```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57846-57869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23656]

[[Page 57845]]

Vol. 76

Friday,

No. 180

September 16, 2011

Part III

Environmental Protection Administration

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

40 CFR Part 50

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin 
Valley; Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 57846]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0589; FRL-9464-9]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San 
Joaquin Valley; Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve state implementation plan (SIP) 
revisions submitted by California to provide for attainment of the 1997 
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards in the San Joaquin 
Valley (SJV). These SIP revisions are the 2007 Ozone Plan (revised 2008 
and 2011) and SJV-related portions of the 2007 State Strategy (revised 
2009 and 2011). EPA is proposing to approve the emissions inventories, 
reasonably available control measures demonstration, provisions for 
transportation control strategies and measures, provisions for advanced 
technology/clean fuels for boilers, reasonable further progress (RFP) 
and attainment demonstrations, transportation conformity motor vehicle 
emissions budgets for all RFP milestone years and the attainment year, 
contingency measures for failure to make RFP or attain, and Clean Air 
Act section 182(e)(5) new technologies provisions and associated 
commitment to adopt contingency measures. EPA is also proposing to 
approve commitments to measures and reductions by the SJV Air Pollution 
Control District and the California Air Resources Board. In the 
alternative, EPA is proposing to disapprove the SIP with respect to 
certain provisions for transportation control strategies and measures 
sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle 
miles traveled or the number of vehicle trips.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 17, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0622, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions.
     E-mail: wicher.frances@epa.gov.
     Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office of Air Planning (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be 
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity 
or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 
comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will 
be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 
If EPA cannot read your comments due to technical difficulties and 
cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider 
your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site and in hard 
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 
94105. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some 
documents may be publicly available only at the hard copy location 
(e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at 
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please 
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
    Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at 
the following locations:
     California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, 
California 95812, and
     San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 1990 E. 
Gettysburg, Fresno, California 93726.
    The SIP materials are also electronically available at: http://aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/index.html, http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/AQ_Final_Adopted_Ozone2007.htm and http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office 
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3957, wicher.frances@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. The 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the San Joaquin Valley Ozone 
Nonattainment Area
    A. Background on the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
    B. The SJV 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
II. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Attainment 
SIPs
III. California's State Implementation Plan Submittals To Address 
Ozone Attainment in the San Joaquin Valley
    A. California's SIP Submittals
    B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP 
Submissions
IV. Review of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan and SJV Portion of the 2007 
State Strategy
    A. Emissions Inventories
    B. Reasonably Available Control Measures Demonstration and 
Control Strategy
    C. Attainment Demonstration
    D. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration
    E. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control 
Measures To Offset Emissions Increases From VMT Increases, To 
Provide for RFP and Attainment
    F. Contingency Measures
    G. Advanced Control Technology and Clean Fuels for Boilers
    H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
    I. Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas
V. EPA's Proposed Actions
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

I. The 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard and the San Joaquin Valley Ozone 
Nonattainment Area

A. Background on the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    Ground-level ozone pollution is formed by the reaction of volatile 
organic compounds (VOC) \1\ and nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the 
atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, referred 
to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources 
including on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and 
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden 
equipment and paints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ California plans sometimes use the term Reactive Organic 
Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms are essentially synonymous. For 
simplicity, we use the term VOC to mean either VOC or ROG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects 
occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in children and adults 
with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung 
function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms 
and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases. Ozone exposure also has 
been associated with increased susceptibility to respiratory

[[Page 57847]]

infections, medication use, doctor visits, and emergency department 
visits and hospital admissions for individuals with lung disease. Ozone 
exposure also increases the risk of premature death from heart or lung 
disease. Children are at increased risk from exposure to ozone because 
their lungs are still developing and they are more likely to be active 
outdoors, which increases their exposure. See ``Fact Sheet, Proposal to 
Revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone,'' January 
6, 2010 and 75 FR 2938 (January 19, 2010).
    On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standard) for ozone to replace 
the existing 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) with 
an 8-hour standard set at 0.08 ppm. 62 FR 33856.\2\ EPA revised the 
ozone standard after considering substantial evidence from numerous 
health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated 
with exposures to ozone concentrations above the levels of these 
revised standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary 
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering 
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The SJV 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required 
by Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the 
Nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, EPA 
designated the SJV as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 
and classified the area as ``serious'' under CAA section 181(a)(1) and 
40 CFR 51.903(a), Table 1. See 69 FR 23858 at 23888-89 (April 30, 2004) 
and 40 CFR 81.305. The designation and classification became effective 
on June 15, 2004. In 2007, California requested that EPA reclassify the 
SJV from ``serious'' to ``extreme'' nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone standard under CAA section 181(b)(3).\3\ We granted California's 
request on May 5, 2010 and reclassified the SJV to extreme 
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard effective June 4, 
2010. See 75 FR 24409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 07-04-11a (April 
30, 2007), p. 4; CARB Resolution No. 07-20 (June 14, 2007), p. 6; 
and letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne 
Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SJV 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is home to almost 4 million 
people and is the Nation's leading agricultural area. Stretching over 
250 miles from north to south and averaging 80 miles wide, it is 
partially enclosed by the Coast Mountain range to the west, the 
Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sierra Nevada range to the 
east. It encompasses over 23,000 square miles and includes all or part 
of eight counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, 
Tulare, Kings, and the valley portion of Kern. For a precise 
description of the geographic boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305. The local air 
district which has primary responsibility for developing a plan to 
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in this area, is the San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or District).
    Ambient 8-hour ozone values in the SJV vary depending on the 
location with the highest values being recorded on its eastern edge 
from Fresno to south of Bakersfield. For the 2008-2010 period, the 8-
hour ozone design value for the area is 0.104 ppm, recorded at the 
Arvin-Bear Mountain Boulevard monitoring site southeast of 
Bakersfield.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See EPA, Air Quality System Preliminary Design Report dated 
September 18, 2011 in the docket for today's proposal. A design 
value is an ambient concentration calculated using a specific 
methodology to evaluate monitored air quality data and is used to 
determine whether an area's air quality meets a NAAQS. The 
methodology for calculating design values for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
is found in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment 
Area SIPs

    States must implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under Title 1, 
part D of the CAA, which includes section 172, ``Nonattainment plan 
provisions,'' and subpart 2, ``Additional Provisions for Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas'' (sections 181-185).
    In order to assist states in developing effective plans to address 
their ozone nonattainment problem, EPA issued the 8-hour ozone 
implementation rule. This rule was finalized in two phases. The first 
phase of the rule addresses classifications for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard, applicable attainment dates for the various classifications, 
and the timing of emissions reductions needed for attainment. See 69 FR 
23951 (April 30, 2004). The second phase addresses SIP submittal dates 
and the requirements for reasonably available control technology and 
measures (RACT and RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP) 
demonstration, modeling and attainment demonstrations, contingency 
measures, and new source review. See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). 
The rule is codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X.\5\ We discuss each 
of these CAA and regulatory requirements for 8-hour ozone nonattainment 
plans in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA has revised or proposed to revise several elements of 
the 8-hour ozone implementation rule since its initial promulgation 
in 2004. See, e.g., 74 FR 2936 (January 16, 2009); 75 FR 51960 
(August 24, 2010); and 75 FR 80420 (December 22, 2010). None of 
these revisions affect any provision of the rule that is applicable 
to EPA's proposed actions on the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. California's State Implementation Plan Submittals To Address Ozone 
Attainment in the San Joaquin Valley

A. California's SIP Submittals

    Designation of an area as nonattainment starts the process for a 
state to develop and submit to EPA a SIP providing for attainment of 
the NAAQS under title 1, part D of the CAA. For 8-hour ozone areas 
designated as nonattainment effective June 15, 2004, this SIP was due 
by June 15, 2007. See CAA 172(b) and 40 CFR 51.908(a) and 51.910.
    California has made five SIP submittals to address the CAA's 
planning requirements for attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in 
the San Joaquin Valley. We refer to these submittals collectively as 
the ``[SJV] 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP.'' The two principal ones are the 
SJVUAPCD's 2007 Ozone Plan (also Plan) and the California Air Resources 
Board's (CARB) State Strategy for California's 2007 State 
Implementation Plan (2007 State Strategy).
1. SJV 2007 Ozone Plan
    The 2007 Ozone Plan was adopted by the District's Governing Board 
on April 30, 2007 and by CARB on June 14, 2007 and submitted to EPA on 
November 16, 2007.\6\ It includes an attainment demonstration, 
commitments by the SJVUAPCD to adopt control measures to achieve 
emissions reductions from sources under its jurisdiction (primarily 
stationary sources), and motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) used 
for transportation conformity purposes. The attainment demonstration 
includes air quality modeling, an analysis of CAA section 172 
reasonably available control

[[Page 57848]]

measures (RACM), base year and projected year emissions inventories, 
and contingency measures. On April 24, 2009, CARB submitted a minor 
amendment to the 2007 Ozone Plan's strategy to extend the adoption date 
for Control Measure S-Gov-5 ``Composting Green Waste.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 
District (SJVUAPCD) Governing Board Resolution 07-04-11a: In the 
Matter of Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 
Control District 2007 Ozone Plan, April 30, 2007; CARB Resolution 
No. 07-20, June 14, 2007; letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 
Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 
November 16, 2007 with enclosures; and letter, James N. Goldstene, 
Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA 
Region 9, February 1, 2008 with enclosures (revising the RFP 
demonstrations for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air 
basins).
    \7\ See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 08-12-18, 
December 18, 2008; and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 
Officer, CARB to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA 
Region 9, April 24, 2009, with enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. CARB 2007 State Strategy
    To demonstrate attainment, the 2007 Ozone Plan relies to a large 
extent on measures and commitments in CARB's 2007 State Strategy. The 
2007 State Strategy was adopted by CARB on September 27, 2007 and 
submitted to EPA on November 16, 2007.\8\ It describes CARB's overall 
approach to addressing, in conjunction with local plans, attainment of 
both the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in all 
nonattainment areas in the State, including the San Joaquin Valley. It 
also includes CARB's commitments to propose 15 defined State measures 
\9\ and to obtain specific amounts of aggregate reductions of VOC and 
NOX emissions in the SJV from sources under the State's 
jurisdiction, which are primarily on- and off-road motor vehicles and 
engines, consumer products, and fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted the ``Status Report on the State 
Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and 
Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 
State Strategy,'' dated March 24, 2009 and adopted April 24, 2009 (2009 
State Strategy Status Report).\10\ This submittal updated the 2007 
State Strategy to reflect its implementation during 2007 and 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See CARB Resolution No. 09-34, April 24, 2009, with 
attachments and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, 
to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 
12, 2009 with enclosures. Only pages 11-27 of the 2009 State 
Strategy Status Report are submitted as a SIP revision. The balance 
is for informational purposes only. See Attachment A to the CARB 
Resolution No. 09-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In today's proposal, we are evaluating only those portions of the 
2007 State Strategy and its revisions that are relevant for attainment 
of the 8-hour standard in the San Joaquin Valley.
3. CARB 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions
    On July 29, 2011, CARB submitted 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,'' dated 
June 20, 2011 and adopted July 21, 2011 (2011 Ozone SIP Revisions).\11\ 
This submittal updates both the 2007 State Strategy and the SJV 2007 
Ozone Plan. Specifically, it amends CARB's rulemaking schedule for the 
Agricultural Engines measure.\12\ It also updates the emissions 
inventories, RFP demonstration, contingency measures, and 
transportation conformity MVEB for the SJV to reflect rule adoptions 
and improvements to emissions inventories. CARB provided supplemental 
documentation for the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions on August 10, 2011 (2011 
Ozone SIP Revision Supplement).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See CARB Resolution No. 11-22, July 21, 2011 and letter, 
James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, 
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, July 29, 2011, with 
enclosures.
    \12\ In May 2011, CARB adopted other updates and revisions to 
its rulemaking schedule in the 2007 State Strategy. See CARB, 
Progress Report on Implementation of PM2.5 State Implementation 
Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins 
and Proposed SIP Revisions, submitted on May 18, 2011 (2011 Progress 
Report). We proposed to approve those revisions on July 13, 2011 (76 
FR 41338).
    \13\ Letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Office, CARB, to 
Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, August 10, 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Future references in this proposal to the 2007 State Strategy and 
to the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan will be to the Strategy as revised in 2009 
and 2011 and the Plan as revised in 2009 and 2011, respectively, unless 
otherwise noted.

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP Submittals

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state to 
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing 
prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet 
this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that 
adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public 
hearing was provided consistent with EPA's implementing regulations in 
40 CFR 51.102.
    Both the District and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and 
regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior 
to adoption and submittal of the 2007 Ozone Plan. The District 
conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held a 
public hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan on April 30, 2007. See 
2007 Ozone Plan, p. ES-1 and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution, p. 3. 
CARB provided the required public notice and opportunity for public 
comment prior to its June 14, 2007 public hearing on the Plan. See CARB 
Resolution No. 07-20. The District also provided the required public 
notice and hearing on the 2009 revision to the Plan. See SJVUAPCD 
Governing Board Resolution No. 08-12-18, December 18, 2008, p. 2.
    CARB conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, 
and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the 2007 State 
Strategy on September 27, 2007. See CARB Resolution No. 07-28. CARB 
also provided the required public notice, opportunity for public 
comment, and a public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009 adoption of 
the 2009 State Strategy Status Report and its July 21, 2011 adoption of 
the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. See CARB Resolution No. 09-34 and CARB 
Resolution No. 11-22.
    The SIP submittals include proof of publication for notices of 
District and CARB public hearings, as evidence that all hearings were 
properly noticed. We find, therefore, that each of the five submittals 
that comprise the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP meets the procedural 
requirements for public notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 
110(l).
    CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires EPA to determine whether a SIP 
submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also 
provides that any plan submittal that EPA has not affirmatively 
determined to be complete or incomplete will be deemed complete by 
operation of law six months after the date of submittal. EPA's SIP 
completeness criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.
    The November 16, 2007 submittal of the 2007 Ozone Plan and the 
April 24, 2009 submittal revising the Plan became complete by operation 
of law on May 15, 2008 and October 24, 2009, respectively. The November 
16, 2007 submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and the August 12, 2009 
submittal of the 2009 revisions to the Strategy became complete by 
operation of law on May 16, 2008 and February 12, 2010, respectively. 
We found the submittal of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions complete on 
August 23, 2011.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9 to James Goldstene, 
CARB, August 23, 2011.

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

[[Page 57849]]

IV. Review of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan and the SJV Portion of the 2007 
State Strategy

    We summarize our evaluation of the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP's 
compliance with applicable CAA and EPA regulatory requirements below. 
Our detailed evaluation can be found in the TSD for this proposal which 
is available online at http://www.regulations.gov in docket number EPA-
R09-OAR-2010-0589 or from the EPA contact listed at the beginning of 
this notice.

A. Emissions Inventories

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories
    CAA section 182(a)(1) requires each state with an ozone 
nonattainment area classified under subpart 2 to submit, within two 
years of the area's designation as nonattainment, a ``comprehensive, 
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources'' of 
the relevant pollutant or pollutants in accordance with guidance 
provided by EPA. CAA 182(a)(1), 40 CFR 51.915. EPA has issued the 
``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 
Regional Haze Regulations,'' EPA-454/R-05-001, November 2005 (``EI 
Guidance'') which provides guidance on how to develop base year and 
future year baseline emissions inventories for 8-hour ozone, 
PM2.5, and regional haze SIPs. For areas that were initially 
designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard in 2004, EPA 
recommends using calendar year 2002 as the base year for the inventory 
required by CAA section 182(a)(1). EI Guidance, p. 8.
    Emissions inventories for ozone should include emissions of VOC, 
NOX, and carbon monoxide (CO) and represent an average 
summer week day during the ozone season. EI Guidance, pp. 14 and 17. 
States should include documentation in their submittals explaining how 
the emissions data were calculated. 70 FR at 71664 and EI Guidance, p. 
40. In estimating mobile source emissions, states should use the latest 
emissions models and planning assumptions available at the time the SIP 
is developed. 68 FR at 32854 and 70 FR 71666.
2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP
    The base year and future year baseline inventories for 
NOX and VOC for the SJV ozone nonattainment area together 
with additional documentation for the inventories are found in Appendix 
B of the 2007 Ozone Plan and Appendices A and F of the 2007 State 
Strategy.15, 16 These inventories represent average summer 
day (ozone season) emissions. An inventory is provided for the base 
year of 2002 and projected baseline inventories are provided for the 
RFP milestone years of 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020; and the 
attainment year of 2023. The baseline inventories include reductions 
from federal, State, and District measures adopted prior to 2007. See 
2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1. All inventories include 
emissions from point, area, on-road, and non-road sources. The 2002 
inventory was projected to 2005 and future years using CARB's 
California Emissions Forecasting System (CEFSv 1.06). Both base year 
and projected baseline inventories use the most current version of 
California's mobile source emissions model, EMFAC2007, for estimating 
on-road motor vehicle emissions. EPA has approved this model for use in 
SIPs and transportation conformity analyses. 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 
2008). See 2007 Ozone Plan, p. B-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ By ``future year baseline inventories'' or ``projected 
baseline inventories,'' we mean projected emissions inventories for 
future years that account for, among other things, the ongoing 
effects of economic growth and adopted emissions control 
requirements.
    \16\ Inventories for CO and non-anthropogenic sources (that is, 
biogenic or natural sources) were developed for the air quality 
modeling and can be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/eos/SIP_Modeling/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, CARB submitted revised 
base year and future year baseline inventories for the SJV. See Table 1 
below. These revised inventories incorporate improved activity data 
and/or emissions factors for diesel trucks and buses and off-road 
equipment that were developed as part of CARB's December 2010 
rulemakings amending its In-Use On-Road Truck and Bus Rule and In-Use 
Off-Road Equipment Rule. They also reflect revisions to the methodology 
for estimating NOX emissions from natural-gas fueled 
industrial equipment as well as other improvements to the stationary 
source inventories made by the District in the period between adoption 
of the 2007 Ozone Plan and the initial draft of the 2008 
PM2.5 Plan. See Draft 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix 
B, December 2007. Collectively, these revisions reduce the total 
estimated 2002 base year NOX and VOC inventories by 
approximately 12 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively. 2011 Ozone SIP 
Revisions, p. B-9. For a more detailed discussion of these inventory 
changes, see TSD, section II.A.
    The future year baseline inventories were also revised to reflect 
the effects of the 2007-2009 economic recession, which has 
significantly reduced activity levels in and associated emissions from 
the State's construction and goods movement sectors. CARB estimates 
economic growth rates will return to normal levels by the 2017-2018 
time period. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix B. As a result, 
projected emission levels from these categories in the years up to 
2017-2018 are now lower than were originally projected in the 2007 
Ozone Plan and 2007 State Strategy as submitted in November 2007. These 
recession-related decreases in emissions do not in themselves affect 
the Plan's emissions inventories for the modeling validation years 
(1999/2000), the base year (2002), or future years (2020 and 2023) and 
thus do not change the carrying capacity estimates in the Plan (i.e., 
they do not in themselves affect the target level of overall emissions 
reductions needed to demonstrate attainment), nor do they alter the 
2002 base year inventory which provides the starting point for the RFP 
demonstration. The principal effect of the recession-related decreases 
in projected emissions estimates is to reduce the amount of reductions 
needed from the SIP's control strategy to demonstrate RFP in the years 
prior to 2018.

     Table 1--San Joaquin Valley Revised Base Year and Attainment Year Baseline Emissions Inventory Summary
                                              [tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                NOX                             VOC
          Emissions inventory category           ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2002            2023            2002            2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary and Area Sources.....................             101              53             276             244
On-road Mobile Sources..........................             312              69             110              37

[[Page 57850]]

 
Off-road Mobile Sources.........................             152              73              71              57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................             565             195             457             339
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2011 8-Hour Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix B, p. B-3.

    Note: 2023 emissions levels reflect control adopted through 2011.
3. Proposed Action on the Emissions Inventories
    We have reviewed the 2002 base year emissions inventory in the SJV 
2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP and the inventory methodologies used by the 
District and CARB and have determined that the inventory was developed 
consistent with CAA requirements as reflected in the 8-hour ozone 
implementation rule and EPA's guidance. The revised 2002 base year 
inventory is comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual 
emissions of 8-hour ozone precursors in the San Joaquin Valley 
nonattainment area. We therefore propose to approve the base year 
inventory as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1) and 
EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule. We provide more detail on our 
review of the inventories in section II.A. of the TSD for this 
proposal.

B. Reasonably Available Control Measures Demonstration and Control 
Strategy

1. Requirements for RACM and Control Strategies
    CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan ``provide 
for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as 
expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions 
from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the 
adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology), 
and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air 
quality standards.'' The 8-hour ozone implementation rule requires that 
for each nonattainment area that is required to submit an attainment 
demonstration, the state must also submit concurrently a SIP revision 
demonstrating that it has adopted all RACM necessary to demonstrate 
attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP 
requirements. 40 CFR 51.912(d).
    EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM 
requirement in the General Preamble at 13560 \17\ and in a memorandum 
entitled ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measure 
Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas,'' John Seitz, Director, OAQPS to Regional Air 
Directors, November 30, 1999 (Seitz memo). In summary, EPA guidance 
provides that, to address the requirement to adopt all RACM, states 
should consider all potentially reasonable control measures for source 
categories in the nonattainment area to determine whether they are 
reasonably available for implementation in that area and whether they 
would, if implemented individually or collectively, advance the area's 
attainment date by one year or more. See Seitz memo and General 
Preamble at 13560.\18\ Any measures that are necessary to meet these 
requirements that are not already either federally promulgated, part of 
the state's SIP, or otherwise creditable in SIPs must be submitted in 
enforceable form as part of a state's attainment plan for the area.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' published at 57 FR 13498 on 
April 16, 1992, describes EPA's preliminary view on how we would 
interpret various SIP planning provisions in title I of the CAA as 
amended in 1990, including those planning provisions applicable to 
the 1-hour ozone standard. EPA continues to rely on certain guidance 
in the General Preamble to implement the 8-hour ozone standard under 
title I.
    \18\ See also ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for 
Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment 
Areas,'' 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979) and Memorandum dated December 
14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, ``Additional Submission on RACM From States 
With Severe One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs.''
    \19\ For ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or 
above, CAA section 182(b)(2) also requires implementation of RACT 
for all major sources of VOC and for each VOC source category for 
which EPA has issued a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). CAA 
section 182(f) requires that RACT under section 182(b)(2) also apply 
to major stationary sources of NOX. In extreme areas, a 
major source is a stationary source that emits or has the potential 
to emit at least 10 tons of VOC or NOX per year. CAA 
sections 182(e) and (f). Under the 8-hour ozone implementation rule, 
states were required to submit SIP revisions meeting the RACT 
requirements of CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) no later than 27 
months after designation for the 8-hour ozone standard (September 
15, 2006 for areas designated in April 2004) and to implement the 
required RACT measures no later than 30 months after that submittal 
deadline. See 40 CFR 51.912(a). California submitted the CAA section 
182 RACT SIP for SJV in January 2007 and a revised RACT SIP in June 
2009. EPA proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove 
that 2009 SJV RACT SIP on August 31, 2011. See Partial Approval and 
Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; 
San Joaquin Valley; Reasonably Available Control Technology for 
Ozone; Proposed rule, signed August 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(c)(6) requires nonattainment 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 * * * .'' See also CAA section 
110(a)(2)(A). The ozone implementation rule requires that all control 
measures needed for attainment be implemented no later than the 
beginning of the attainment year ozone season. 40 CFR 51.908(d). The 
attainment year ozone season is defined as the ozone season immediately 
preceding a nonattainment area's attainment date. 40 CFR 51.900(g).
2. RACM Demonstration and the Control Strategy in the SJV 2007 8-Hour 
Ozone SIP
    For the 2007 Ozone Plan and the 2007 State Strategy, the District, 
CARB, and the local agencies (through the SJV's eight metropolitan 
planning organizations (MPO)) each undertook a process to identify and 
evaluate potential reasonably available control measures that could 
contribute to expeditious attainment of the 8-hour ozone standards in 
the SJV. We describe each agency's efforts below. We also discuss 
CARB's and the District's adopted control strategies including the 
provisions for the development of new

[[Page 57851]]

and improved technologies under CAA section 182(e)(5).
a. SJVUAPCD's RACM Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy
    The District's RACM analysis, which focuses on stationary and area 
source controls, is described in Chapter 6 and Appendix I of the 2007 
Ozone Plan. To identify potential RACM, the District reviewed measures 
from a number of sources including measures in other nonattainment 
areas' plans and measures suggested by the public during development of 
the Plan. 2007 Ozone Plan, pp. 6-2 to 6-3. The identified potential 
measures, as well as existing District measures, are described by 
emissions inventory category in Appendix I of the Plan. From the set of 
identified potential controls, the District selected measures for 
adoption and implementation based on the technological and economic 
feasibility of emissions controls, the potential magnitude and timing 
of emissions reductions, cost effectiveness, and other acceptable 
criteria for determining RACM. 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 6-3.
    After completing its RACM analysis for stationary and area sources 
under its jurisdiction, the District developed its ``Stationary Source 
Regulatory Implementation Schedule'' (2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1), 
which gives the schedule for regulatory adoption and implementation of 
the measures determined to be feasible. The District also identified a 
number of source categories for which feasibility studies would be 
undertaken to refine the inventory and evaluate potential controls. 
These categories and the schedule for studying them are listed in Table 
6-2 of the 2007 Ozone Plan.
    In the five years prior to the adoption of the 2007 Ozone Plan, the 
District developed and implemented comprehensive plans to address 
attainment of the PM10 standards (2003 PM10 Plan, 
approved 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004)) and the 1-hour ozone standards 
(2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan, approved 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 
2010)). These plans have resulted in the adoption by the District of 
many new rules and revisions to existing rules for stationary and area 
sources. For the most part, the District's current rules are equivalent 
to or more stringent than those developed by other air districts. In 
addition to these stationary and area source measures, the District has 
also adopted an indirect source review rule, Rule 9510, to address 
increased indirect emissions from new industrial, commercial and 
residential developments. See SJVUAPCD Rule 9510 ``Indirect Source 
Review,'' adopted December 15, 2005, approved 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 
2011). The District also operates incentive grant programs to 
accelerate turnover of existing stationary and mobile engines to 
cleaner units. See 2007 Ozone Plan, chapters 7 and 8 and SJV Ozone Mid-
Course Review, Section 5 and 6.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ SJVAPCD, 2010 Ozone Mid-Course Review, May 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District identified and committed to 
adopt and implement 19 new control measures for NOX and VOC 
and to achieve certain aggregate emissions reductions of NOX 
and VOC. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1 (revised December 18, 2008). In 
Table 2 below, we list these measures, which mostly involve 
strengthening existing District rules, their adoption dates and current 
SIP approval status. As can be seen from Table 2, the District has 
completed action on all of its rule adoption commitments. Table 6-1 in 
the Plan shows estimated emissions reductions from each rule for 
milestone years from 2008 to 2020, 2012, and the attainment year of 
2023. The District's commitment, however, is only to the aggregate 
emissions reductions of NOX and VOC in each year. 2007 Ozone 
Plan, p. 6-5 and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 07-04-11a, p. 6. 
We show these commitments in Table 3 below. Table 4 gives the total 
estimate of SIP-creditable reductions achieved by the District to date.

                          Table 2--San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2007 Ozone Plan Specific Rule Commitments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Adoption date
       Measure No. & description         District rule ------------------------------------------------------------------------        SIP status
                                              No.                   Anticipated                           Actual
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S-GOV-1 Composting Biosolids..........            4565  1st Q--2007.......................  March 2007........................  Proposed: August 31,
                                                                                                                                 2011 (signature date).
S-AGR-1 Open Burning (Phase IV).......            4103  2nd Q--2010.......................  April 2010........................  Proposed:76 FR 40660
                                                                                                                                 (July 11, 2011).
S-SOL-11 Solvents:
    Organic Solvents..................            4661  3rd Q--2007.......................  September 2007....................  75 FR 24406 (May 5,
                                                                                                                                 2010).
    Organic Solvent Degreasing........            4662                                      September 2007....................  74 FR 37948 (July 30,
                                                                                                                                 2009).
    Organic Solvent Cleaning..........            4663                                      September 2007....................  74 FR 37948 (July 30,
                                                                                                                                 2009).
S-COM-5 Stationary Gas Turbines.......            4703  3rd Q--2007.......................  September 2007....................  74 FR 53888 (October 21,
                                                                                                                                 2009).
S-IND-24 Soil Decontamination.........            4651  3rd Q--2007.......................  September 2007....................  74 FR 52894 (October 15,
                                                                                                                                 2009).
S-IND-6 Polystyrene Foam..............            4682  3rd Q--2007.......................  September 2007....................  76 FR 41745 (July 15,
                                                                                                                                 2011).
S-PET-1&2 Gasoline Storage & Transfer.            4623  4th Q--2007.......................  December 2007.....................  74 FR 56120 (October 30,
                                                  4624                                                                           2009).
S-PET-3 Aviation Fuel Storage.........  ..............  3rd Q--2007.......................  Found not feasible................  Found infeasible.
S-COM-1 Large Boilers.................            4306  3rd Q--2008.......................  October 2008......................  75 FR 1715 (January 13,
                                                  4320                                                                           2010)
                                                                                                                                76 FR 16696 (March 25,
                                                                                                                                 2011).
S-COM-2 Boilers, Steam Generators and             4307  3rd Q--2008.......................  October 2008......................  75 FR 1715 (January 13,
 Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/hr).                                                                                              2010).
S-COM-7 Glass Melting Furnaces\1\.....            4354  3rd Q--2008.......................  October 2008......................  76 FR 53640 (August 29,
                                                                                                                                 2011).
S-SOL-20 Graphic Arts.................            4607  4th Q--2008.......................  December 2008.....................  74 FR 52894 (October 15,
                                                                                                                                 2009).
S-COM-9 Residential Water Heaters.....            4902  1st Q--2009.......................  March 2009........................  75 FR 24408 (May 5,
                                                                                                                                 2010).
S-GOV-5 Composting Green Waste........            4566  4th Q 0 2010......................  August 2011.......................  Rule adopted.
S-IND-21 Flares.......................            4311  2nd Q--2009.......................  June 2009.........................  Proposed: 76 FR 52623
                                                                                                                                 (August 8, 2011).
S-IND-14 Brandy and Wine Aging........            4695  3rd Q--2009.......................  September 2009....................  76 FR 47076 (August 4,
                                                                                                                                 2011).

[[Page 57852]]

 
S-SOL-1 Architectural Coatings........            4601  4th Q--2009.......................  December 2009.....................  Proposed: 76 FR 35167
                                                                                                                                 (June 16, 2011).
S-AGR-2 Confined Animal Facilities....            4570  2nd Q--2010.......................  October 2010......................  Proposed: August 31,
                                                                                                                                 2011 (signature date).
S-SOL-6 Adhesives.....................            4653  3rd Q--2010.......................  September 2010....................  Rule submitted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: List of measures and anticipated adoption dates: 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1, revised December 18, 2009.

                  Table 3--San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2007 Ozone Plan Aggregate Emissions Reductions Commitments
                                                                  [Tons per summer day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2011            2012            2014            2017            2020            2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.....................................................             4.4             6.0             6.3             7.8             8.0             8.2
VOC.....................................................            15.3            26.5            40.5            42.2            44.5            46.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1, revised December 18, 2008.

         Table 4--San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2007 Ozone Plan Aggregate Creditable Emissions Reductions From Adopted Rules
                                                                  (Tons per summer day)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2011            2012            2014            2017            2020            2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.....................................................             3.6             6.2            10.3            11.1            12.0            12.6
VOC.....................................................            34.3            37.7            39.8            41.3            43.1            44.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: TSD, Table D-5.

    The District also included in its Plan programs for incentive 
grants and to develop innovative strategies such as green contracting 
and energy conservation. These are discussed below in section II.B.2.d.
b. The Local Jurisdictions' RACM Analysis
    The local jurisdictions' RACM analysis was conducted by the SJV's 
eight MPOs.\21\ This analysis focused on potential NOX 
emissions reductions from transportation control measures (TCM). TCMs 
are, in general, measures designed to reduce emissions from on-road 
motor vehicles through reductions in vehicle miles traveled or traffic 
congestion. The analysis is summarized in Chapter 9 of the 2007 Ozone 
Plan and described in detail in Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ These eight MPOs represent the eight counties in the San 
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area: The San Joaquin Council of 
Governments, the Stanislaus Council of Governments, the Merced 
County Association of Governments, the Madera County Transportation 
Commission, the Council of Fresno County Governments, Kings County 
Association of Governments, the Tulare County Association of 
Governments and the Kern Council of Governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the SJV MPOs evaluated RACM using a three-
step process of developing a list of potential reasonably available 
local controls, estimating the maximum potential emissions reductions 
from the identified measures, and then comparing these reductions 
against the level of reductions needed to advance attainment of the 8-
hour ozone standard in the SJV. Through this process, the MPOs 
determined that there were no additional local RACM for NOX, 
beyond those measures already adopted, that could advance attainment of 
the 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV. 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 9-7.
c. CARB's RACM Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy
    Source categories for which CARB has primary responsibility for 
reducing emissions in California include most new and existing on- and 
off-road engines and vehicles, motor vehicle fuels, and consumer 
products.
    Given the need for significant emissions reductions from mobile and 
area sources to meet the NAAQS in California nonattainment areas, the 
State of California has been a leader in the development of stringent 
control measures for on-road and off-road mobile sources and the fuels 
that power them. California has unique authority under CAA section 209 
(subject to a waiver by EPA) to adopt and implement new emission 
standards for many categories of on-road vehicles and engines and new 
and in-use off-road vehicles and engines.
    According to the 2007 State Strategy, California's new vehicle 
emissions standards have reduced new car emissions by 99 percent and 
new truck emissions by 90 percent from uncontrolled levels, and new 
lawn and garden equipment, recreational vehicles and boats, and other 
off-road sources are 80-98 percent cleaner than their uncontrolled 
counterparts. 2007 State Strategy, p. 37. In addition to its new 
vehicle and engine standards, the State has adopted many measures that 
focus on achieving reductions from in-use mobile sources that include 
more stringent inspection and maintenance requirements in California's 
Smog Check program, truck and bus idling restrictions, and various 
incentive programs. Appendix A of the TSD includes a list of all 
measures adopted by CARB between 1990 and the beginning of 2007. These 
measures, reductions from which are reflected in the Plan's baseline 
inventories, fall into two categories: Measures that are subject to a 
waiver of Federal pre-emption under CAA section 209 (section 209

[[Page 57853]]

waiver measures or waiver measures) and those for which the State is 
not required to obtain a waiver (non-waiver measures). Emissions 
reductions from waiver measures are fully creditable in attainment and 
RFP demonstrations and may be used to meet other CAA requirements, such 
as contingency measures. See TSD, section II.D.3.a.i. and EPA's 
proposed and final approval of the SJV 1-Hour Ozone Plan at 74 FR 
33933, 33938 (July 14, 2009) and 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010). 
Generally, the State's baseline non-waiver measures have been approved 
by EPA into the SIP and are fully creditable for meeting CAA 
requirements. See TSD, Appendix A.
    CARB developed its proposed 2007 State Strategy after an extensive 
public consultation process to identify potential measures.\22\ Through 
this process, CARB identified and has committed to develop 15 new 
defined measures. These measures focus on cleaning up the in-use fleet 
as well as increasing the stringency of emissions standards for a 
number of engine categories, fuels, and consumer products. They build 
on CARB's already extensive existing program described above, which 
addresses emissions from all types of mobile sources through both 
regulations and incentive programs. See TSD, Appendix A. Table 5 below 
lists the defined measures in the 2007 State Strategy that are 
applicable to the SJV and their current adoption and approval status. 
Table 6 provides the CARB's current estimates of the emissions 
reductions in the SJV from these measures, which are part of the 
State's commitment to achieve the tonnage of reductions needed for 
attainment. Table 7 provides the estimates of the emissions reductions 
that are currently SIP creditable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ This process is described in the 2007 Ozone Plan at p. 9-
10. More information on this public process including presentations 
from the workshops and symposium that proceeded adoption of the 2007 
State Strategy can be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm.

  Table 5--2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Applicable to the SJV,
              Schedule for Consideration and Current Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Expected action
        State measures                 year            Current status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smog Check Improvements.......          2007-2009  Elements approved 75
                                                    FR 38023 (July 1,
                                                    2010).\23\
Expanded Vehicle Retirement                  2007  Adopted by CARB, June
 (AB 118).                                          2009; by BAR,
                                                    September 2010.
Modification to Reformulated                 2007  Approved, 75 FR 26653
 Gasoline Program.                                  (May 12, 2010).
Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty        2007, 2008, 2010  Proposed for
 Trucks.                                            approval: 76 FR
                                                    40652 (July 11,
                                                    2011).
Accelerated Introduction of                  2008  Prop 1B bond funds
 Cleaner Locomotives.                               awarded to upgrade
                                                    line-haul locomotive
                                                    engines not already
                                                    accounted for by
                                                    enforceable
                                                    agreements with the
                                                    railroads. Those
                                                    cleaner line-hauls
                                                    will begin operation
                                                    by 2012.
Cleaner In-Use Off-Road                2007, 2010  Waiver decision
 Engines.                                           pending.
Cleaner In-Use Agricultural                  2013  Incentive program in
 Equipment.                                         progress. Additional
                                                    action expected
                                                    2013.
New Emissions Standards for                  2013  Action expected 2013.
 Recreational Boats.
Expanded Off-Road Recreational               2013  Action expected 2013.
 Vehicle Emissions Standards.
Enhanced Vapor Recovery for                  2008  Adopted June 2007.
 Above Ground Storage Tanks.                        Requirements
                                                    implemented through
                                                    District Rule 4621.
Additional Evaporative                       2013  Action expected 2013.
 Emissions Standards.
Consumer Products Program (I &   2008, 2009, 2011  Approved, 74 FR 57074
 II).                                               (November 4, 2009)
                                                    and 76 FR 27613 (May
                                                    12, 2011).
Pesticide Regulation (DPR)....         2008, 2009  Submitted October
                                                    2009, revisions
                                                    submitted August
                                                    2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p.4, 2011 Progress Report,
  Table 1, and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A-3. Additional
  information from http://www.ca.arb.gov.

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

    \23\ 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 
program in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions do not include reductions 
from AB 2289 improvements. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix C.

 Table 6--Expected Emissions Reductions From Defined Measures in the San
                             Joaquin Valley
                       [Tons per summer day 2023]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       State measure                         NOX    VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smog Check Improvements (BAR).............................    1.0    3.0
Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks..........................   16.9    0.9
Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment.........................    1.9    0.2
Consumer Products Program.................................     --    5.0
Pesticides: DPR Regulation................................     --    1.2
                                                           -------------
  Totals..................................................   19.8   10.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, Attachment 1.

Table 7--Currently Creditable Emissions Reductions From Defined Measures
                        in the San Joaquin Valley
                       [Tons per summer day 2023]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       State measure                         NOX    VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smog Check Improvements (BAR).............................    1.0    3.0
Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks..........................   16.9    0.9
Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment.........................    1.9    0.2
Consumer Products Program.................................     --    5.0
                                                           -------------

[[Page 57854]]

 
  Totals..................................................   19.8    9.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, p. attachment 1.

    The 2007 State Strategy also includes an enforceable commitment to 
achieve aggregate emissions reductions of 46 tpd NOX and 25 
tpd VOC in the SJV by the attainment year of 2023 that are sufficient, 
in combination with existing SIP-creditable measures, the District's 
commitments, and commitments for reductions under the CAA section 
182(e)(5) new technologies provision, to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard in the San Joaquin Valley by the applicable attainment date of 
June 15, 2024. CARB also made enforceable commitments to achieve 
aggregate emissions reductions in the SJV in the RFP milestone years of 
2014, 2017, and 2020. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 63; CARB Resolution 
07-28, Attachment B, p. 6; and 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 
21. See Table 8 below. The nature of these commitments is described in 
the State Strategy as follows:

    The 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 
achieve 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 commitments.

CARB Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 3.

                                          Table 8--CARB Commitments to Specific Aggregate Emissions Reductions
                                                                  [Tons per summer day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            2023 CAA
                                                                      2014              2017              2020              2023            182(e)(5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC...........................................................                23              -\1\                24                25              -\1\
NOX...........................................................                76             88-93                56                46                81
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 23.
\1\ No commitment to VOC reductions in 2017 or to VOC reductions pursuant to CAA 182(e)(5) advanced technologies provision.

d. Section 182(e)(5) New or Improved Technologies Provisions
    For ozone nonattainment areas classified as extreme, the CAA 
recognizes that an attainment demonstration may need to rely to a 
certain extent on new or evolving technologies, given the relatively 
long time between developing the initial plan and attaining the 
standard and the degree of emissions reductions needed to attain. To 
address these needs, CAA section 182(e)(5) authorizes EPA to approve 
provisions in an extreme area plan which ``anticipate development of 
new control techniques or improvement of existing control 
technologies,'' and to approve an attainment demonstration based on 
such provisions, if the State demonstrates that: (1) Such provisions 
are not necessary to achieve the incremental emission reductions 
required during the first 10 years after November 15, 1990; \24\ and 
(2) the State has submitted enforceable commitments to develop and 
adopt contingency measures to be implemented if the anticipated 
technologies do not achieve the planned reductions. CAA 182(e)(5). The 
State must submit these contingency measures to EPA no later than 3 
years before proposed implementation of these long-term measures, and 
the contingency measures must be ``adequate to produce emissions 
reductions sufficient, in conjunction with other approved plan 
provisions, to achieve the periodic emissions reductions required by 
[CAA sections 182(b)(1) or (c)(2)] and attainment by the applicable 
dates.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Consistent with provisions in the 8-hour ozone 
implementation rule at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X, we interpret this 
10-year timeframe to run from the effective date of designation for 
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, that is, June 15, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The General Preamble further provides that the new technology 
measures contemplated by section 182(e)(5) may include those that 
anticipate future technological developments as well as those that 
require complex analyses, decision making and coordination among a 
number of government agencies. See General Preamble at 13524. An 
attainment demonstration that relies on long-term new technology 
measures under section 182(e)(5) must identify any such measures and 
contain a schedule outlining the steps leading to final development and 
adoption of the measures. Id. The General Preamble also provides that 
EPA will set a schedule for implementing contingency measures upon 
making a finding of failure to meet a milestone, i.e., to achieve the 
periodic emissions reductions required by CAA sections 182(b)(1) or 
(c)(2) or to attain by the applicable dates. Id.
    CARB and the District have demonstrated a clear need for emissions 
reduction from new control technologies or improvement of existing 
technologies to reduce air pollution in the SJV. Adopted control 
measures and enforceable commitments discussed above provide the 
majority, but not all, of the emissions reductions needed to attain the 
1997 8-hour ozone standards in the SJV. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 54. 
For the balance of the reductions needed to attain by June 15, 2024, 
the 2007 State Strategy and 2007 Ozone Plan rely on CARB's commitments 
to achieve additional reductions of 81 tpd NOX by 2023 from 
new and improved technologies. See 2009 State Strategy Status Report, 
p. 20. The new technology provisions (also called ``long-term 
measures'') described in the 2007 State Strategy and 2007 Ozone Plan 
are not relied on to demonstrate RFP in any year and are accompanied by 
an enforceable commitment by the State to adopt and submit contingency 
measures no later than 3 years before implementation, as required by 
CAA section 182(e)(5).
    CARB and the California districts have a longstanding history of 
successfully adopting and implementing

[[Page 57855]]

technology-advancing regulations and innovative control measures. They 
have worked closely with research scientists and the regulated industry 
to develop regulations that are stringent enough to compel technology 
development yet flexible enough to encourage industry innovations. CARB 
has provided a list of potential long-term control measures which 
include reduced deterioration of emission control equipment in 
passenger vehicles, tighter engine emission standards, cleaner ground 
support equipment at airports, and prioritizing federal transportation 
funding to support air quality goals. See pp. 56-57 of the 2007 State 
Strategy. The District has also provided a list of potential advanced 
control technologies and innovative approaches that could achieve the 
long-term reductions. See 2007 Ozone Plan, pp. 11-5 to 11-10, and 
Chapters 7 and 8. CARB updated its list of potential long-term measures 
in both the 2009 State Strategy Status Report and the 2011 Ozone SIP 
Revisions. See 2009 State Strategy Status Report, pp. 25-27 and 2011 
Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A, pp. A-8 to A-12.
    To implement the long-term strategy, CARB has committed to a 
process that will ensure that the long-term measures and reductions are 
achieved by the attainment year. CARB is coordinating a government, 
private and public effort to establish emissions reductions goals for 
critical mobile and stationary source categories. The effort includes 
periodic assessment of technology advancement opportunities and updates 
to the Board and the public regarding new emission control 
opportunities and progress in achieving the long-term measure 
reductions. CARB's commitment for implementing the long-term strategy 
also includes (a) Sharing results through periodic briefings to the 
Board, workshops, conferences, symposia, Web site postings and other 
means, (b) working to secure resources for continuing research and 
development of new technologies, and (c) developing schedules for 
moving from research to implementation. Id.
    An initial step in the long-term strategy was the signing of a 
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the U.S. EPA, CARB and the South 
Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Districts to commit to developing and 
testing new sustainable technologies to accelerate progress in meeting 
air quality goals. The goal of the MOA is to help align agency research 
resources to evaluate innovative technologies and assess new monitoring 
equipment to better measure mobile and stationary source emissions. The 
MOA agencies have also established a Clean Air Technology Initiative to 
help bring together the necessary participants (e.g., scientists, 
engineers, analysts and agency specialists) to achieve the goals of the 
MOA. 2009 State Strategy Status Report, pp. 25-27. For the SJV, the 
focus is on the area that straddles Kern and Tulare counties. This 
area, which frequently exceeds health-based air standards, has high 
levels of mobile source emissions from the goods movement corridors of 
Highway 99 and Interstate 5 as well as stationary source emissions from 
a variety of energy production facilities, farms, and agricultural 
processing operations. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. A-9. For a 
summary of San Joaquin Valley funded projects, see http://epa.gov/region9/cleantech/projects.html.
    Other State programs that may achieve emissions reductions to help 
meet CARB's 182(e)(5) commitment include: potential co-benefits from 
California's climate change programs where State legislation (Assembly 
Bill 32--Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32)) aims to reduce 
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) in 2020 to 1990 levels or by about 30 percent; 
California's Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP), an incentive 
program that supports the deployment of hybrid and zero-emission 
vehicles and other advanced technologies; and California's annual 
research program, which identifies projects and provides funding to 
help provide timely scientific and technical information needed for air 
quality control programs.
    In addition, the District is pursuing innovative strategies. Its 
``Fast Track'' strategy includes opportunities to reduce emissions from 
heavy-duty trucks by shifting goods movement to lower-emission 
alternatives, such as short-sea shipping. In 2010, the U.S. Department 
of Transportation awarded the Ports of Stockton, West Sacramento, and 
Oakland with a $30 million grant to move goods between Oakland and the 
two inland ports over the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta. The District 
has also adopted a Technology Advancement Program (TAP) which is its 
strategic approach to encouraging innovation and development of new 
emission reduction technologies. The TAP will consist of an ongoing 
review of new technology concepts, interagency partnerships, funding 
for technology advancement programs, and collaborations to build and 
expand local capacity for research and development in the SJV. For more 
information about the SJV TAP, see http://www.valleyair.org/Grant_Programs/TAP/tap_idx.htm. In addition to the TAP, The District has 
established a Regional Energy Efficiency Strategy to support technology 
development and deployment in the Valley. The Regional Energy 
Efficiency Program lays out goals and measures that will guide the 
District's actions to reduce emissions caused by electricity and 
natural gas consumption in residential, industrial, and institutional 
settings. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, pp. A-11 to A-12.
    Along with its commitment to the process discussed above, CARB has 
committed to submit an 8-hour ozone SIP revision by 2020 that will: (1) 
Reflect modifications to the 2023 emission reduction target based on 
updated science and (2) identify additional strategies and implementing 
agencies needed to achieve the needed reductions by 2023. See 2011 
Ozone SIP Revisions, p. A-8. The District has also committed to submit 
by late 2019 SIP revisions containing the control measures that are 
necessary to achieve the long-term measure reductions by the attainment 
year and to make any other needed revisions to the SIP. See SJVUAPCD 
Governing Board Resolution No. 07-04-11a p. 6.
    CARB's 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions update and reaffirm both the 
``long-term strategy commitment to identify and implement advanced 
technologies to reduce ozone-forming emissions in the State Strategy'' 
and the State's enforceable commitment ``to develop, adopt, and submit 
contingency measures by 2020 if advanced technology measures do not 
achieve planned reductions.'' See CARB Resolution 11-22, July 21, 2011. 
Finally, CARB has committed to meet annually with EPA to discuss 
strategies to maximize the clean air benefits of emerging advanced 
technologies and to provide annual summaries of strategies and 
activities. See letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to 
Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 29, 
2011.
3. Proposed Actions on the RACM Demonstration and Control Strategy
    As described above, the District evaluated a range of potentially 
available measures for inclusion in its 2007 Ozone Plan and committed 
to adopt those it found to be reasonably available for implementation 
in the SJV. The process and the criteria the District used to select 
certain measures and reject others are consistent with EPA's RACM 
guidance. We also describe above the measure evaluation processes 
undertaken by the SJV MPOs and the State. Their processes are also 
consistent with EPA's RACM guidance.

[[Page 57856]]

See, e.g., General Preamble at 13560 and Seitz memo.
    Based on our review of these RACM analyses and the District's and 
California's adopted rules, as well as their commitments to adopt and 
implement additional controls, we propose to find that there are, at 
this time, no additional reasonably available control measures that 
would advance attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV. 
Therefore, we propose to find that the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan, together 
with the 2007 State Strategy, provides for the implementation of all 
RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1).
    Because the SJV is designated and classified as extreme 
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, CAA sections 182(b)(2) 
and 182(f) require the implementation of RACT for all major sources of 
VOC or NOX and all VOC sources covered by an EPA-issued CTG 
in this area. California submitted the District's revised 8-hour ozone 
RACT SIP (adopted April 16, 2009) on June 18, 2009. We have recently 
proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove this RACT SIP, 
based on our proposal to determine that the RACT SIP does not 
adequately demonstrate compliance with section 182 RACT requirements 
for ten source categories. See Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval 
of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; 
Reasonably Available Control Technology for Ozone; Proposed rule, 
signed August 31, 2011.
    Under EPA's longstanding policy, a SIP meets the RACM requirement 
in CAA section 172(c)(1) if it includes all reasonably available 
measures that individually or in combination with other such reasonably 
available measures can advance attainment of the relevant standard by 
one year or more. Based on our evaluation of the potential emission 
reductions from the missing section 182 RACT controls, we propose to 
determine that the additional reductions from these rules in 
combination with other potential RACM would not result in earlier 
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV. See TSD, 
section II.C.3.
    We propose to approve the SJVUAPCD's commitments to achieve 
specific aggregate emissions reductions of NOX and VOC by 
specific years as given in Table 6-2 of the 2007 Ozone Plan and shown 
in Table 3 above. We are not proposing to act on SJVAPCD's commitments 
to adopt and implement specific control measures on the schedule 
identified in Table 6-1 (as amended December 18, 2008) in the 2007 
Ozone Plan because, as of August 18, 2011 with the adoption of the Rule 
4655, these commitments have all been fulfilled.
    We are proposing to approve CARB's commitments to propose certain 
defined measures, as given in Table B-1 in 2011 Progress Report, 
Appendix B and Appendix A-7 of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. We are 
also proposing to approve CARB's commitment to achieve the total 
aggregate emissions reductions necessary to demonstrate RFP and to 
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV as given in the 2009 
State Strategy Status Report, p. 20 and shown in Table 8 above. See 
CARB Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 3.
    Finally, we are proposing to approve the CARB's and District's 
long-term strategy provisions and related commitments in the SJV 2007 
8-Hour Ozone SIP under the new technology provisions of CAA section 
182(e)(5). This proposal is based on our proposed findings that they 
satisfy the two criteria in CAA section 182(e)(5)(A) and (B). First, 
the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP does not rely on any of the new 
technology reductions to demonstrate RFP in any milestone year between 
2008 and 2020. CARB has committed to achieve 81 tpd of NOX 
reductions through new technology measures approved under section 
182(e)(5) only in the attainment year (2023). We note that the amount 
and relative proportion of reductions from measures scheduled for long-
term adoption under section 182(e)(5), as compared to measures already 
adopted in regulatory form or scheduled for near-term adoption, should 
clearly decrease in any future SIP update, and that EPA will not 
approve a SIP revision that contains an increase in the amount or 
relative proportion of section 182(e)(5) new technology measures 
without a convincing showing in a SIP revision that the technologies 
relied upon in the near-term rules have been found to be 
technologically infeasible or ineffective in achieving the expected 
emissions reductions.
    Second, CARB has submitted an enforceable commitment to submit 
adopted contingency measures to EPA by 2020 as required by CAA section 
182(e)(5). See CARB Resolution 11-22, July 21, 2011. These contingency 
measures must be adequate to produce emissions reductions sufficient, 
in conjunction with other approved plan provisions, to achieve the 
periodic emissions reductions required by CAA sections 182(b)(1) or 
(c)(2) and to attain by the applicable dates. See CAA 182(e)(5). 
Following the State's submittal of these contingency measures, EPA will 
approve or disapprove the provisions in accordance with CAA section 
110.

C. Attainment Demonstration

1. Requirements for Attainment Demonstrations
    CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires states with ozone nonattainment 
areas classified as serious or above to submit plans that demonstrate 
attainment of the applicable standard as expeditiously as practicable 
but no later than the outside date established in the CAA.\25\ The 
attainment demonstration is due within three years of the area's 
designation as nonattainment (40 CFR 51.908) and should include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ EPA's regulation at 40 CFR 51.903(a) translates the maximum 
attainment periods in Table 1 of section 181, which are specifically 
linked to enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, for purposes of 
attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Technical analyses to locate and identify sources of emissions 
that are causing violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the 
nonattainment area;
    (2) Adopted measures with schedules for implementation and other 
means and techniques necessary and appropriate for attainment; and
    (3) Contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) of the 
CAA.
    See 70 FR 71612 at 71615.
    The requirements for the first two items are described in the 
sections on emissions inventories and RACM/RACT above (sections IV.A. 
and IV.C.) and in the sections on the air quality modeling and 
attainment demonstration that follow immediately below. Requirements 
for the third item are described in the section on contingency measures 
(IV.F.).
2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan
    CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires SIPs for ozone nonattainment 
areas to include a ``demonstration that the plan, as revised, will 
provide for attainment of the ozone [NAAQS] by the applicable 
attainment date. This attainment demonstration must be based on 
photochemical grid modeling or any other analytical method determined 
by the Administrator, in the Administrator's discretion, to be at least 
as effective.'' Air quality modeling is used to establish emissions 
attainment targets, that is, the combination of emissions of ozone 
precursors that the area can accommodate without exceeding the relevant 
standard, and to assess whether the proposed control strategy will 
result in attainment of that standard. Air quality modeling is

[[Page 57857]]

performed for a base year and compared to air quality monitoring data 
from that year in order to evaluate model performance. Once the 
performance is determined to be acceptable, future year changes to the 
emissions inventory are simulated to determine the relationship between 
emissions reductions and changes in ambient air quality throughout the 
air basin. The procedures for modeling ozone as part of an attainment 
demonstration are contained in EPA's ``Guidance on the Use of Models 
and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals 
for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze'' 
\26\ (Guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ ``Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for 
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone 
and PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze'', EPA-454/B-07-002, 
April 2007. Additional EPA modeling guidance can be found in 
``Guideline on Air Quality Models'' in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The air quality modeling that underpins the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan is 
described in Chapter 3 and documented in Appendix F. We provide a brief 
description of the modeling and a summary of our evaluation of it 
below. More detailed information about the modeling and our evaluation 
are available in section II.B. of the TSD.
    CARB performed the air quality modeling for the 2007 Ozone Plan. 
Significant time, money, and effort by CARB, the District, and many 
others have gone into preparing the air quality modeling to support the 
attainment demonstration in the 2007 Ozone Plan for the San Joaquin 
Valley, including support for the multi-million dollar Central 
California Ozone Study (CCOS). CCOS is a cooperative effort involving 
California cities, State and local and air pollution control agencies, 
federal agencies, industry groups, academics, and contractors. Field 
data for CCOS were collected during the 4 months from June through 
October 2000 and included five several-day intensive monitoring 
periods. Data and modeling results based on the CCOS study provided a 
solid foundation for the 2007 Ozone Plan.
    The Plan includes an attainment demonstration using photochemical 
modeling with the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions 
(CAMx) model, incorporating the [California] Statewide Air Pollution 
Research Center (SAPRC) chemical mechanism, and meteorological fields 
from the Mesoscale Model version 5 (MM5). In addition to the July 29-
August 2, 2000 episode using CCOS data, CARB modeled ambient ozone 
levels during July 9-13, 1999 using routinely available meteorological 
and air quality data.
    EPA recommends that States prepare modeling protocols as part of 
their modeled attainment demonstrations. Guidance, p. 133. The Guidance 
at pp. 133-134 describes the topics to be addressed in this modeling 
protocol. A modeling protocol should detail and formalize the 
procedures for conducting all phases of the modeling analysis, such as 
describing the background and objectives, creating a schedule and 
organizational structure, developing the input data, conducting model 
performance evaluations, interpreting modeling results, describing 
procedures for using the model to demonstrate whether proposed 
strategies are sufficient to attain the NAAQS, and producing 
documentation to be submitted for EPA Regional Office review and 
approval prior to actual modeling.
    The 2007 Ozone Plan's modeling protocol is contained in Appendix C 
of the CARB Staff Report \27\ in the Plan. The protocol covers all of 
the topics recommended in the Guidance, including model and episode 
selection, meteorological and emission data preparation, and 
performance testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ ``Photochemical Modeling Protocol for Developing Strategies 
to Attain the Federal 8-hour Ozone Air Quality Standard in Central 
California'', California Air Resources Board, 5/22/2007, included as 
Appendix C to the ``Final Draft, Staff Report: Analysis of the San 
Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan'', State of California Air Resources 
Board, 5/30/2007. (``Staff Report'' at http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/sjv8hr/sjvozone.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2007 Ozone Plan's air quality model performance is discussed in 
Appendix F, including extensive statistical and graphical analysis 
demonstrating adequate overall model performance. The attainment 
demonstration for a given monitoring location used only those days that 
satisfied a number of performance criteria. The sensitivity testing 
described by CARB provides assurance that the model is adequately 
simulating the physical and chemical processes leading to ozone in the 
atmosphere and that the model responds in a scientifically reasonable 
way to emissions changes.
    The Plan's Appendix F also provides extensive documentation on the 
Relative Reduction Factors, which are the key results from the model 
for use in the attainment test, and the details of their calculation. 
The documentation also includes the results of modeling runs with 
various combinations of VOC and NOX reductions, to 
illustrate alternative control strategies and establish a ``carrying 
capacity'', a combination of VOC and NOX emissions 
consistent with attainment of the ozone standard. EPA proposes to 
conclude that the attainment tests are adequate and consistent with EPA 
guidance.
    In addition to a modeled attainment demonstration, which focuses on 
locations with an air quality monitor, EPA generally requires an 
unmonitored area analysis. The unmonitored area analysis uses a 
combination of model output and ambient data to identify areas that 
might exceed the NAAQS if monitors were located there. It ensures that 
a control strategy leads to reductions in ozone in unmonitored 
locations that might have baseline (and future) ambient ozone levels 
exceeding the NAAQS. In order to examine unmonitored areas in all 
portions of the modeling domain, EPA recommends use of interpolated 
spatial fields of ambient data combined with gridded modeled outputs. 
Guidance, p. 29. CARB's unmonitored area analysis \28\ uses EPA's MATS 
software. Based on this analysis CARB concluded that there are no 
unmonitored ozone peaks in the modeling domain that would violate the 
1997 8-hour ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ ``Unmonitored Area Analysis for Ozone in the San Joaquin 
Valley'', California Air Resources Board, August 12, 2011. SJV--
unmonitored--ozone.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Plan's Appendix F concludes with ``Corroborative 
Analyses/Weight Of Evidence Elements'', containing a supplemental 
analyses in support of the attainment demonstration. These analyses 
include ozone air quality trends, meteorologically adjusted ozone 
trends, and precursor emission trends, all of which show continued 
progress and support the conclusion that the attainment demonstration 
is sound.
    Base on our review, EPA proposes to find that the air quality 
modeling provides an adequate basis for the RACM/RACT, RFP, and 
attainment demonstrations in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP.
3. Enforceable Commitments in the Attainment Demonstration
    Section 11.2 of the 2007 Ozone Plan includes the initial attainment 
demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards in the SJV. The 2011 
Ozone SIP Revisions update this demonstration to reflect changes to 
future year inventories and adopted controls.
    The air quality modeling described above demonstrates that a 75 
percent reduction in NOX emissions from the 2002 base year 
level is necessary to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

[[Page 57858]]

A 75 percent reduction from the 2002 base year level equates to an 
attainment target level of 160 tpd NOX. See 2007 State 
Strategy, p. 70. In the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, CARB revised the 2002 
base year NOX emissions downward by 12 percent based on 
improved inventory methodologies and data. See Section IV.A. above.
    Both CARB and EPA recognize that the ideal approach for evaluating 
the impact of the base year inventory changes on the attainment target 
would be to perform new air quality modeling. Both Agencies also 
recognize the time and effort involved in such modeling for an area 
that is as large and diverse as the San Joaquin Valley. To address the 
need for remodeling, CARB has committed to update the SJV 2007 Ozone 
Plan modeling to reflect the emissions inventory improvements and any 
other new information by December 31, 2014 or by the date the SIPs are 
due for the revised 8-hour ozone standard whichever comes first. See 
CARB Resolution 11-22, p. 3 and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B-8.
    As part of the technical support for the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, 
CARB qualitatively evaluated the impact on the attainment target of the 
revision to this base year inventory and concluded that the 160 tpd 
target remains viable. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B-9. The 160 
tpd target represents a 72 percent reduction from the revised 2002 base 
year level. CARB also recognized, however, that a reduction of up to 75 
percent from the revised baseline (an attainment target level of 141 
tpd) may be necessary to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the 
SJV and reaffirmed its 2007 State Strategy commitment to achieve all 
emissions reductions that are necessary to provide for attainment. See 
CARB Resolution 11-22, p. 3.
    As EPA stated in its comment letter on the proposed 2011 Ozone SIP 
Revisions,\29\ we believe that a 75 percent reduction from the base 
year NOX emissions level, based on the modeling provided in 
the Plan as submitted in 2007, provides the best available estimate of 
the NOX reductions needed to reach attainment. The predicted 
ozone concentrations from the existing modeling matched the monitored 
ozone concentration from the summer 2000 episode fairly well, despite 
having what we now know to be overly high emissions inputs. The model, 
therefore, may be underpredicting ozone concentrations and the original 
160 tpd NOX target may result in higher ozone levels than 
the existing modeling predicted. Applying the 75 percent reduction from 
the existing modeling against the revised base year inventory 
compensates for this underprediction. This equates to a target level of 
141 tpd compared to the original target level of 160 tpd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Letter, Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 
9, to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, July 20, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our comment letter, we recommended that CARB commit to revising 
the modeling by a specific date and to commit, in the interim, to 
achieving a 75 percent reduction in NOX from the revised 
2002 base year levels by 2023. We noted that these recommendations are 
consistent with CARB's continuing strong commitment and efforts to 
achieve the emission reductions needed for attainment of the air 
quality standards in the San Joaquin Valley and the rest of California.
    In response, CARB included a commitment to update the 2007 SIP 
modeling for the SJV to reflect emissions inventory improvements and 
reaffirmed its commitment to achieve the emissions reduction necessary 
to provide for attainment. CARB has stated that these commitments are 
sufficient to address the concerns we raised in our comment letter. See 
2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, p. 1.
    EPA notes that NOX reductions needed to reach a target 
level of 141 tpd relative to the reductions needed to meet a target 
level of 160 tpd are part of CARB's long-term commitment discussed 
above in section IV.B.2.d. The current estimate of the NOX 
reductions needed from new technologies, based on adopted measures and 
CARB's remaining commitments for reductions from defined measures, is 
approximately 50 tpd. See Table 10 below. This level of reductions is 
well within CARB's existing commitment to achieve 81 tpd of 
NOX emissions reductions from new or improved technologies. 
See 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 21.
    Table 9 below summarizes our evaluation of the attainment 
demonstration taking into account emission reductions achieved to date 
and other updates.

 Table 9--Summary of Reductions Needed for SJV's 8-Hour Ozone Attainment
                              Demonstration
                       [Tons per summer day, 2023]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              NOX              VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Revised 2002 baseline emissions                 565.2            457.5
 level................................
B Attainment target level.............            141              342
C Total reductions needed from 2002               424.2            115.5
 baseline levels to demonstrate
 attainment (A-B).....................
D Attainment year baseline emissions              226.6            403.3
 level................................
E Reductions from baseline measures               338.6             54.2
 and improvements to the emissions
 inventories (A-D)....................
F Reductions needed from control                   85.6             61.3
 strategy measures including, for NOX,
 reductions from new technologies (B-
 D)...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: TSD, Table D-11.

    As shown in this table, the majority of the emissions reductions 
that the State projects are needed for attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard in the SJV by 2024 come from baseline reductions. These 
baseline reductions are from existing control measures including 
numerous adopted District and State measures, which generally have been 
approved by EPA either through the SIP process or the CAA section 209 
waiver process. See Appendices A and B of the TSD. Also included in the 
baseline are improvements to the emissions inventories, discussed above 
in section IV.A. The remaining reductions needed for attainment are to 
be achieved through the District's and CARB's enforceable commitments 
to reduce emissions in the SJV or through their commitments to develop 
and deploy new technologies pursuant to CAA section 182(e)(5). Since 
the submittal of the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2007 State Strategy, the 
District and CARB have adopted measures that have

[[Page 57859]]

significantly reduced the amount of emission reductions needed for 
attainment that remain as commitments. See Table 10.

   Table 10--Reductions Needed for Attainment Remaining as Commitments
                    Based on SIP-Creditable Measures
                      [Tons per summer day in 2023]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             NOX                VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Total reductions needed from                 423.9               115.5
 baseline and control strategy
 measures to attain (A-B)..........
B Reductions from baseline measures            338.6                54.2
 and adjustments due to emissions
 inventory improvements............
C Total reductions from approved                32.4                53.6
 measures (Tables 4 and 7).........
D Total reductions remaining as                 53.2                 7.7
 commitments and, for NOX,
 reductions from new technologies
 (A-B-C)...........................
E Reductions remaining as CARB                   4.7                 5.9
 enforceable commitments\1\........
F Reductions remaining as SJVAPCD                0                   1.8
 enforceable commitments...........
G Total reductions remaining as                 48.6
 reductions from new technologies
 (CAA section 182(e)(5))...........
H Percent of total reductions                    1.1%               6.7%
 needed remaining as commitments
 not including NOX reductions from
 new technologies..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated by subtracting from CARB's 2023 46 tpd NOX commitments
  (Table 8) the adjustment to baseline from State and federal sources
  from 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, Attachment 1 (21.5 tpd) and
  emissions reductions from currently SIP-creditable State measures on
  Table 7 (19.8 tpd).

    As shown in Table 9, reductions in the projected baseline inventory 
from measures already adopted by the District and State (both prior to 
and as part of the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2007 State Strategy) that EPA 
has approved or proposed for approval provide the great majority of the 
emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard in the SJV. The balance is in the form of either 
enforceable commitments to specific aggregate emissions reductions by 
the District and CARB (lines E and F in Table 10 above) or reductions 
from new or improved technologies under CAA section 182(e)(5) (line G 
in Table 10). In this section we discuss the enforceable commitments 
that are part of the attainment demonstration in the SJV 2007 8-hour 
ozone SIP.
    We believe that, with respect to the 2007 SJV 8-hour Ozone SIP, 
circumstances warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments as 
part of the attainment demonstration.\30\ As shown in Table 9 above, 
the majority of NOX emissions reductions and a substantial 
fraction of the VOC reductions needed to demonstrate RFP and attainment 
in the SJV come from rules and regulations that were adopted prior to 
2007, i.e., from the baseline measures. As a result of these State and 
District efforts, most sources in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment 
area are currently subject to stringent rules adopted prior to the 
State Strategy's and the Plan's development, leaving few opportunities 
(and generally more technologically and economically challenging ones) 
to further reduce emissions. In the 2007 Ozone Plan and the 2007 State 
Strategy, the District and CARB identified potential control measures 
that could contribute many of the additional emissions reductions 
needed for attainment. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Appendix I and 2007 State 
Strategy, Chapter 5. However, the timeline needed to develop, adopt, 
and implement these measures went beyond the November 2007 submittal 
date of the SJV 8-hour Ozone SIP. These circumstances warrant the 
District's and CARB's reliance on enforceable commitments as part of 
the attainment demonstration in the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2007 State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Based on SIP-creditable measures adopted to date, the SJV 
2007 8-hour ozone SIP does not rely on enforceable commitments to 
aggregate emissions reductions to demonstrate RFP or to meet any 
other applicable requirement of the CAA. Therefore, we discuss here 
only those enforceable commitments relied on to demonstrate 
attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the State's demonstrated need for reliance on enforceable 
commitments, we now consider the three factors EPA uses to determine 
whether the use of enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted measures 
to meet a CAA planning requirements is approvable: (a) Do the 
commitments address a limited portion of the statutorily-required 
program; (b) is the state capable of fulfilling its commitments; and 
(c) are the commitments for a reasonable and appropriate period of 
time.
a. The Commitments 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 to demonstrate RFP and attainment in a 
nonattainment area. For this calculation, reductions assigned to the 
new technologies provision (CAA section 182(e)(5)) are not counted as 
commitments.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ CAA section 182(e)(5) specifically allows EPA to approve an 
attainment demonstration that relies on reductions from new 
technologies. This provision is separate from the requirement in CAA 
section 172(c)(6) for enforceable emissions limitations under which 
enforceable commitments are considered. As a result, reductions 
attributed in the attainment demonstration to new technologies are 
not considered part of the State's enforceable commitments for the 
purposes of determining the percent of the reductions needed for 
attainment that remain as commitments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown Table 9, the remaining portion of the enforceable 
commitments, after accounting for approved measures and advanced 
technology measures, needed to demonstrate attainment of the 8-hour 
ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley are 7.7 tpd of VOC and, 
approximately 4.6 tpd of NOX. When compared to the total 
reductions needed to demonstrate attainment (not including the CAA 
section 182(e)(5) reductions in the attainment demonstration), the 
remaining portion of the enforceable commitments represents at most 6.7 
percent of the needed VOC and 1.1 percent of the needed NOX. 
Historically, EPA has approved SIPs with enforceable commitments in the 
range of 10 percent or less. See our approval of the SJV 
PM10 Plan at 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004), the SJV 1-hour 
ozone plan at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010), the Houston-Galveston 1-hour 
ozone plan at 66 FR 57160 (November 14, 2001), proposed approval of the 
SJV 2007 PM2.5 SIP at 76 FR 41338 (July 13, 2011), and 
proposed approval of the South Coast PM2.5 SIP at 76 FR 
41562 (July 14, 2011). Thus, the State's commitment addresses a limited 
proportion of the required emissions reductions.

[[Page 57860]]

b. The State Is Capable of Fulfilling Its Commitments
    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 the 2009 State 
Strategy Status Report and the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, which update 
and revise the 2007 State Strategy. These submittals show that CARB has 
made significant progress in meeting its enforceable commitments for 
the San Joaquin Valley. The District has already exceeded its 
commitments for reducing NOX emissions for the attainment 
year of 2023. See Tables 3 and 4 above and Table D-4 in the TSD. It 
also has adopted additional rules (Rules 9510 and 4320) that are 
projected to achieve NOX reductions in the attainment year. 
These reductions, however, are not currently creditable to the 
attainment and RFP demonstrations. In addition, the District has 
adopted revisions to District Rule 4702 (Reciprocating Internal 
Combustion Engines) that are likely to achieve substantial 
NOX reductions. See SJVAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report 
Proposed Amendments To Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines), August 
18, 2011. It has also adopted Rule 4566 (Organic Materials Composting 
Operations) that will achieve an estimated 19 tpd reductions in VOC (in 
SIP currency) by 2017. Finally, the District is continuing to work to 
identify and adopt additional measures to reduce emissions. Beyond 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. See, for 
example, SJVAPCD, 2008 PM2.5 Progress Report (May 2011), 
section 2.3.
    Given the State's and District's efforts to date to reduce 
emissions, we believe that the State and District are capable of 
meeting their enforceable commitments to adopt measures to reduce 
emissions of NOX and VOC to the levels needed in combination 
with reductions from the new technologies provision to attain the 1997 
8-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley by CAA deadline of June 
15, 2024.
c. The Commitments Are for a Reasonable and Appropriate Timeframe
    For the third and last factor, we consider whether the commitment 
is for a reasonable and appropriate period of time.
    In order to meet the commitments to reduce emissions to the levels 
needed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin 
Valley, the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2007 State Strategy included ambitious 
rule development, adoption, and implementation schedules, which both 
the District and CARB have substantially met. Given that almost all the 
emissions reductions committed to by District and CARB have already 
been achieved and the rules that are likely to achieve the few 
remaining ones are scheduled for adoption by 2013, these schedules 
provide sufficient time to achieve the few remaining reductions needed 
to attain (when considered with the emissions reductions provided by 
the advanced technology provision) by the applicable attainment date of 
June 15, 2024. See Tables 2 and 5 above. Thus, we find that the 
commitments are for a reasonable and appropriate timeframe.
4. Proposed Action on the Attainment Demonstration
    In order to approve a SIP's attainment demonstration, EPA must make 
several findings:
    First, we must find that the demonstration's technical bases--
emissions inventories and air quality modeling--are adequate. As 
discussed above in sections IV.A. and IV.C.2., we are proposing to 
approve the revised base year emissions inventory and to find the air 
quality modeling adequate to support the attainment demonstration.
    Second, we must find that the SIP provides for expeditious 
attainment through the implementation of all RACM. As discussed above 
in section II.C., we are proposing to approve the RACM demonstration in 
the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 172(c)(1).
    Third, we must find that the emissions reductions that are relied 
on for attainment are creditable and are sufficient to provide for 
attainment. As shown on Table 9, the 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP relies 
primarily on adopted and approved/waived rules to achieve the emissions 
reductions needed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standards in the SJV 
by June 15, 2024. The balance of the reductions projected to be needed 
for attainment is currently in the form of enforceable commitments to 
adopt measures to achieve aggregate tonnage reductions of VOC or 
NOX in the near term from available technologies and an 
enforceable commitment to adopt and submit in the longer term measures 
relying on the development and deployment of new technologies that will 
achieve specific aggregate tonnage reductions of NOX.
    EPA has previously accepted enforceable commitments in lieu of 
adopted control measures in attainment demonstrations when 
circumstances warrant them and the commitments meet three criteria. As 
discussed above in section IV.C.3., we propose to find that 
circumstances here warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments 
and that 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 commitments are for an appropriate timeframe. 
Based on these evaluations, we are proposing to approve the enforceable 
commitments as part of the attainment demonstration in the 2007 8-Hour 
Ozone SIP.
    CAA section 182(e)(5) allows extreme ozone nonattainment area plans 
under certain conditions to include provisions for the development of 
new technologies and allows EPA to approve attainment demonstrations 
based, in part, on those provisions. For the reasons discussed above in 
section IV.B., we propose to find that California has met the 
conditions for relying on the CAA's new technologies provisions in its 
attainment demonstration for the SJV.
    As discussed above in section IV.C.2. above, the SJV Ozone Plan and 
State Strategy, as adopted in 2007, demonstrates that a 75 percent 
reduction in NOX emissions from the 2002 base year level is 
necessary to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Since the adoption 
of the SJV ozone SIP in 2007, the base year NOX emissions 
level has to be revised downward by 12 percent due to new inventory 
methodologies and data. Both CARB and EPA recognize that the ideal 
approach for evaluating the impact of these base year inventory changes 
on the attainment target in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan would be to perform 
new air quality modeling, but both also recognize the time and effort 
involved in such modeling. CARB has committed to update the SJV 2007 
Ozone Plan modeling to reflect the emissions inventory improvements and 
any other new information by December 31, 2014 or by the date the SIPs 
are due for the revised 8-hour ozone standard whichever comes first. 
See CARB Resolution 11-22, p. 3 and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B-8. 
EPA is proposing to approve this commitment.
    EPA believes that a 75 percent reduction from the base year 
NOX emissions level from the existing

[[Page 57861]]

modeling provides the best currently available estimate of the 
NOX reductions needed to reach attainment. CARB has 
committed to, and has reaffirmed its commitment to achieve the 
reductions needed for attainment in the SJV. See CARB Resolution 07-28 
(September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 3, 2009 State Strategy Status 
Report, p. 13, and CARB Resolution 11-22, p. 3. It has also stated that 
these commitments are sufficient to address the attainment needs of the 
SJV. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, p. 1. As discussed above, 
CARB's commitment to achieving 81 tpd of NOX emissions 
reductions from new technologies is sufficient to cover any reductions 
that may be needed for attainment due to the changes to the base year 
inventory.
    For the foregoing reasons, we propose to approve the attainment 
demonstration in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP.

D. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration

1. Requirements for RFP Demonstrations
    CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that plans for nonattainment areas 
provide for reasonable further progress (RFP). RFP is defined in 
section 171(1) as ``such annual incremental reductions in emissions of 
the relevant air pollutant as are required by [title 1, part D] or may 
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring 
attainment of the applicable [standard] by the applicable date.'' CAA 
Section 182(b)(1) specifically requires that SIPs for ozone 
nonattainment areas that are classified as moderate or above 
demonstrate a 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions between the years 
of 1990 and 1996. For ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious 
or higher, CAA Section 182(c)(2)(B) also requires, in addition to the 
15 percent reduction required under CAA 182(b)(1), a three percent per 
year reduction (averaged over three-year periods) of ozone precursor 
emissions until attainment.
    The ozone implementation rule interprets the RFP requirements for 
the purposes of the 1997 ozone standards, establishing requirements for 
RFP that depend on the area's classification as well as whether the 
area has an approved 15 percent rate of progress plan for VOC under CAA 
section 182(b)(1) for the 1-hour ozone standard that covers the entire 
8-hour ozone nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 51.910(d) and 70 FR 71612. 
In 1997 EPA approved a 15 percent rate of progress plan for the SJV 
which covers the current 1997 8-hour ozone standard nonattainment area. 
See 62 FR 1150, 1172 (January 8, 1997). As a result, the area does not 
need to demonstrate another 15 percent reduction in VOC. Instead, under 
the ozone implementation rule, the 8-hour ozone SIP for SJV must 
provide for an average of three percent per year of VOC and/or 
NOX emissions reductions for (1) the six-year period 
beginning January 1 of the year following the year used for the 
baseline and (2) all remaining three-year periods after the first six-
year period out to the area's attainment date. 40 CFR 
51.910(a)(1)(ii)(B). Except as specifically provided in CAA section 
182(b)(1)(C), emissions reductions from all SIP approved, federally 
promulgated, or otherwise SIP creditable measures that occur after the 
baseline are creditable for purposes of demonstrating RFP targets are 
met. The implementation rule also sets the baseline for RFP 
calculations as 2002.
    The RFP demonstration must calculate and exclude the non-creditable 
reductions described in CAA 182(b)(1)(D). These non-creditable 
reductions include emissions reductions from pre-1990 federal motor 
vehicle programs. The method for calculating the target emissions 
levels is found in Appendix A to the preamble of the ozone 
implementation rule. See 70 FR 71612 at 71696.
2. RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP
    California has made several submittals to address the RFP 
requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV. The last of 
these is found in Appendix A of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. This 
revised demonstration incorporates the inventory revisions described in 
section IV.A. above as well as reductions from measures that have been 
adopted since the 2007 Ozone Plan's submittal except for those that EPA 
has determined by rule are not currently creditable. See 2011 Ozone SIP 
Revisions, p. 2.
3. Proposed Action on the RFP Demonstration
    CARB calculated the RFP target levels following the method provided 
in the ozone implementation rule and preamble. See 40 CFR 51.910 and 70 
FR 71612 at 71631-71650. EPA has made minor adjustments to the State's 
calculations to remove reductions from currently unapproved measures 
(e.g., pesticides). A summary of our evaluation of the State's RFP 
demonstration, taking into account these minor adjustments, is shown in 
Table 11 below. The detailed analysis can be found in section II.G. of 
the TSD. As shown in the Table 11, the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP 
provides for RFP in each milestone years. We propose, therefore, to 
approve the SIP's RFP demonstration.

                                                  Table 11--San Joaquin Rate of Progress Demonstrations
                                                             [Summer planning tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         2008                2011                2014                2017                2020                2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     VOC Calculation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target level of VOC needed to    365.0..............  327.2.............  293.6.............  264.4.............  239.7.............  218.1
 meet ROP requirement.
Baseline VOC in milestone year   408.8..............  355.9.............  333.5.............  331.0.............  333.0.............  341.5
 (with uncreditable reductions
 removed).
Apparent shortfall.............  43.8...............  28.7..............  39.9..............  66.6..............  93.3..............  123.4
Percent apparent shortfall in    9.8%...............  6.5%..............  9.2%..............  15.4%.............  21.6%.............  28.6%
 VOC.
Shortfall previous provided by   0.0%...............  9.8%..............  9.6%..............  9.2%..............  15.4%.............  21.6%
 NOX substitution.
Percent actual shortfall in VOC  9.8%...............  -3.3%.............  -0.4%.............  6.2%..............  6.2%..............  7.0%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    NOX Calculations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted NOX baseline (MVCP and  425.5..............  359.6.............  309.0.............  260.3.............  226.5.............  196.5
 uncreditable reductions
 removed).
Change in NOX since 2002         122.9..............  184.4.............  213.4.............  278.0.............  310.8.............  537.0
 adopted controls only.
Percent change in NOX since      22.4%..............  33.9%.............  42.8%.............  51.5%.............  57.8%.............  63.4%
 2002.

[[Page 57862]]

 
Percent change in NOX used for   0%.................  9.6%..............  9.6%..............  9.6%..............  15.8%.............  22.0%
 VOC substitution through
 previous milestone.
Percent reductions since 2002    22.4%..............  24.1%.............  33.0%.............  41.8%.............  41.8%.............  41.1%
 available for RFP substitution
 and contingency in the
 milestone year.
Percent change since 2002 used   9.8%...............  0.0%..............  0.0%..............  6.2%..............  6.2%..............  7.0%
 for VOC substitution in the
 milestone year, percent.
Percent change since 2002        12.6%..............  24.1%.............  33.0%.............  35.6%.............  35.5%.............  34.1%
 surplus after meeting
 substitution in the milestone
 year.
RFP met?.......................  Yes................  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control 
Measures To Offset Emissions Increases From VMT Increases, To Provide 
for RFP and Attainment

1. Requirements for Transportation Control Strategies and 
Transportation Control Measures To Offset Emissions Growth, To Provide 
for RFP and Attainment
    CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires that areas classified as severe 
or extreme submit transportation control strategies and transportation 
control measures (TCM) sufficient to offset any growth in VOC emissions 
from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips, and to provide 
(along with other measures) the reductions needed to meet the 
applicable RFP requirement. CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) also requires that 
states choose and implement such measures as are specified in section 
108(f), to the extent needed to demonstrate attainment. In selecting 
the measures, Congress directed that States ``should ensure adequate 
access to downtown, other commercial, and residential areas and should 
avoid measures that increase or relocate emissions and congestion 
rather than reduce them.'' CAA 182(d)(1)(A).
    EPA believes that it is appropriate to treat the three required 
elements of section 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting emissions growth, 
attainment of the RFP reduction, and attainment of the ozone standard) 
as separable. As to the first element of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) 
(i.e., offsetting emissions growth), EPA has historically interpreted 
this CAA provision to allow areas to meet the requirement by 
demonstrating that emissions from motor vehicles decline each year 
through the attainment year. General Preamble at 13521-13522.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See also 60 FR 48896 (September 21, 1995) approval of 
Illinois' vehicle miles traveled plan for the Chicago area; 62 FR 
23410 (April 30, 1997) and 62 FR 35100 (June 30, 1997), proposed and 
final approval of New Jersey's 15 percent ROP plan and other 
provisions for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut ozone 
nonattainment area; 66 FR 23849 (May 10, 2001), approval of the New 
York's attainment demonstration and related provisions for the New 
York-New Jersey-Connecticut ozone nonattainment area; 66 FR 57247 
(November 14, 2001), approval of the VMT offset plan for the 
Houston-Galveston ozone nonattainment area; 70 FR 25688 (May 13, 
2005), approval of the Washington, DC area's 1-hour attainment 
demonstration and related provisions; and 70 FR 34358 (June 14, 
2005), approval of Atlanta's VMT plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control 
Measures To Offset Emissions Growth, To Provide for RFP and Attainment 
in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP
    Information in 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions reproduced in Table 12 
below shows that on-road mobile source emissions of VOC and 
NOX decline steadily from 2008 to 2023. This decline in 
emissions is due to EPA's and California's on-road mobile source 
programs, California's clean fuels and SmogCheck programs, and CARB's 
in-use truck and bus rule. As discussed above in section IV.B., these 
programs are fully creditable for SIP planning purposes in attainment 
and RFP demonstrations, including demonstrating compliance with CAA 
section 182(d)(1). The on-road emissions in Table 12 are calculated 
using EMFAC2007 (the most recent EPA-approved mobile source emissions 
model) and the same planning assumptions used to develop the RFP and 
attainment demonstrations and transportation conformity motor vehicle 
emissions budget in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. 2011 Ozone SIP 
Revisions, p. C-1. As described above in section IV.B., the SJV MPOs 
evaluated a wide variety of transportation control strategies and 
measures, including those measures listed in CAA section 108(f), and 
determined that there were no combinations of reasonable measures that 
would expedite attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV. See 
2007 Ozone Plan, Appendix C.

                                      Table 12--On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions in the San Joaquin Valley 2008-2023
                                                                  [Tons per summer day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Year                                 2008            2011            2014            2017            2020            2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC.....................................................              78              66              50              43              39              37
NOX.....................................................             229             183             153             115              91              69
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2011 8-Hour Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix B, page B-3.

[[Page 57863]]

3. Proposed Action Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation 
Control Measures To Offset Emissions Growth, To Provide for RFP and 
Attainment in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP
    Because both VOC and NOX emissions from on-road mobile 
sources decline steadily over the entire time period covered by the 
2007 8-hour Ozone SIP,\33\ the SIP need not include additional 
transportation control strategies and TCM to offset growth in emissions 
from growth in VMT. Therefore, we propose to find that the SJV 2007 8-
Hour Ozone SIP meets the requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to 
include transportation control strategies and TCM sufficient to offset 
any growth in emissions from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle 
trips.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ CARB only presented mobile source emissions estimates for 
the RFP milestone years rather than for each year between 2011 and 
2023. We believe this adequately meets the CAA section 182(d)(3) 
requirement. There is nothing in the record to indicate that mobile 
sources emissions in the SJV are likely to increase between 
milestone years before returning to their historic downward trend in 
the milestone years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th 
Cir. 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that, 
with respect to the first element, section 182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA 
requires States to adopt transportation control measures and strategies 
whenever vehicle emissions are projected to be higher than they would 
have been had vehicle miles traveled not increased, even when aggregate 
vehicle emissions are actually decreasing. EPA has filed a petition for 
rehearing on this issue. Docket Nos. 09-71383 and 09-71404 
(consolidated), Docket Entry 41-1, Petition for Panel Rehearing.
    The Ninth Circuit has yet to issue its mandate in the Association 
of Irritated Residents case, and EPA has not adopted the court's 
interpretation for the reasons set forth in the Agency's petition for 
rehearing, pending a final decision by the court. If the court denies 
the Agency's petition for rehearing and issues its mandate before EPA 
issues a final rule on the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP, then we 
anticipate that we would not be able to finalize approval of the SJV 
2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP with respect to the first element (i.e., 
offsetting emissions growth) of section 182(d)(1)(A). Therefore, in 
today's action, and in the alternative to the proposed approval, we are 
simultaneously proposing to disapprove the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP 
with respect to the first element (i.e., offsetting emissions growth) 
of section 182(d)(1)(A) based on the plan's failure to include 
sufficient transportation control strategies and TCM to offset the 
emissions from growth in VMT. If EPA were to finalize the proposed 
disapproval, the area would be eligible for a protective finding under 
the transportation conformity rule because the submitted SIP contains 
adopted control measures and enforceable commitments that fully satisfy 
the emissions reductions requirements for reasonable further progress 
and attainment. 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ An area would not be eligible for a protective finding 
under the transportation conformity regulation if EPA finalizes a 
disapproval of a control strategy implementation plan revision 
(i.e., a plan that demonstrates reasonable further progress or 
attainment) because the plan revision does not contain adopted 
control measures or written commitments to enforceable control 
measures that fully satisfy the emissions reductions requirements 
relevant to the statutory provision for which the implementation 
plan revision was submitted. 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above in section IV.D., we are proposing to find that 
the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP provides for RFP consistent with all 
applicable CAA and EPA regulatory requirements. Therefore, we also 
propose to find that the SIP meets the requirement in CAA section 
182(d)(1)(A) to include transportation control strategies and TCM as 
necessary to provide (along with other measures) the reductions needed 
to meet the applicable RFP requirement.
    Finally, as discussed in sections IV.B. and IV.C. above, we are 
proposing to find that the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP provides 
expeditious attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Therefore, we 
propose to find that the SIP meets the requirement in CAA section 
182(d)(1)(A) to include measures to the extent needed to demonstrate 
attainment.

F. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures
    Under the CAA, 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas classified under 
subpart 2 as moderate or above must include in their SIPs contingency 
measures consistent with sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Contingency 
measures are additional controls to be implemented in the event the 
area fails to meet a RFP milestone or fails to attain by its attainment 
date. These contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or 
measures which are ready for implementation quickly upon failure to 
meet milestones or attainment. The SIP should contain trigger 
mechanisms for the contingency measures, specify a schedule for 
implementation, and indicate that the measures will be implemented 
without significant further action by the State or EPA. See 68 FR 
32802, 32837 and 70 FR 71612, 71650.
    Additional guidance on the CAA contingency measure provisions is 
found in the General Preamble at 13510-13512 and 13520. The guidance 
indicates that states should adopt and submit contingency measures 
sufficient to provide a 3 percent emissions reduction from the adjusted 
RFP base year. EPA concludes this level of reductions is generally 
acceptable to offset emission increases while States are correcting 
their SIPs. These reductions should be beyond what is needed to meet 
the attainment and/or RFP requirement. States may use reductions of 
either VOC or NOX or a combination of both to meet the 
contingency measure requirements. General Preamble at 13520, footnote 
6. EPA guidance also provides that contingency measures could be 
implemented early, i.e., prior to the milestone or attainment date.\35\ 
Consistent with this policy, states are allowed to use excess 
reductions from already adopted measures to meet the CAA sections 
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) contingency measures requirement. This is 
because the purpose of contingency measures is to provide extra 
reductions that are not relied on for RFP or attainment that will 
provide continued progress while the plan is being revised to fully 
address the failure to meet the required milestone. Nothing in the CAA 
precludes a State from implementing such measures before they are 
triggered. This approach has been approved by EPA in numerous SIPs. See 
62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997) (approval of the Indiana portion of the 
Chicago area 15 percent ROP plan); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997) 
(approval of the Illinois portion of the Chicago area 15 percent ROP 
plan); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) (proposed approval of the Rhode 
Island post-1996 ROP plan); and 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 
2001) (approval of the Massachusetts and Connecticut 1-hour ozone 
attainment demonstrations). In the only adjudicated challenge to this 
approach, the court upheld it. See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 
2004). 70 FR 71611, 71651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Memorandum, G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide 
Programs Branch to Air Directors, ``Contingency Measures for Ozone 
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,'' June 1, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, CAA section 182(e)(5) authorizes EPA to ``approve 
provisions of an implementation plan for an Extreme Area which 
anticipate

[[Page 57864]]

development of new control techniques or improvement of existing 
control techniques, and an attainment demonstration based on such 
provisions,'' if the State meets certain criteria. See CAA 182(e)(5). 
Such plan provisions may include enforceable commitments to submit, at 
a later date, contingency measures for failure to attain under CAA 
section 172(c)(9), in addition to the contingency measures to be 
implemented if the anticipated technologies approved under section 
182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions. These contingency measures 
must be submitted no later than three years before proposed 
implementation of the plan provisions and approved or disapproved by 
EPA in accordance with CAA section 110. Id.
2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP
    Contingency measure provisions are described in Section 11.6. of 
the 2007 Ozone Plan and Appendix D of the 2007 State Strategy as 
updated on February 1, 2008. The provisions were again updated in the 
2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A. To provide for contingency 
measures for failure to make RFP, the SIP relies on surplus 
NOX reductions in the RFP demonstration. See 2011 Ozone SIP 
Revision, Attachment A, p. A-3. See also Table 11 above. To provide for 
contingency measures for failure to attain, the SIP relies in part on 
the additional incremental emissions reductions resulting from fleet 
turnover in the 2024. Fleet turnover in 2024 is expected to reduce 
NOX emissions by 2 tpd and VOC emissions by less than 0.5 
tpd. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, Attachment 2.
    Additionally, as discussed above in section IV.B.2.d., we are 
proposing to determine that CARB and the SJVUAPCD have satisfied the 
criteria in section 182(e)(5) for reliance on the new technology 
provision as part of the attainment demonstration in the 2007 8-Hour 
Ozone SIP. Based on the State's anticipated development of these new 
technologies, CARB has submitted an enforceable commitment to submit, 
no later than 2020, additional contingency measures under CAA section 
182(e)(5) that meet the requirements for attainment contingency 
measures in CAA section 172(c)(9), in addition to contingency measures 
to be implemented if the anticipated long-term measures approved 
pursuant to section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions. See 
CARB Resolution No. 11-22 (July 21, 2011).
3. Proposed Action on the Contingency Measures
    As discussed above in section IV.D., we are proposing to approve 
the 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP's RFP demonstration. As seen in the second to 
last line on Table 11 above (the RFP demonstration), there are 
sufficient excess reductions of NOX in each milestone year 
beyond those needed to meet the next RFP percent reduction requirement 
to provide the 3 percent of adjusted baseline emissions reductions 
needed to meet the RFP contingency measure requirement for 2011, 2014, 
2017, and 2020.
    No RFP contingency measures are needed for 2008, since the 2011 
Ozone SIP Revisions demonstrate that SJV has already met its 2008 
milestone. See Table 11 above. As a result, contingency measures for 
failure to meet the 2008 RFP benchmark will never be triggered and thus 
are not needed.
    Contingency measures for failure to attain--The incremental 
additional emissions reductions that will occur in 2024 (the year after 
the attainment year) from the continuing implementation of both on- and 
off-road motor vehicle controls may be used to meet the contingency 
measure requirement for failure to attain. For the SJV, these 
reductions are 2 tpd of NOX and less than 0.5 tpd of VOC.
    In addition, based on our proposal to determine that the State has 
satisfied the criteria in section 182(e)(5) for reliance on long-term 
measures as part of the attainment demonstration in the 2007 8-Hour 
Ozone SIP, we propose to approve CARB's enforceable commitment to 
submit, no later than 2020, additional contingency measures under CAA 
section 182(e)(5) that meet the requirements for attainment contingency 
measures in CAA section 172(c)(9), in addition to contingency measures 
to be implemented if the anticipated long-term measures approved 
pursuant to section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions.\36\ 
CARB Resolution No. 11-22 (July 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ These contingency measures should, at a minimum, ensure 
that an appropriate level of emissions reduction progress continues 
to be made if attainment is not achieved and additional planning by 
the State is needed. See General Preamble at 13524.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we propose to approve the RFP and attainment 
contingency measures in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP under CAA sections 
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), based in part on CARB's commitment to submit 
by 2020 additional contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA 
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(e)(5). Following the State's submittal of 
these additional contingency measures, EPA will approve or disapprove 
the provisions in accordance with CAA section 110.

G. Advanced Control Technology and Clean Fuels for Boilers

1. Requirements for Advanced Technology and Clean Fuels for Boilers
    CAA section 182(e)(3) provides that SIPs for extreme areas must 
require each new, modified, and existing electric utility and 
industrial and commercial boiler that emits more than 25 tpy of 
NOX to either burn as its primary fuel natural gas, 
methanol, or ethanol (or a comparably low polluting fuel), or use 
advanced control technology (such as catalytic control technology or 
other comparably effective control methods). These provisions are due 
three years after designation and the control requirements must be in 
place eight years after designation. Further guidance on this 
requirement is provided in the General Preamble at 13523. According to 
the General Preamble, a boiler should generally be considered as any 
combustion equipment used to produce steam and generally does not 
include a process heater that transfers heat from combustion gases to 
process streams. General Preamble at 13523. In addition, boilers with 
rated heat inputs less than 15 million Btu (MMBtu) per hour which are 
oil or gas fired may generally be considered de minimis and exempt from 
these requirements since it is unlikely that they will exceed the 25 
tpy NOX emission limit. General Preamble at 13524.
2. Provisions for Controls on Boilers in the SJV District Rules
    The 2007 Ozone Plan, which addresses the CAA section 182(e)(3) 
requirements on page 2-9, states that District Rules 4305, 4306, and 
4352 address NOX from affected boilers and that these rules 
meet the requirements of the CAA. Since submittal of the 2007 Ozone 
Plan, Rule 4305 has been superseded by Rule 4306.
    Rule 4306 ``Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters--Phase 
3'' as revised on September 18, 2003, applies to any gaseous fuel or 
liquid fuel fired boiler, steam generator, or process heater with a 
total rated heat input greater than 5 million Btu per hour. The 
emission limits in the rule (5 ppm to 30 ppm for gaseous fuels and 40 
ppm for liquid fuels) cannot be achieved without the use of advanced 
control technologies. See ``Alternative Control

[[Page 57865]]

Techniques Document--NOX Emissions from Industrial/
Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers,'' Emissions Standards Division, 
EPA, March 1994; see also 74 FR 33933 at 33945 (July 14, 2009) and 75 
FR 10420 at 10434 (March 8, 2010) (proposed and final rules approving 
1-hour ozone plan for SJV). All units subject to Rule 4306 were 
required to comply with the limits in the rule no later than December 
1, 2008. See Rule 4306, section 7.0. We approved Rule 4306 as a SIP 
revision on May 18, 2004 at 69 FR 28061.
    Rule 4352 ``Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, Steam Generators And Process 
Heaters'' as revised May 18, 2006, applies to any boiler, steam 
generator or process heater fired on solid fuel at a source that has a 
potential to emit more than 10 tons per year of NOX or VOC. 
All units subject to Rule 4352 were required to comply with the Rule's 
limits no later than January 1, 2007. Rule 4352, section 7.0. We 
approved Rule 4352 into the California SIP on October 1, 2010. In that 
action, we determined that all of the NOX emission limits in 
Rule 4352 effectively require operation of Selective Noncatalytic 
Reduction (SNCR) control systems, which are comparably effective to SCR 
for the affected sources. SNCR also appears to achieve NOX 
emission reductions comparable to combustion of clean fuels at these 
types of boilers. We therefore concluded that Rule 4352 satisfies the 
requirements of section 182(e)(3) for solid fuel-fired boilers in the 
SJV. See TSD, section II.I.; see also 74 FR 33933 at 33945 and 75 FR 
10420 at 10434.
    New and modified boilers that will emit or have the potential to 
emit 25 tpy or more of NOX are subject to the District's new 
source permitting rule, Rule 2201 ``New and Modified Stationary Source 
Review.'' This rule requires new and modified source to install and 
operate best available control technology/lowest achievable emissions 
reductions technology. EPA approved Rule 2201 into the SIP at 75 FR 
26102 (May 11, 2010).
3. Proposed Finding on the Advanced Technology and Clean Fuels for 
Boilers
    Based on our review of the emission limitations in SJVAPCD's rules, 
we propose to find that the SJV area meets the clean fuel/clean 
technology for boilers requirement in CAA section 182(e)(3).

H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity

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) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim 
milestone.
    Actions that involve 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 part 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 transportation 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 motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) 
contained in the SIP. An attainment, maintenance, or RFP SIP should 
establish budgets for the attainment year, each required RFP year or 
last year of the maintenance plan, as appropriate. Budgets are 
generally established for specific years and specific pollutants or 
precursors. Ozone attainment and RFP plans should establish budgets for 
NOX and VOC. See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(i).
    Before an MPO may use budgets in a submitted SIP, EPA must first 
determine that the budgets are adequate or approve the budgets. In 
order for us to find the budgets adequate and approvable, the submittal 
must meet the conformity adequacy requirements of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) 
and be approvable under all pertinent SIP requirements. To meet these 
requirements, the 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).
2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP
    The SJV Ozone SIP as submitted in 2007 included budgets for VOC and 
NOX for the attainment year of 2023 and the RFP years of 
2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Section 9.2.3 
and Appendix C and CARB Staff Report, Appendix D (updating MVEB for 
Madera and San Joaquin Counties). On January 8, 2009, we notified CARB 
that we found the budgets in the 2007 Ozone Plan for the RFP milestone 
years 2011, 2014, and 2017 adequate and the MVEB for the RFP milestone 
years 2008 and 2020 and the attainment year of 2023 inadequate for 
transportation conformity purposes. See letter Deborah Jordan, EPA 
Region 9, to James Goldstene, CARB, ``RE: Adequacy Status of San 
Joaquin Valley 8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress and Attainment 
Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets,'' January 8, 2009. We published a 
notice of our findings at 74 FR 4032 (January 22, 2009).
    CARB submitted updated MVEB for the San Joaquin Valley and their 
documentation in Appendices A and C, respectively, of the 2011 Ozone 
SIP Revisions. The updated MVEB are for NOX and VOC for the 
RFP years of 2011, 2014, 2017 and 2020 the attainment year of 2023 and 
are intended to replace the budgets for these years that were submitted 
in 2007. No budgets were included for the RFP year of 2008 because it 
is no longer applicable as a conformity analysis year. Additional 
information associated with the motor vehicle emission budget 
calculations were provided in an e-mail from Douglas Ito, CARB to 
Elizabeth Adams, EPA Region 9, ''Additional Clarifying Information,'' 
August 11, 2011.
3. Proposed Action on the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
    As part of its review of the budgets' approvability, EPA has 
evaluated the revised budgets using our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 
93.318(e)(4). As documented in Table K-3 in the TSD, we found that they 
meet each adequacy criterion. We have completed our detailed review of 
the 2007 SJV 8-Hour Ozone SIP and supplemental submittals including the 
2011 Ozone SIP Revisions and are proposing to approve the SIP's 
attainment and RFP demonstrations. We have also reviewed the proposed 
MVEB submitted with the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision and have found that 
they are consistent with the attainment and RFP demonstrations and were 
based on control measures that have already been adopted and 
implemented. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the 2011, 2014, 
2017, 2020, and 2023 MVEB as shown in Table 13.
    EPA is not required under its Transportation Conformity rules to 
find budgets adequate prior to proposing approval of them. However, we 
will

[[Page 57866]]

complete the adequacy review of these budgets either prior to or 
concurrently with our final action on SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP. We 
will also post the revised budgets on EPA's adequacy review web page.
    As stated in section IV.E., if we were to finalize a disapproval 
with respect to the plan's section 182(d)(1)(A) element, then the area 
would be eligible for a protective finding under the transportation 
conformity rule because the submitted SIP contains adopted control 
measures and enforceable commitments that fully satisfy the emissions 
reductions requirements for reasonable further progress and attainment. 
40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).

                             Table 13--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP as Revised on July 21, 2011
                                                                  [Tons per summer day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      2011              2014              2017              2020              2023
                             Year                              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  ROG      NOX      ROG      NOX      ROG      NOX      ROG      NOX      ROG      NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County
    Fresno....................................................     14.3     36.2     10.7     30.0      9.3     22.6      8.3     17.7      8.0     13.5
    Kern (SJV)................................................     12.7     50.3      9.7     42.7      8.7     31.7      8.2     25.1      7.9     18.6
    Kings.....................................................      2.8     10.7      2.1      8.9      1.8      6.7      1.7      5.3      1.6      4.0
    Madera....................................................      3.4      9.3      2.5      7.7      2.2      5.8      2.0      4.7      1.9      3.6
    Merced....................................................      5.1     19.9      3.7     16.7      3.2     12.4      2.9      9.9      2.8      7.4
    San Joaquin...............................................     11.1     24.6      8.4     20.5      7.2     15.6      6.4     12.4      6.3     10.0
    Stanislaus................................................      8.5     16.9      6.4     13.9      5.6     10.6      5.0      8.4      4.7      6.4
    Tulare....................................................      8.8     16.0      6.7     13.2      5.8     10.1      5.3      8.1      4.9      6.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas

    In addition to the requirements discussed above, title 1, subpart D 
of the CAA includes other provisions applicable to extreme ozone 
nonattainment areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley. We describe these 
provisions and their current status below for information purposes 
only.
1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs
    CAA section 182(c)(3) requires states with ozone nonattainment 
areas classified under subpart 2 as serious or above to implement an 
enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in 
those areas. The requirements for those programs are provided in 
section 182(c)(3) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart S.
    On July 1, 2010 (75 FR 38023), EPA approved California's inspection 
and maintenance program in the San Joaquin Valley as meeting the 
requirements of the CAA and applicable EPA regulations for enhanced I/M 
programs.
2. Reformulated Gasoline Program
    As an extreme ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone 
standard, the San Joaquin Valley was covered under the federal 
reformulated gasoline (RFG) program. See CAA section 211(k)(10)(D). As 
an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, SJV continues to be covered under 
the federal RFG program. See 40 CFR 80.70(m)(1)(i) and 70 FR 71685. 
California has its own RFG program (California Phase III RFG (CaRFG3)), 
which also applies in the SJV. EPA approved CaRFG3 program into the 
California SIP on May 12, 2010. See 75 FR 26633.
3. New Source Review Rules
    CAA section 182(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop SIP revisions 
containing permit programs for each of its ozone nonattainment areas. 
The SIP revisions are to include requirements for permits in accordance 
with CAA 172(c)(5) and 173 for the construction and operation of each 
new or modified major stationary source (with respect to ozone) 
anywhere in the nonattainment area. See also CAA sections 182(e). EPA's 
implementation regulations for nonattainment new source review (NSR) 
programs are in 40 CFR 51.165, and guidance specific to ozone 
nonattainment areas is provided in the preamble to the 8-hour ozone 
implementation rule, 70 FR 71612 at 71671-71684. EPA approved the SJV 
District's new source review rules, Rules 2201 ``New and Modified 
Stationary Source Review'' and Rule 2020 ``Exemptions,'' into the SJV 
portion of the California SIP based in part on a conclusion that they 
adequately addressed the NSR requirements specific to extreme areas. 
See 75 FR 26102 (May 11, 2010).
4. Clean-Fuel Vehicle Program
    CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 require California to submit for 
EPA approval a SIP revision that includes measures to implement the 
Clean Fuel Fleet Program. Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the Act allows states 
to opt-out of the clean-fuel vehicle fleet program by submitting a SIP 
revision consisting of a program or programs that will result in at 
least equivalent long term reductions in ozone-producing and toxic air 
emissions.
    In 1994, CARB submitted a SIP revision to opt-out of the federal 
clean fuel fleet program and demonstrating that is low-emissions 
vehicle program achieved emission reductions at least as large as the 
federal program would. EPA approved the State's opt-out on August 27, 
1999. See 64 FR 46849.
5. Gasoline Vapor Recovery
    CAA section 182(b)(3) mandates that States submit a revised SIP by 
November 15, 1992 that requires owners or operators of gasoline 
dispensing systems to install and operate gasoline vehicle refueling 
vapor recovery (``Stage II'') systems in ozone nonattainment areas 
classified as moderate and above. California's ozone nonattainment 
areas had implemented Stage II vapor recovery well before the passage 
of the CAA Amendments of 1990. See General Preamble at 13514.
    Under California State law (Health and Safety Code Sections 41954), 
CARB is required to adopt procedures and performance standards for 
controlling gasoline emissions from gasoline marketing operations, 
including transfer and storage operations. State law also authorizes 
CARB, in cooperation with districts, to certify vapor recovery systems, 
to identify defective equipment, and to develop test methods. CARB has 
adopted numerous revisions to its vapor recovery program regulations. 
See Table A-7 in Appendix A to this TSD. See also CARB's Web site, 
http://www.evrhome.org.
    In the San Joaquin Valley, the installation and operation of CARB-
certified vapor recovery equipment is required and enforced by SJVUAPCD

[[Page 57867]]

Rules 4621 and 4622, the latest versions of which were approved by into 
the SIP on October 30, 2009. See 74 FR 56120.
6. Enhanced Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
    CAA Section 182(c)(1) requires that all ozone nonattainment areas 
classified as serious or above implement measures to enhance and 
improve monitoring for ambient concentrations of ozone, NOX, 
and VOC, and to improve monitoring of emissions of NOX and 
VOC.
    The SJVAPCD's Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan (June 30, 
2010) describes the steps the state has taken to address the 
requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1). The SJV's Photochemical 
Assessment Monitoring Station (PAMS) network consists of six sites 
operated by SJVAPCD centered around Fresno and Bakersfield, as 
described on pages 13 and 17 of the monitoring network plan.\37\ EPA 
has approved the SJVAPCD PAMS network. See letter, Matthew Lakin, EPA 
Region 9 to Scott Nester, SJVAPCD, November 1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Starting in 2007, EPA's monitoring rules (see 71 FR 61236, 
October 17, 2006) required the submittal and EPA action on annual 
monitoring network plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. CAA Section 185 Fee Program
    CAA section 185 requires that the SIP for each severe and extreme 
ozone nonattainment area provide that, if the area fails to attain by 
its applicable attainment date, each major stationary source of VOC and 
NOX located in the area shall pay a fee to the State as a 
penalty for such failure for each calendar year beginning after the 
attainment date, until the area is redesignated as an attainment area 
for ozone. States are not yet required to implement CAA section 185 fee 
programs for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ SJVUAPCD submitted Rule 3170, ``Federally Mandated Ozone 
Nonattainment Fee,'' and a fee-equivalent program to address the 
requirements of CAA section 185 for the 1-hour ozone standard. EPA 
recently proposed to approve these programs as a revision to the 
SJVUAPCD portion of the California SIP. See 76 FR 45212 (July 28, 
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. EPA's Proposed Actions

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve 
California's submitted SIP for attaining the 1997 8-Hour Ozone standard 
in the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area. In the alternative, EPA is 
proposing to disapprove the submitted SIP with respect to certain 
requirements for transportation control strategies and measures pending 
resolution of petitions before the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 
Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 
2011). The submitted SIP consists of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan (as 
revised 2008 and 2011) and the SJV-specific portions of CARB's 2007 
State Strategy (as revised in 2009 and 2011) that address CAA and EPA 
regulations for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the SJV.
    Specifically, EPA proposes to approve under CAA section 110(k)(3) 
the following elements of the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP:
    1. The revised 2002 base year emissions inventories as meeting the 
requirements of CAA sections 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.915;
    2. The reasonably available control measures demonstration as 
meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.912(d);
    3. The reasonable further progress demonstration as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B) and 40 CFR 
51.910;
    4. The attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA 
sections 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.908;
    5. The provisions for the development of new technologies pursuant 
to CAA section 182(e)(5) and CARB's commitment to adopt and submit by 
2020 contingency measures to be implemented if the new technologies do 
not achieve the planned emissions reductions, in addition to additional 
attainment contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA 
172(c)(9), pursuant to CAA section 182(e)(5) and CARB's commitment to 
develop and submit by 2020 revisions to the SIP that will: (1) Reflect 
modifications to the 2023 emission reduction target based on updated 
science and (2) identify additional strategies and implementing 
agencies needed to achieve the needed reductions by 2023.
    6. The contingency measure provisions for failure to make RFP and 
to attain as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 
182(c)(9);
    7. The demonstration that the SIP provides for transportation 
control strategies and measures sufficient to offset any growth in 
emissions from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips and to 
provide for RFP and attainment as meeting the requirements CAA section 
182(d)(1)(A);
    8. The revised motor vehicle emissions budgets for the RFP years of 
2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020 and the attainment year of 2023 because they 
are derived from approvable RFP and attainment demonstrations and meet 
the requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A;
    9. SJVUAPCD's commitments to achieve specific aggregate emissions 
reductions of direct VOC and NOX, as listed in Table 6-1 of 
the 2007 Ozone Plan (as revised December 18, 2008); and
    10. CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, as 
listed in Table B-1 on page 1 of Appendix B of the 2011 Progress Report 
and in Appendix A-3 of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, to achieve 
specific aggregate emissions reductions of VOC and NOX by 
2023 as provided in CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B and the 2009 
State Strategy Status Report; p. 20; and to achieve the emissions 
reductions needed to attain the 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV as 
provided in CARB Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 
3, 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 13.
    Finally, we propose to find that SJVUAPCD has satisfied the clean 
fuel/advanced technology requirement for boilers in CAA section 
182(e)(3) for the SJV.
    In the alternative, if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th 
Circuit denies the Agency's petition for rehearing in AIR v. EPA and 
issues its mandate before EPA issues a final rule on the SJV 2007 8-
Hour Ozone SIP, we propose to disapprove the SIP under CAA section 
110(k)(3) with respect to the first element (i.e., offsetting emissions 
growth) of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) based on the plan's failure to 
include sufficient transportation control strategies and measures to 
offset the emissions from growth in VMT.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

[[Page 57868]]

Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because proposed SIP approvals under section 
110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 
requirements but simply propose to approve requirements that the State 
is already imposing. Therefore, because this proposed Federal SIP 
approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base 
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. 
U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that this proposed action does not include a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or 
to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 
because it merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a 
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air 
Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not 
apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    EO 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have tribal 
implications, as specified in EO 13175. It will not have substantial 
direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. 
Thus, EO 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits 
additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, 
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045, because it proposes to approve a 
State rule implementing a Federal standard.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to EO 13211 ``Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this proposed action. 
Today's proposed action does not require the public to perform 
activities conducive to the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EO 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive 
policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal 
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to 
make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the 
United States.

[[Page 57869]]

    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submittals, EPA's 
role is to approve or disapprove State choices, based on the criteria 
of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve certain 
State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under CAA section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D will not in-and-of itself create any new 
requirements. Accordingly, it does not provide EPA with the 
discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate 
human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally 
permissible methods, under EO 12898.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: September 7, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2011-23656 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```