021.2 09/24/03 Diesel reduction program. Minimal reductions. See CARB, ― Staff Report: Initial Statement Of
Reasons

, Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure f or On

Road Heavy

- Duty Residential a nd Commercial Solid Waste Collection
Vehicles ,‖ June 6, 2003 , p. 53.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from Transport Refrigeration Units . T 13, CCR, 2022 and 2477 12/11/03 Waiver granted (non

- road) January 9, 2009 (74 FR 3030 (1/16/2009))

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In

- Use Compliance Requirements (Amendments)

. T 13, CCR, 2701

- 2707 & 2709 12/11/03 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit technology.

CA Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13, CCR, 1969 01/22/04 Compliance provision

. Very similar to EPA regulations at 40 C FR
86.1808.01

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine

- Chip Reflash. T 13, CCR, 2011, 2180.1, 2181, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2192, and 2194 03/27/04 Compliance provision.

Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic System Requirements for 2007 and Subsequent Model Heavy Duty Engines

. T 13, CCR, 1971 05/20/04 Waiver granted December 22, 2005 (71 FR 335 (1/4/06))

Urban Bus Engines/Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, and 1956.4 06/24/04 Various modifications to urban/transit bus standards.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from Diesel Fueled Commercial Vehicle Idling. T 13, CCR, 2485 07/22/04 Diesel reduction program

Greenhouse Gas Standards. T 13, CCR, 1961.1, 1900, 1961 and Incorporated Test Procedures 09/23/04 Waiver granted June 30, 2009 (74 FR 32744 (July 8, 2009)

Transit Fleet Rule. T 13, CCR, 2023, 2023.1, 2023.2, 2023.3, 2023.4, 1956.1, 2020, 2021, repeal 1956.2, 1956.3,
1956.4 02/24/05 Diesel reduction program

On

- Board Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model

- Year Heavy

- Duty Engines (HD OBD)

. T 13, CCR, 1971.1 07/21/05 Waiver granted August 13, 2008 (73 FR 52042 (9/8/08))

2007

- 2009 Model

- Year Heavy Duty Urban Bus Engines and the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, and 1956.8 09/15/05 & 10/20/05 Aligns State emission standards with

federal emission standards.Appendix Table A

- 4



### On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In

Use Trucks, Beginning in 2008

. T 13, CCR section 1956.8 and the incorporated document 10/20/05 Confirm not pre

- empted or within the scope finding requested

. Initial notice 75 FR 43975 (7/27/2010)

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Duty Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities

. T 13, CCR, 2022 and 2022.1 12/08/05 Diesel reduction program. Minimal reductions. See CARB, ― Staff Report: Initial Statement Of
Reasons

, Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure f or On

Road Heavy

- Dut y Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles Owned o r Operated By Public Agencies And Utiliti es ,‖ October 21, 2005 , p. 55.

AB1009 Heavy

- Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program

. T 13, CCR, 2180, 2180.1, 2181, 2182, 2183, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2187, and 2188, 2189 01/26/06 Requires trucks have emission
control labels

.

Diesel Verification Procedure, Warranty & In

- Use

. T 13, CCR, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2706, 2707, and 2709. 03/23/06 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit technology, supporting rule for in

use control measures.

Technical Amendments to Evaporative Exhaust and Evaporative Emissions Test Procedures

. T 13, CCR, 1961,1976 and 1978. 05/25/06 Within the scope finding July 22, 2010 (75 FR 44948 (July 27, 2010))

.

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule

. T 13, CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06 Compliance provision

. Very similar to EPA regulations at 40 CFR
86.1808.01

On

- Board Diagnostic II

. T 13, CCR, 1968.2, 1968.5, 2035,
2037 and 2038 09/28/06 Confirm within the scope finding requested

.

Heavy

- Duty In

- Use Compliance Regulation

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.8, and documents incorporated by reference 09/28/06 Compliance provision

. Compliance program "essentially identical to EPA's

. " See Updated Information Digest for the Rule.

Zero Emission Bus Regulation . T 13, CCR, 2023.1, 2023.3, & 2023.4 10/19/06 Delays ZEB requirements due to high bus costs and unproven durability, reliability and ability to produce the number of buses required by the regulation

. See Updated Information Digest.

Voluntary Accelerated Retirement Regulation

. T 13, CCR, 2601

- 2610 and appendices A

- D 12/07/06 Establishes standards for a voluntary accelerated retirement program.Appendix Table A

- 5 

### Off

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Emission Standards for Utility and Lawn and Garden Engines

. T 17, CCR, 2400 et. seq. 12/13/90 Waiver granted July 5, 1995 ( 60
FR 37440 ( 7 /2 0 /95) ) 1

- year Implementation Delay in Emission Standards for Utility Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2400, 2403

- 2407 04/08/93

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2403(c), 11(a)(1)(I)(ii), 4(a)(1)(I)(ii) 07/28/94 Within the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00))

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines

. CO Standards 1/25/96 Within the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00))

Small Off

- Road Engines (SORE)

. T 13, CCR, 2400, 2410

- 2414 03/26/98 W ithin the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69767 (11/20/00)), waiver granted (durability requirements), November 10, 20 03 ( 65 FR 65702 (1 1 / 21 /0 3 ))

.
Small Off

- Road Engines (SORE)

. T 13, CCR, 2400

- 2409, 2405.1, 2405.2, 2405.3, 2750

- 2754, 2754.1, 2754.2, 2755

- 2767, 2767.1, 2768

- 2773 and the documents incorporated by reference 09/25/03 Waiver granted, December 11,
2006 (71 FR 75536 (12/15/2006))

Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 2410

- 2414, 2111

- 2140 01/03/94 Waiver granted December 23, 1996 (61 FR 69093 (12/31/1996))

Wintertime Requirements for Utility Engines & Off

Highway Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 2403 09/26/96 Within the scope finding November 9, 2 000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00))

1997 & Later Model Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2410

- 2414, 2415 12/10/98 Within the scope finding request March 4, 2000

Off

- Highway Recreation Vehicles

. T13, CCR, 2415 07/24/03 Addition to March 4, 2000 request November 19, 2004. Made changes to riding season
restrictions

.
Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines . T 13, CCR, 2411

- 2413, 2415 & documents incorporated by
reference 07/20/06 Adopted evaporative emission standards identical to EPA's.Appendix Table A

- 5 

### Off

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Heavy Duty Diesel Cycle Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2420

- 2427 01/09/92 Waiver granted May 15, 1995 (60 FR 48981 (9/21/1995))

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95 Within the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00))

Off

- Road Compression Ignition Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2144, 2400, 2401, 2403, 2420, 2421, 2423

- 2427, & appendix A to article
2.1. 01/2 7 /00 Waiver granted, February 5, 2010 (75 FR 8056 ( 2/23/2010 )

Off

- Road Compression Ignition Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2427 12/09/04 Waiver granted February 5, 2010 (75 FR 8056 ( 2/23/2010 ) )

In

- Use Off

- Road Diesel Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 2449 07/26/07 Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment (on waiver), 75 FR 11880 (3/12/2010).

Large Off

- Road Spark

- Ignition Engine Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 2430 et seq., and 2411

- 2414 10/22/98 Waiver granted May 15, 20 06 (71 FR 29623 (5/23/2006))

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment. (Large Off

Road Spark Ignition Engines > 1 liter) T 13, CCR 2430, 2433, 2434. Adopt 2775, 2775.1, 2775.2, 2780, 2781, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 2788, and 2789. 05/26/06 Adopts EPA's Standards for 2007;

a dopts more stringent standards
for 201 0

.

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 Marine Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2440 et seq 12/10/98 Waiver granted March 22, 2007 (59 FR 14546 (March 28, 2007))

Marine Inboard Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2139, 2140, 2147, 2440

- 2442, 2443.1

- 2443.3, 2444, 2445.1, 2445.2, 2446, 2444.2 and incorporation of documents by
reference 07/26/01 Waiver granted in part March 22, 2007 (59 FR 14546 (March 28, 2007)) 2007 standards waiver granted April 26, 2011 (76 FR 24872 (5/3/11))

Marine Inboard Sterndrive Engines

. T 13 CCR 2111, 2112, 2441, 2442, 2444.2, 2445.1, 2446, 2447, and incorporated document 11/17/05 Revision to year 2007 standards in 7/26/2001 marine inboard engine standards. Waiver requested February 7, 2008.

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR,
2450

- 2465 03/27/97 Revised by June 22, 2006 rule Waiver request withdrawn/replaced by favor of December 5, 2008 request

Revisions to Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450

- 2463 12/10/98 Revised by June 22, 2006 ruleAppendix Table A

- 5 

### Off

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Modifications to the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) Regulations . T 13, CCR
Amendments to 2450

- 2465, and repeal of 2466 02/26/04 Revised by June 22, 2006 rule

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel

- Fueled Portable Engines

. T 17, CCR,93116, 93116.1, 93116.2, 93116.3, 93116.4, and 93116.5 02/26/04 Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment published February 9, 2011 (76 FR 7196)

Within

- the

- scope finding/waiver requested March 28, 2005.

Portable Equipment Registration Program

. T 13, CCR, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, and 2465 06/22/06 Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment published February 9, 2011 (76 FR 7194)

Within

- the

- scope findi ng/w aiver requested December 5, 2008

. Emergency Regulation for Portable Equipment Registration Program Airborne Toxic Control Measures and Portable and Stationary diesel

- Fueled Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2452, 2455, 2456, 2461; T17 CCR 93115, 93116.2,
93116.3 12/06/06 Expired.

Portable Equipment Registration Program and Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel

- Fueled Portable Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2451, 2452, 2456, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, and 2462, T 17, CCR, 93116.1, 93116.2, 93116.3 , 93116.3.1 03/22/07 Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment published February 9, 2011 (76 FR 7194)

Within

- the

- scope finding/w aiver requested December 5, 2008

.

Aftermarket Parts for Off

- Road Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2470

- 2476 11/19/98 Compliance measure

Portable Container Spillage Control Measure

. T 13, CCR, 2470

- 2478 09/23/99 Similar federal regulation. 40 CFR part 59, subpart F.

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 1 of 2] . T 13, CCR, 2467 and 2467.1 09/15/05 Similar federal regulation. 40 CFR part 59, subpart F.

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 2 of 2]

. T 13, CCR 2467.2, 2467.3, 2467.4, 2467.5, 2467.6, 2467.7; repeal of 2467.8, and adoption of new 2467.8 and 2467.9. 09/15/05 Similar federal regulation. 40 CFR part 59, subpart F.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate for Transport Refrigeration Units . T 13, CCR, 2022 &
2477 12/11/03 Waiver granted (non

- road) January 9, 200 9 (74 FR 3030 (1/16/2009))Appendix Table A

- 5 

### Off

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and
Intermodal Rail Yards

. T 13, CCR, 2479 12/08/05 Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment published February 1, 2011 (76 FR 5586)

Within

- the

- scope finding and

w aiver request January 29, 20 07

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships Onboard Incineration . T 17, CCR, 93119 11/17/05 See Initial Statement of Reasons for Rule, p. II

- 1.

Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel

- Electric Engines Operated on Ocean

- Going Vessels within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline

. T 13, CCR, 2299.1 and T 17, CCR, 93118 12/08/05

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships and Ocean

- Going Ships Onboard Incineration (amendments)

. T 17, CCR, 93119 11/16/06 Air toxics control measure

Ocean

- Going Vessels At Berth (Shore Power)

. T 13, CCR, 2299.3 and T 17, CCR, 93118.3 and documents incorporated by reference 12/06/07 No emission s reductions claimed

Commercial Harbor Craft

. T 13, CCR, 2222 and incorporated "California Evaluation Procedures for New Aftermarket Catalytic Converters" 11/15/07 No emission s reductions claimed

Cleaner Fuels in Ocean

- Going Vessel Main Engines and Auxiliary Boiler

. T 13, CCR, 2299.2 and T 17, CCR, section 93118.2 07/24/08 Proposed approval signed June 29, 2011

### E

. State Consumer Product Measures

California has been regulating the VOC content of consumer products for 20 years and continues to tighten standards and regulate more products. Appendix Table A

- 6 is a list of CARB‘s rulemaking actions on consumer products since 1990.

Appendix Table A

- 6 

### Consumer Products Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Antiperspirant/Deodorants

. T 17, CCR, 94500

- 94506 11/09/89 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379)

Consumer Products BAAQMD

. T 17, CCR, 94520

- 94526 06/14/90 Not applicable to the South Coast

area

Phase I

- Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94507

- 94517 10/11/90 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379)

Phase II

- Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94502, 94505, 94514, 94503.5, 94506, 94507

- 94513, 94515 01/09/92 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379)

Notice of General Public Interest for Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94507

- 94517 11/30/92 Not a control measure

Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94540

- 94555 09/22/94 Voluntary compliance option

. No action.

Aerosol Coating Products and Alternative Control Plan

. T 17, CCR, 94520

- 94528, 94540

- 94543, 94547. 03/23/95 Superseded by 6/22/00 rule.

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, and Aerosol Coating Products

. T 17, CCR, 94500

- 94506, 94508, 94521 09/28/95 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for antiperspirants and deodorants; superseded by 11/17/06 rule for consumer products; superseded by 11/17/06 rule for aerosol coating products.

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, Aerosol Coating Products (ARB Test Method 310)

. T 17, CCR, 94506(a), 94515(a), 94526 11/21/96 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for antiperspirants and deodorants; superseded by 11/17/16 rule for consumer products; superseded by 11/17/06 rule for aerosol coating products

. Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products
Amendments

. T 17, CCR, 94508

- 94515, 99517, 94321 11/21/96 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products (Hair Spray) Amendments

. T 17, CCR, 94509, 94513, 94514 03/27/97 Voluntary compliance option

. No action.Appendix Table A

- 6 

### Consumer Products Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Consumer Products (Mid

- Term Measures) Amendments

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94513 07/24/97 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products (Hairspray Credit Program)

. T 17, CCR, 94502, 94509, 94522, & 94548 11/13/97 Voluntary compliance option

. No action.

Consumer Products, Aerosol Coatings & Antiperspirants and Deodorants

. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94508, 94521, 94522, and 94524 11/19/98 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products

- LVP

- VOC Definitions And Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94506, 94506.5, 94508(a)(78), 94515 and 94526, and the amendment of CARB Method
310 11/19/98 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for test method 310 and 11/17/06
rule for rest.

California Consumer Products Regulation Mid

- Term
Measures II

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, and 94513 10/28/99 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products Aerosol Adhesives Control Measure

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94512, 94513 05/25/00 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Aerosol (Paint) Coatings Products

. T 17, CCR, 94700, 94701, 94521

- 94524, 94526 06/22/00 Approved 9/13/05 70 FR 53920; superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Antiperspirant and Deodorant Reg ulations. T 17, CCR, 94502, 94504 10/26/00 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule

Revised Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity Values

. T 1, CCR, 94700. 12/03/03 Approved 9/13/05 70 FR 53920; superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products & Methods 310/ATCM for Para

Dicholorobenzene

. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94506, 94507, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94512, 94513, 94515, and 94526, and CARB Method 310, which is incorporated by
reference 06/24/04 Approved November 4, 2009 (74 FR 57074) (EO order date of 5/6/05)

Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94513 & 94523 11/17/06 Approved November 4, 2009 (74 FR 57074) (EO order date 9/16/07)

### F

. State Vapor Recovery Measures

Under California State law (Health and Safety Code Sections 41954), C ARB is required to adopt procedures and performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from ga soline marketing operations, including transfer and storage operations

. State law a lso authorizes C ARB, in cooperation with the districts, to certify vapor recovery systems, identify defective equipment, and develop test methods

. The installation and operation of C ARB

- certified vapor recovery equipment is required and enforced by Distric t Rules 461 and 462. Appendix Table A

- 7 is a list of rulemaking actions taken by C ARB since 19 90 that address vapor recovery equipment certification, defects, and/or test methods.

Appendix Table A

- 7 

### Gasoline Vapor Recovery Measures Adopted by the Califo rnia Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17, CCR, 94010

- 94015, 94150

- 94160, 94000

- 94004, 94007. 06/29/95

C ARB sets requirements for and certifies vapor recovery equipment. District rules establish requirements for the installation of C ARB

- certified equipment. See SCAQMD Rules 461 & 462 Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17, CCR, 94010

- 94015 and 94150, 94156, 94157, 94158, 94159, 94160, 94162 08/27/98

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17, CCR, 94011, 94153, 94155, and incorporate d test procedures, CP

- 201,
TP

- 201.4, and TP

- 201.6 06/24/99

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (In Station Diagnostics and Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery)

. T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (Emergency Filing CP

- 201, section 18)

. T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Methods and Compliance Procedures

. T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94153, 94155, 94163, 94164, 94165 & incorporated procedures 10/25/01

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Defects . T 17, CCR, 94006 and incorporated document. 11/15/01

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Procedures . T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94163, 94164, and 94165 and procedures incorporated by reference, and 94166, 94167, and incorporation by reference. 12/12/02

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04Appendix Table A

- 7 

### Gasoline Vapor Recovery Measures Adopted by the Califo rnia Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing Facilities. Emergency Filing . T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment Defects List . T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated document 08/24/04

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Extension

. T 17, CCR, 94011 and certification procedure 11/18/04

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems . T 17 CCR 94011 and incorporated certification 06/22/06

Vapor Recovery Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST)

. T 17 , CCR, 94010

, 94011

, 94016 and 94168 and incorporated documents 06/21/07

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment Defects List. T 17, CCR, 94006 N/A

### G. Other State Measures

A number of CARB measures do not fall into one of the categories of measures listed in Appendix Tables A

- 2 through A

- 7. These measures are listed below in Appendix Table A

- 8.

Appendix Table A

- 8 

### Other Not Previously Listed Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Airborne Air Toxic Measure for Ethylene Oxide from
Sterilizers & Aerators

. T 17, CCR, 93108 05/10/90 Covered by District Rule 7021

. E missions in category are less than 0.01 tpd VOC

Controls for Abrasive Blasting

. T 17, CCR, 92000, 92200, 92400, 98500, 98510, 92520, 92530 11/08/90 Small source category in South Coast

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emission of Toxic Metals from N on

- Ferrous Metal Melting. T 17 & 26, CCR, 93107 12/10/92 Adopted as District Rule 7060

.

Air Toxic Control Measure for Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facilities

. T 17, CCR, 93111 04/27/00 Mainly addresses non

- VOC

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos from Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining

. T 17, CCR, 93105 07/26/01 Mainly addresses air toxics

Air Toxic Control Measures for Auto and Mobile Equip ment Refinishing Coatings C ontaining Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium Compounds

. T 17, CCR, 93112 09/20/01 Air toxic control measures prohibits additives with hexavalent chromium. Total emissions CA are less than 300 lb per year. ISOR, p. V

- 2.

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 94200

- 94214 11/15/01 Minimal impact, few units certified

. See ISOR for 9/28/06
rule amendment

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor Residential Waste Burning

. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/ 21/02 Regulated by Rules 4103 & 4106

. Rule 4103 revised 5/17/07

, approved 75 FR 74 FR 57907 (11/10/09)

. Rule 4106 (revised 6/21/01), approved 67 FR 8894 (2/27/02) ; additional revision in
2010

.Appendix Table A

- 8 

### Other Not Previously Listed Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing
Date Comments

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines

. T 17, CCR 93115 & documents incorp orate by reference 2/26/04 PM control measure

. NO
x regulated by Rule 4702. (approved 73 FR 1819 (1/10/08)). PM reductions are expected to be achieved primarily by replacement of existing engines as a result of
District rule.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Hexavalent Chromium and Nickel from Thermal Spraying

. T 17, CCR, 9310 2.5 12/09/04 Air toxic control measures. Total emissions (chromium & nickel in CA are less than 200 lb per year. ISOR, p. IV

- 6 to 8.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines (amendments) . T 17, CCR, 93115 05/26/05 3/17/05 Revisions to 2/26/04 rule. PM control measure

.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines (amendments, In

- Use Agricultural Eng. Exemption removal)

. T 17, CCR,
93115.1

- 93115.15.t. 11/16/06 PM control measure

. NO
x regulated by Rule 4702. (approved 73 FR 1819 (1/10/08)) PM reductions are expected to be achieved primarily by replacement of existing engines as a result of
District rule.

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 94201, 94201.1, 94203, 94204, & 94207

- 942142 10/19/06 Addition of 2013 standards NO
x and VOC standards for DG units which burn waste gas.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations

. T 17, CCR,
93102.1

- 93102.16 12/07/06 Air toxic control measures. Total emissions in CA are 14.4 lb per year. ISOR, p. 49.

## Appendix B

– SCAQMD RulesTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO
x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO
x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal

Register Cite Comments

223 Large Confined Animal Feeding

Operations 6/2 /06 3/17/09 n/a n/a Baseline measure

401 Visible Emissions 11/09/01 7/10/84 1/29/85 50 FR 3907 Baseline measure

403 Fugitive Dust 6/3/05 10/20/05 03/10/ 08 73 FR 12639 Baseline measure

431.2. Sulfur Content Of Liquid Fuels 9/15/ 00 12/31/90 06/08/99 64 FR 30396 Baseline measure

442 Usage Of Solvents 12/15/ 00 05/08/01 05/23/02 67 FR 36105 Baseline measure

444 Open Burning 11/7/ 08 1/22/02 4/8/02 67 FR 16644 Baseline and control strategy measure

445 Wood Burning Devices 03/07/ 08 07/18/08 6/11/2009 74 FR 27716 Control Strategy

measure

461 Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing 03/07/ 08 10/20/05 4/11/06 71 FR 18216 Baseline and control strategy measure

462 Organic Liquid Loading 05/14/ 99 06/03/99 07/21/99 64 FR 39037 Baseline measure

463 Organic Liquid Storage 05/6/ 05 10/20/05 01/04/07 72 FR 267 Baseline measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO
x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO
x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal

Register Cite Comments

1102 Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners 11/7/2000 5/08/01 7/17/02 67 FR 46876 Baseline measure

1103 Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics

Manufacturing 3/12/99 5/13/99 7/21/99 64 FR 39037 Baseline measure

1104 Wood Flat Stock Coating Operation 8/13/99 10/29/99 3/22/00 65 FR 15240 Baseline measure

1105 Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units

- SOx 9/1/84 2/6/85 7/12/90 55 FR 28624 Baseline measure

1105.1 Reduction of PM and NH3 emissions

from Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units 11/7/03 6/3/04 1/4/06 71 FR 241 Baseline measure

1106 Marine Coating Operations 1/13/95 2/24/95 7/14/95 60 FR 36225 Baseline measure

1106.1 Pleasure Craft Coating Operations 2/12/99 6/3/99 8/31/99 64 FR 47390 Baseline measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO
x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO
x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal

Register Cite Comments

1107 Coating of Metal Parts and Products 1/6/06 5/8/07 11/24/08 73 FR 70883 Baseline and control strategy measure

1108 Cutback Asphalt 2/1/85 4/12/85 7/12/90 55 FR 28624 Baseline measure

1108.1 Emulsified Asphalt 11/4/83 10/25/84 1/24/85 50 FR 3338 baseline measure

1109 NOx Emissions from Boilers and

Process Heaters

– Petroleum Refineries 8/5/88 3/26/90 1/13/00 65 FR 2052 Baseline measure

1110.2 Emissions from Gaseous and Liquid

Fueled Engines 2/1/08 5/20/08 4/17/09 74 FR 18995 Control strategy measure

1111 NOx emissions from Natural

- Gas

Fired, Fan type Central Furnaces 11/6/09 5/17/10 8/4/10 75 FR 46845 Control strategy measure

1112 NOx from Cement Kilns 6/6/86 10/10/86 6/25/90 55 FR 25832 Baseline measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO
x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO
x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal

Register Cite Comments

1112.1 PM from Cement Kilns 12/4/09 7/20/10 09/2/98 63 FR 46659 Baseline and control strategy measure

1113 Architectural coatings 7/13/07 3/07/08 8/17/11 76 FR 50891 Baseline and control strategy measure

1115 Motor Vehicle Assembly Line

Coating Operations 5/12/95 6/16/95 7/14/95 60 FR 36225 Baseline measure

1117 NOx emissions from Glass Melting

Furnaces 1/6/84 2/6/85 7/12/90 55 FR 28624 Baseline measure

1118 Refinery flares 11/4/05 10/5/06 8/28/07 72 FR 49196 Baseline measure

1121 Control of NOx from Residential type

natural

- gas

- fired water heaters 9/3/04 7/18/08 5/6/09 74 FR 20880 Baseline and control strategy measure

1122 Solvent Degreasers 10/1/04 1/13/05 2/8/06 71 FR 6350 Baseline measure

1123 Refinery Process Turnarounds 12/7/90 5/13/91 8/11/92 57 FR 35758 Baseline measure

1124 Aerospace Assembly and Component

Manufacturing Operations 9/21/01 1/22/02 8/13/02 67 FR 52611 Baseline measure

1125 Metal Container, Closure, and Coil

Coating Operations 03/7/08 4/6/09 12/21/09 74 FR 67844 Baseline and control strategy measure

1126 Magnet Wire Coating Operations 1/13/95 2/24/95 6/13/95 60 FR 31081 Baseline measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO
x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO
x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal

Register Cite Comments

1127 Emissions Reductions from Livestock

Waste 8/6/04 10/5/06 n/a n/a Control strategy

measures

1128 Paper, Fabric, and Film Coating

Operations 3/8/96 7/23/96 5/4/99 64 FR 23774 Baseline measure

1130 Graphic Arts 10/8/99 1/21/00 9/13/00 65 FR 55201 Baseline measure

1130.1 Screen Printing Operations 12/13/96 3/3/97 8/21/98 63 FR 44792 Baseline measure

1131 Food Product Manufacturing and

Processing Operations 6/6/03 8/11/03 1/22/04 69 FR 3018 Baseline measure

1132 Further Control of VOC from High

Emitting Spray Booths 5/5/06 1/10/10 4/26/04 69 FR 22445 Baseline measure

1133, 1133.1, 1133.2 Composting and Related Operations 1/10/03 6/5/03 7/ 21/04 69 FR 43518 Baseline measure

1134 NOx from Stationary Gas Turbines 8/8/97 3/10/98 8/1/00 65 FR 46873 Baseline measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO
x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO
x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal

Register Cite Comments

1135 NOx from Electric Power Generating

Systems 7/9/91 1/28/92 8/11/98 63 FR 42721 Baseline measure

1136 Wood Products Coatings 6/14/96 8/28/96 8/18/98 63 FR 44132 Baseline measure

1137 PM10 Reduction from Woodworking

Operations 2/1/02 11/9/02 1/22/04 69 FR 3018 Baseline measure

1138 Control of Emissions from Restaurant

Operations 11/14/97 3/10/98 7/11/01 66 FR 36170 Baseline measure

1140 Abrasive Blasting 8/2/85 11/12/85 09/28/81 46 FR 47451 Baseline measure

1141 Control of VOC Emissions from

Resin Manufacturing 11/17/00 3/14/01 8/13/02 67 FR 52611 Baseline measure

1141.1 Coatings and Ink Manufacturing 11/17/00 3/14/01 2/12/02 67 FR 6410 Baseline measure

1141.2 Surfactant Manufacturing 1/11/02 5/21/02 8/26/03 68 FR 51181 Baseline measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO
x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO
x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal

Register Cite Comments

1142 Marine Tank Vessel Operations 7/19/91 01/28/92 12/13/94 59 FR 64132 Baseline measure

1143 Consumer paint thinners and

multipurpose solvents 12/3/10 4/5/11 proposed approval 7/15/11 76 FR 41744 Control strategy

measure

1144 Metalworking fluids and direct

contact lubricants 7/9/10 4/5/11 proposed approval
7/15 /1 1 76 FR 41744 Control strategy

measure

1145 Plastic, Rubber, Leather and Glass

Coatings 12/3/09 5/17/10 7/14 /1 0 75 FR 40726 Control strategy

measure

1146 NOx from Industrial, Institutional, and

Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 9/5/08 7/20/10 Proposed limited approval/limi ted disapproval 7/8/11 76 FR 40303 Control strategy

measure

1146.1 NOx from Industrial, Institutional, and

Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 9/5/08 7/20/10 Proposed limited approval/limi ted disapproval 7/8/ 11 76 FR 40303 Control strategy

measure

1146.2 NOx from Large Water Heaters and

Small Boilers 5/5/06 3/7/08 12/5/08 73 FR 74027 Baseline measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO
x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO
x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal

Register Cite Comments

1147 NOx Reductions from Miscellaneous

Sources 12/5/08 5/17/10 8/4/10 75 FR 46845 Control strategy measure

1148 Thermally Enhanced Oil Recovery

Wells 11/5/82 2/3/83 10/19/84 49 FR 41028 Baseline measure

1148.1 Oil and gas production wells 0 3/ 0 5/04 0 1/10/10 9/29/11 76 FR 60376 Baseline measure; first time this rule has been submitted to EPA
1149 Storage Tank Degassing 05/02/08 04/06/09 12/21/09 74 FR 67821 Control strategy measure

1150.1 Control of Gaseous Emissions from

Active Landfills 0 3/17/00 0 7/26/00 0 7/ 0 1/02 67 FR 44062 Baseline measure

1151 Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment

Non

- Assembly Line Coating Operations 12/ 0 2/05 0 6/

0 4/09 12/29/09 74 FR 68759 Baseline measure

1153 Commercial Bakery Ovens 0 1/13/95 0 2/24/95 0 8/ 0 8/95 60 FR 40285 Baseline measure

1156 PM10 Emissions Reductions from

Cement Manufacturing 3/6/09 4/29/09 3/10/08 73 FR 12639 Control s trategy measure

1157 PM10 Emissions Reductions from

Aggregate and Related Operations 9/8/06 5/17/10 n/a n/a Baseline and control strategy measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO
x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO
x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal

Register Cite Comments

1158 Storage, Handling and Transport of

Petroleum Coke 7/11/08 12/23/08 11/10/09 74 FR 57907 Control strategy measure

1159 Nitric Acid Units

- NOx

- 12/6/85 2/10/86 7/12/90 55 FR 28622 Baseline measure

1162 Polyester Resin Operations 7/8/05 4/6/09 2/12/02 67 FR 6410 Baseline measure

1164 Semiconductor Manufacturing 1/13/95 2/24/95 2/1/96 61 FR 3579 Baseline measure

1166 VOC Emissions from Decontaminated

Soil 7/14/95 10/13/95 8/17/98 63 FR 43884 Baseline measure

1168 Adhesive and Sealant Applications 1/7/05 4/29/09 12/12/03 68 FR 69320 Baseline measure

1171 Solvent Cleaning Operations 02/01/08 4/5/11 9/29/11 76 FR 60376 Baseline and control strategy measureTable Appendix B

- 1 

### Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NO
x , 

### VOC, P M, and SO
x

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal

Register Cite Comments

1173 Fugitive VOC Emissions 2/6/09 1/10/10 5/5/10 75 FR 24406 Baseline and c ontrol strategy measure

1174 Control of VOC Emissions from the

Ignition of Barbecue Charcoal 10/5/90 5/13/91 10/4/94 59 FR 50498 Baseline measure

1175 Control of Emissions from the

Manufacture of Polymeric Cellular (Foam) Products 9/7/07 3/7/08 5/5/10 75 FR 24406 Baseline measure and control strategy measure

1176 Sumps and Wastewater Separators 9/3/96 11/26/96 10/7/02 67 FR 62376 Baseline measure

1178 Further Reductions of VOC Emissions

From Storage Tanks at Petroleum Facilities 12/21/01 5/21/02 8/26/03 68 FR 51181 Baseline measure

1179 Publicly Owned Treatment Works

Operations 3/6/92 9/14/92 10/4/94 58 FR 50498 Baseline measure

1186 PM10 Emissions from Paved and

Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations 7/11/08 12/23/08 11/14/05 70 FR 69081 Baseline and control strategy measure.

1189 Emission from Hydrogen Plant

Process Vents 1/21/00 7/26/00 6/8/01 66 FR 30815 Baseline measure

2000

- 2015 RECLAIM 11/4/10 4/5/11 8/12/2011 76 FR 50128 Baseline and control strategy measure