Vol. 79 Wednesday, 

No. 170 September 3, 2014 

Part IV 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 52 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; South 

Coast 1-Hour and 8-Hour Ozone and Approval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plan Revisions; State of California; South Coast VMT 

Emissions Offset Demonstrations; Final Rules 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
52526 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1Under California law, CARB is the state agency 

that is responsible for submitting SIPs and SIP 

revisions to EPA. CARB is also responsible for the 

regulation of mobile sources in California. Regional 

air quality management districts, such as the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD 

or ‘‘District’’), are responsible for developing and 

adopting regional air quality plans and for 

regulating stationary sources. Once adopted, the 

plans developed by the regional air quality 

management districts are submitted to CARB for 

adoption as part of the California SIP and then 

submitted to EPA for approval or disapproval under 

section 110 of the CAA. 

2The South Coast includes Orange County, the 

southwestern two-thirds of Los Angeles County, 

southwestern San Bernardino County, and western 

Riverside County (see 40 CFR 81.305). 3 Ground-level ozone is an oxidant that is formed 

from photochemical reactions in the atmosphere 

between volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) (collectively referred to as 

the ozone precursors). The one-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or 

‘‘standard’’) is 0.12 parts per million (ppm). While 

the 1-hour ozone standard was revoked in 2005, 

certain SIP requirements, such as having an 

attainment demonstration, continue to apply in 

areas, such as the South Coast, that were designated 

as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards under EPA’s ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

regulations governing the transition from the 1-hour 

ozone to the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. See 40 

CFR 51.905. 

4 In 1997, EPA established an 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS of 0.08 ppm (‘‘1997 8-hour ozone 

standard’’) to replace the existing 1-hour ozone 

standard. SCAQMD and CARB prepared the 2007 

AQMP and 2007 State Strategy (‘‘2007 AQMP’’), in 

part, to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard and the ozone control strategy sets 

for the measures and provisions that the agencies 

intend to fulfill to meet the standard by the 

applicable attainment date. EPA approved the 2007 

AQMP at 77 FR 12674 (March 1, 2012). 

5See SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution No. 

12–19 (December 7, 2012). 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0185; FRL–9915–86– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California; 

South Coast 1-Hour and 8-Hour Ozone 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the portions 

of a State implementation plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

California on February 13, 2013 that 

relate to attainment of the 1-hour and 

1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards in the Los AngelesSouth Coast area. Specifically, the EPA 

is approving the portions of the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District’s 

Final 2012 Air Quality Management 

Plan that update the approved control 

strategy for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard and that provide a 

demonstration of attainment of the 1- 

hour ozone standard by December 31, 

2022. In approving this SIP revision, the 

EPA finds that an attainment date of 

December 31, 2022 is appropriate in 

light of the severity of the 1-hour ozone 

problem in the Los Angeles-South Coast 

area and the limited emissions 

remaining that can be regulated given 

the extent to which emissions sources in 

the South Coast have already been 

controlled. As part of this action, the 

EPA is approving new commitments 

adopted by the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District to develop, adopt, 

submit and implement certain near-term 

measures to achieve certain aggregate 

emission reduction targets, updated new 

technology provisions, and a new 

commitment by the California Air 

Resources Board to submit contingency 

measures in 2019 as necessary to meet 

the emission reduction targets for 2022 

from implementation of new technology 

measures. 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

3, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may inspect the 

supporting information for this action, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0185, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking portal, http:// 

www.regulations.gov, please follow the 

online instructions; or, 

2. Visit our regional office at, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site and 

in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105. While all documents 

in the docket are listed in the index, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., voluminous records, large maps, 

copyrighted material), and some may 

not be publicly available at either 

location (e.g., Confidential Business 

Information). 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR– 

2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 947–4192, 

tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Public Comments and the EPA’s 

Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On February 13, 2013, the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted 

the Final 2012 Air Quality Management 

Plan (‘‘2012 AQMP’’) to EPA as a 

revision to the Los Angeles-South Coast 

Air Basin (‘‘South Coast’’) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP).1 2 The South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD or 

District) and CARB prepared the 2012 

AQMP in response to EPA’s ‘‘SIP call’’ 

under section 110(k)(5) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) for a new 

attainment demonstration for the 1-hour 

ozone standard for South Coast and to 

meet other CAA requirements.3

In addition to the 2012 AQMP, 

CARB’s February 13, 2013 SIP revision 

submittal includes the relevant CARB 

and SCAQMD board resolutions and 

other supporting material. The 2012 

AQMP updates the approved 1997 8- 

hour ozone control strategy,4 includes 

attainment demonstrations for the 1- 

hour ozone standard and the 2006 PM2.5

standard, and includes demonstrations 

intended to address the vehicle-milestraveled emissions offset requirements 

of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 1- 

hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards. With respect to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard, in adopting the 

2012 AQMP, the SCAQMD indicated 

that, while the 2012 AQMP updates the 

approved 1997 8-hour ozone control 

strategy with new measures designed to 

reduce reliance on CAA section 

182(e)(5) long-term (i.e., advanced 

technologies) measures for VOC and 

NOX reductions, it is not intended as an 

update to other elements of the 

approved 8-hour ozone control plan.5

The 2012 AQMP contains a number of 

SIP elements for a number of pollutants, 

but we are taking action today only on 

the portions of the 2012 AQMP that 

update the approved 1997 8-hour ozone 

control strategy from the 2007 AQMP 

and that provide an attainment 

demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 

standard. Specifically, the relevant 

elements of the 2012 AQMP covered by 

our action include: 

• CARB’s resolution of adoption 

(Resolution 13–3); 

• SCAQMD’s resolution of adoption 

(Resolution 12–19); 

• The ozone-related portions of 

chapter 4 of the 2012 AQMP (‘‘Control 

Strategy and Implementation’’); 

• Appendices IV–A (‘‘District’s 

Stationary Source Control Measures’’), 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 52527 

6See 2012 AQMP, appendix III, page III–1–1. 

7With respect to SCAQMD Rule 1147, we 

determined that the future baseline emissions in the 

2012 AQMP reflect emissions reductions associated 

with the version of the rule approved by EPA at 75 

FR 46845 (August 4, 2010) rather than the 2011 

amended version, and thus, approval of the revised 

South Coast 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration 

in the 2012 AQMP does not depend upon EPA 

approval of the more recent amendments to that 

rule. 

8The EPA Region IX Regional Administrator 

signed direct final and proposed rules for the 

amended Consumer Product Rule, and the amended 

Rules 1146 and 1146.1, on August 5, 2014 and July 

25, 2014, respectively. 

9 ‘‘New technology’’ measures is the terms used 

herein to refer to the provisions of the 2012 AQMP 

that update the corresponding provisions in the 

2007 AQMP that anticipate development of new 

control techniques or improvement of existing 

control technologies. See section 182(e)(5) of the 

Act. 

10 In our proposed rule, we erroneously described 

the SCAQMD’s aggregate emissions reductions 

commitment as 5.8 tpd of VOC and 10.7 tpd of 

NOX. However, as corrected, the commitment is for 

6 tpd of VOC and 11 tpd of NOX. See pages 7 and 

8 of SCAQMD Resolution No. 12–19, table 4–11 of 

the 2012 AQMP, and the Wallerstein Letter. 

IV–B (‘‘Proposed Section 182(e)(5) 

Implementation Measures’’), and IV–C 

(‘‘Regional Transportation Strategy and 

Control Measures’’); and 

• Appendix VII (‘‘South Coast 2012 1- 

hour ozone attainment demonstration’’), 

which includes 4 attachments, one of 

which includes a demonstration of 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM). 

In addition, EPA requested 

clarification of the commitments made 

by SCAQMD and CARB in connection 

with the 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration in the 2012 AQMP, and 

the two agencies responded with the 

following letters clarifying their 

respective commitments: 

• Letter from Barry R. Wallerstein, 

D.Env, SCAQMD Executive Officer, to 

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region IX, May 1, 

2014 (‘‘Wallerstein Letter’’); and 

• Letter from Richard W. Corey, 

Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region IX, May 2, 2014 (‘‘Corey 

Letter’’). 

For simplicity, in referring to the 

elements on which we are acting, we are 

using the term ‘‘2012 AQMP’’ even 

though we recognize that the 2012 

AQMP includes other elements in 

addition to those covered in this final 

action. 

On May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29712), the 

EPA proposed approval of the updated 

control strategy for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard and the 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration, including the 

related emissions inventories, control 

strategy, and photochemical modeling. 

In proposing approval of the 2012 

AQMP, we agreed with the State that an 

attainment date of December 31, 2022 

for the 1-hour ozone standard in the 

South Coast is appropriate in light of the 

severity of nonattainment and the extent 

to which emissions sources have 

already been controlled in the South 

Coast. References herein to ‘‘the 

proposed rule’’ or ‘‘our proposed rule’’ 

refer to our proposal published on May 

23, 2014. 

In connection with future baseline 

emissions in the South Coast as 

presented in the 2012 AQMP, we noted 

in our proposed rule that the baseline 

reflects regulations adopted by 

SCAQMD as of June 2012 and 

regulations adopted by CARB by August 

2011.6 As we noted in our proposed 

rule, as a general matter, EPA will 

approve a State plan that takes 

emissions reduction credit for a control 

measure only where EPA has approved 

the measure as part of the SIP, or in the 

case of certain on-road and nonroad (or 

‘‘off-road’’) measures, where EPA has 

issued the related waiver of preemption 

or authorization under CAA section 

209(b) or section 209(e). We also noted 

that, with certain exceptions, the 

relevant SCAQMD and CARB rules had 

been approved into the SIP, and with 

respect to the exceptions (recent 

amendments to SCAQMD Rules 1146, 

1146.1, and 1147 and CARB’s Consumer 

Products Regulation), we anticipated 

taking final action prior to taking final 

action on the revised 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration.7 As 

anticipated, EPA has taken action on 

CARB’s amended Consumer Product 

Rule and SCAQMD’s amended Rules 

1146 and 1146.1.8 As such, the future 

baseline in the 2012 AQMP reflects, 

CARB and SCAQMD rules for which 

EPA has issued approvals, waivers, or 

authorizations and that are therefore 

enforceable for the purposes of the CAA. 

The control strategy for the 1-hour 

ozone standard includes adopted 

measures (i.e., baseline measures that 

are reflected in the future baseline 

emissions inventories), committal 

measures, and new technology 

measures.9 The overall control strategy 

and emissions reductions from the 

various components are presented in 

table 4 of our proposed rule, which we 

reprint here for ease of reference. 

TABLE 4 (FROM PROPOSED RULE)—SUMMARY OF SOUTH COAST’S 1-HOUR OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

CONTROL STRATEGY (SUMMER PLANNING INVENTORY (TPD)) 

Emissions Scenario VOC NOX

Year 2008 Base Year a .................................................................................................................................................................... 593 754 

Emission Reductions from Baseline Measures ........................................................................................................................ 153 419 

Year 2022 Baseline ......................................................................................................................................................................... 440 335 

SCAQMD’s New Aggregate Emissions Reduction Commitment ............................................................................................. 6 11 

CARB’s Existing Aggregate Emissions Reduction Commitment ............................................................................................. 7 24 

New Technology Provisions .............................................................................................................................................. 17 150 

Year 2022 With Fulfillment of Commitments ................................................................................................................................... 410 150 

aThe modeling runs that were used to demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the 2012 AQMP were based on the base year 

(2008) summer planning inventories (see table 1 from our proposed rule) with adjustments made for weekly and daily temperature variations. 

See 2012 AQMP, appendix VII, page VII–51. 

With respect to the ozone control 

strategy, we proposed that the 2012 

AQMP provides for implementation of 

all RACM and that the committal 

measures and new technology measures 

relied upon to achieve necessary 

emissions reductions were approvable. 

Specifically, we proposed to approve 

the new commitments by the SCAQMD 

to develop, adopt, submit and 

implement 15 new measures as 

expeditiously as possible to achieve, in 

the aggregate, emissions reductions of 6 

tons per day (tpd) of VOC and 11 tpd 

of NOX by January 1, 2022, and to 

substitute any other measures as 

necessary to make up any emission 

reduction shortfall.10 The 15 new 

SCAQMD measures are summarized in 

table 5 of our proposed rule, which we 

reprint here for ease of reference. For a 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
52528 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

11We interpret CARB’s contingency measure 

commitment to be for January 1, 2019 based on the 

requirement in section 182(e)(5) that such measures 

must be submitted ‘‘no later than 3 years before 

proposed implementation of the [advanced control 

technologies measures].’’ 

detailed description of the measures to 

which the SCAQMD has committed, 

please see appendix VI–A of the 2012 

AQMP. 

TABLE 5 (FROM PROPOSED RULE)—DISTRICT CONTROL MEASURES IN 2012 AQMP 1-HOUR OZONE ATTAINMENT

DEMONSTRATION

Number and title Adoption Implementation period 

Reduction 

(tons per day (tpd)) 

by 2023 

VOC NOX

CTS–01—Further VOC Reductions from Architectural 

Coatings (Rule 1113).

2015–2016 ........................ 2018–2020 ........................ 2–4 ......................

CTS–02—Further Emission Reduction from Miscellaneous Coatings, Adhesives, Solvents and Lubricants.2013–2016 ........................ 2015–2018 ........................ 1–2 ......................

CTS–03—Further VOC Reductions from Mold Release 

Products.

2014 .................................. 2016 .................................. 0.8–2 ......................

CMB–01—Further NOX Reductions from RECLAIM .... 2015 .................................. 2020 .................................. ...................... 3–5 

CMB–02—NOX Reductions from Biogas Flares ........... 2015 .................................. Beginning 2017 ................ ...................... (1)

CMB–03—Reductions from Commercial Space Heating.Phase I—2014 (Tech Assessment), Phase II— 

2016.

Beginning 2018 ................ ...................... 0.18 

FUG–01—VOC Reductions from Vacuum Trucks ........ 2014 .................................. 2016 .................................. 1 ......................

FUG–02—Emission Reduction from LPG Transfer and 

Dispensing—Phase II.

2015 .................................. 2017 .................................. 1–2 ......................

FUG–03—Further Reductions from Fugitive VOC 

Emissions.

2015–2016 ........................ 2017–2018 ........................ 1–2 ......................

MCS–01—Application of All Feasible Measures .......... Ongoing ............................ Ongoing ............................ (1) (1)

MCS–02—Further Emission Reductions from Green 

waste Processing (Chipping and Grinding Operations not associated with composting).

2015 .................................. 2016 .................................. 1 ......................

MCS–03—Improved Start-up, Shutdown and Turnaround Procedures.Phase I—2012 (Tech Assessment), Phase II— 

TBD.

Phase I—2013 (Tech Assessment), Phase II— 

TBD.

(1) (1)

INC–01—Economic Incentive Programs to Adopt Zero 

and Near-Zero Technologies.

2014 .................................. Within 12 months after 

funding availability.

...................... (1)

INC–02—Expedited Permitting and CEQA Preparation 

Facilitating the Manufacturing of Zero and NearZero Technologies.

2014–2015 ........................ Beginning 2015 ................ (2) (2)

EDU–01—Further Criteria Pollutant Reductions from 

Education, Outreach and Incentives.

Ongoing ............................ Ongoing ............................ (2) (2)

Source: 2012 AQMP, table 4–4. Note: TBD = to be determined once the specific inventory and control approach for the measure are identified. 

N/A = not applicable given nature of the measure. 1TBD. 

2 N/A. 

We noted in our proposed rule that 

CARB did not make a new aggregate 

emissions reduction commitment for the 

purposes of demonstrating attainment of 

the 1-hour ozone standard by December 

31, 2022 in the South Coast, but instead 

relies on the EPA-approved aggregate 

emissions reduction commitment under 

the 2007 AQMP, which will provide 7 

tpd of VOC and 24 tpd of NOX

reductions by January 1, 2022. 

Considered together, the SCAQMD’s 

new aggregate emissions reductions 

commitment and CARB’s existing 

aggregate emissions reductions 

commitment under the 2007 AQMP 

amount to 13 tpd of VOC and 35 tpd of 

NOX for the purposes of 1-hour 

attainment in the South Coast by 

December 31, 2022. 

We also proposed to approve, as 

authorized under section 182(e)(5) of 

the CAA, provisions that anticipate 

development of new control techniques 

or improvement of existing control 

technologies. The 2012 AQMP relies on 

such provisions to achieve emissions 

reductions of 17 tpd of VOC and 150 tpd 

of NOX by January 1, 2022 for 1-hour 

ozone attainment demonstration 

purposes. Consistent with the 

requirements for CAA section 182(e)(5), 

we proposed to approve a related 

commitment by CARB to develop, 

adopt, and submit contingency 

measures by January 1, 2019 to be 

implemented if the anticipated 

technologies do not achieve the planned 

reductions.11 The 2012 AQMP frames 

the section 182(e)(5) provisions in terms 

of specific measures referred to herein 

as ‘‘new technology measures.’’ These 

measures are summarized in table 6 of 

our proposed rule, which we reprint 

here for ease of reference. See 2012 

AQMP, appendix IV–B for a detailed 

description of the measures. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 52529 

TABLE 6 (FROM PROPOSED RULE)—SCAQMD AND CARB NEW TECHNOLOGY MEASURES IN 2012 AQMP 

2012 AQMP 

Measure 

identifier 

Title Description 

ONRD–01 ...... Accelerated Penetration of Partial ZeroEmission and Zero Emission Vehicles.This measure continues implementation of CARB’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Project 

(CVRP) through 2023 with a minimum number of 1,000 vehicles per year to be 

incentivized through the CVRP, which provides individual vehicle incentives of up 

to certain amounts (e.g., $2,500 for full zero-emission vehicles) for clean vehicles. 

ONRD–02 ...... Accelerated Retirement of Older LightDuty and Medium Duty Vehicles.This measure calls for retirement of, at a minimum, 2,000 light and medium-duty 

vehicles per year to 2023, and gives first priority to pre-1992 model year vehicles 

identified as high emitter and that are off-cycle to California’s Smog Check Program. Incentives are up to $2,500 per vehicle which could include a replacement 

voucher under CARB’s Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program. 

ONRD–03 ...... Accelerated Penetration of Partial ZeroEmission and Zero Emission LightHeavy- and Medium-Heavy-Duty Vehicles.This measure seeks additional emissions reductions through the early introduction 

of electric hybrid vehicles and continues the state hybrid truck and bus voucher 

incentive project (HVIP). Incentives of up to $25,000 per vehicle are part of this 

measure. The measure’s goal is to fund 1,000 hybrid and zero-emission vehicles 

each year to 2023. 

ONRD–04 ...... Accelerated Retirement of Older OnRoad Heavy-Duty Vehicles.This measure seeks additional emissions reductions from older, pre-2010 heavyduty vehicles beyond the emission reductions targeted in CARB’s Truck and Bus 

Regulation. A significant number of heavy-duty trucks have been replaced 

through Proposition 1B Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program funding, 

the Carl Moyer Program, and other local incentives programs. This measure continues these programs through 2023. 

ONRD–05 ...... Further Emission Reductions from HeavyDuty Vehicles Serving Near-Dock 

Railyards.

This measure calls for CARB to adopt a regulation or other enforceable mechanism 

to further reduce emissions from near-dock railyard drayage trucks. The regulation or other enforcement mechanism would require, by 2020, all containers 

transported between the marine ports and the near-dock railyards to use zeroemission technologies. 

OFFRD–01 .... Extension of the SOON Provision for 

Construction/Industrial Equipment.

This measure seeks to reduce emissions from older, high-emitting off-road diesel 

engines. Under this measure, incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and the SOON Provision of CARB’s Off-Road rule, would continue to be 

used to fund equipment replacement and engine repower projects. This measure 

would extend the current SOON program beyond 2014 to 2023. 

OFFRD–02 .... Further Emission Reductions from Freight 

Locomotives.

This measure carries forward the freight locomotive new technology measures from 

the 2007 AQMP and calls for replacing existing locomotive engines with Tier 4 

engines beginning in 2015 such that by 2023, there will be at least 95% Tier 4 

locomotives operating the South Coast. 

OFFRD–03 .... Further Emission Reductions from Passenger Locomotives.Metrolink’s Board has adopted a locomotive replacement plan which includes the 

procurement of Tier 4 locomotive engines to replace its 30 Tier 0 locomotives 

over a three-year period. In addition, the replacement plans call for repowering 

the existing Tier 2 locomotives to Tier 4 emission levels, resulting in 100% Tier 4 

locomotives by 2023. 

OFFRD–04 .... Further Emission Reductions from 

Ocean-Going Marine Vessels While at 

Berth.

This measure focuses on ocean-going vessels not subject to CARB’s shorepower 

regulation and seeks to deploy shorepower technologies for an additional 25 percent of the calls not subject to CARB’s shorepower regulation. 

OFFRD–05 .... Emission Reductions from Ocean-Going 

Marine Vessels.

This measure calls for incentives to be used to maximize the early introduction and 

preferential deployment of vessels to the San Pedro Bay Ports with cleaner/new 

engines meeting the new Tier 2 and Tier 3 IMO NOX standards. 

ADV–01 ......... Actions for the Deployment of Zero and 

Near-Zero Emission On-Road HeavyDuty Vehicles.

This measure includes two sets of actions. The first set involves the establishment 

of an optional NOX exhaust emission standard that is at least 95 percent lower 

than the current 2010 on-road exhaust emissions standard. The second set is to 

develop zero-emission technologies for heavy-duty vehicles that can be deployed 

in the 2015 to 2035 timeframe. 

ADV–02 ......... Actions for the Deployment of Zero-Emission and Near-Zero Locomotives.This measure describes actions needed to commercialize advanced zero-emission 

and near-zero emission technologies for locomotives that could be deployed in 

the 2020 to 2030 timeframe. 

ADV–03 ......... Actions for the Deployment of Zero-Emission and Near-Zero Cargo Handling 

Equipment.

This measure describes actions to demonstrate and commercialize advanced zeroemission and near-zero emission technologies for cargo handling equipment operated at marine ports, intermodal freight facilities, and warehouse distribution 

centers that could be deployed in the 2020 to 2030 timeframe. 

ADV–04 ......... Actions for the Deployment of Cleaner 

Commercial Harbor Craft.

This measure describes actions needed to commercialize advanced engine control 

technologies and hybrid systems for commercial harbor craft that could be deployed in the 2020 to 2030 timeframe. 

ADV–05 ......... Actions for Deployment of Cleaner 

Ocean-Going Marine Vessels.

This measure describes the actions needed to deploy retrofit technologies on existing Category 3 marine engines to achieve Tier 3 marine engine emissions standards. 

ADV–06 ......... Actions for the Deployment of Cleaner 

Off-Road Equipment.

This measure describes the actions needed to commercialize advanced zero-emission and near-zero emission technologies of off-road equipment that could be deployed in the 2020 to 2030 timeframe. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
52530 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

12 In its emails to EPA, PSPC did not specify how 

the 500+ pages of clerk’s transcript, included as 

attachments to their emails, are relevant to our May 

23, 2014 proposed rule. PSPC’s emails also include 

links to several Web sites and the emails indicate 

that the documents and studies available through 

these web links are to be included in the record. 

Again, however, PSPC did not specify how these 

materials relate to our proposed rule. Therefore, 

other than acknowledging receipt of the 

attachments and web links, EPA has no further 

response to them. 

TABLE 6 (FROM PROPOSED RULE)—SCAQMD AND CARB NEW TECHNOLOGY MEASURES IN 2012 AQMP—Continued 

2012 AQMP 

Measure 

identifier 

Title Description 

ADV–07 ......... Actions for the Deployment of Cleaner 

Aircraft Engines.

This measure describes the actions needed to develop, demonstrate, and commercialize advanced technologies, procedures, and sustainable alternative jet fuels 

that could be deployed in the 2020 to 2030 timeframe. 

A more detailed discussion of the 

ozone NAAQS, ozone SIP plans for the 

South Coast, EPA’s SIP call for a new 1- 

hour ozone attainment demonstration as 

well as the 2012 AQMP and our 

evaluation of how it meets the 

requirements of the CAA can be found 

in our proposed rule. The EPA is 

approving the 2012 AQMP based on our 

determination that it complies with 

applicable CAA requirements and 

provides for expeditious attainment of 

the 1-hour ozone standard in the South 

Coast. 

II. Public Comments and the EPA’s 

Responses 

Our proposed rule provided a 30-day 

comment period. During this period, we 

received a comment letter from 

Earthjustice on behalf of a number of 

community and environmental groups, 

including Communities for a Better 

Environment, Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Physicians for Social 

Responsibility—Los Angeles, and Sierra 

Club (herein, referred to collectively as 

‘‘Earthjustice’’); and a number of emails 

and attachments from a member of the 

public representing the Public Solar 

Power Coalition (‘‘PSPC’’ herein). The 

attachments from PSPC included a copy 

of the clerk’s transcript of case 

documents from the Superior Court, Los 

Angeles County, to the Second District 

Court of Appeal upon appeal of Eder v. 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SC 119641).12 We provide our 

responses to the comments in the 

paragraphs below. We have organized 

the comments and responses under the 

related major topics. 

One-Hour Ozone Attainment Date 

Comment 1: Earthjustice asserts that 

EPA erred in relying on CAA sections 

110(k)(5) and 172(a)(2) to set the South 

Coast’s attainment deadline for the 1- 

hour standard and was required instead 

to use section 179(d)(3). Earthjustice 

further asserts that, if EPA had acted 

correctly, the attainment date would be 

no later than 2021 rather than 2022. 

Response 1: This comment is not 

timely and is not relevant to the current 

rulemaking. The EPA established the 

new attainment date for the 1-hour 

ozone standard in the South Coast in 

our final SIP call rule, which was issued 

on January 7, 2013. See 78 FR 889 (‘‘The 

SIP must provide for attainment of the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS in the South 

Coast nonattainment area as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than five years from the effective date of 

today’s rule, unless the State can 

demonstrate that it needs up to an 

additional five years to attain in light of 

the severity of the nonattainment 

problem and the availability and 

feasibility of control measures.’’) 

The 2012 AQMP provides a 

demonstration of attainment by 

December 31, 2022 and our proposed 

rule finds that an attainment date of 

December 31, 2022 is appropriate in 

light of the severity of the 1-hour ozone 

problem in the South Coast and the 

extent to which emission sources in the 

South Coast have already been 

controlled. See 79 FR 29712, at 29724 

(May 23, 2014). 

CAA Section 182(e)(5) 

Comment 2: Earthjustice asserts that 

the plain language of the CAA does not 

allow for reliance on section 182(e)(5) 

after the attainment date. The Act 

requires states that plan to rely on CAA 

section 182(e)(5) measures to implement 

contingency measures ‘‘adequate to 

produce emissions reductions sufficient, 

in conjunction with other approved 

plan provisions, to achieve . . . 

attainment by the applicable dates’’ and 

that the applicable attainment date for 

‘‘extreme’’ areas is November 15, 2010 

pursuant to section 181(a)(1). With 

respect to the South Coast, Earthjustice 

argues that the contingency measures 

are de facto insufficient to achieve 

attainment by the applicable dates 

because the attainment date of 

November 15, 2010 has expired, and 

because it has expired, it is no longer 

possible to satisfy the requirements of 

section 182(e)(5). Thus, Earthjustice 

concludes that the 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration in the 2012 

AQMP cannot rely on section 182(e)(5) 

measures. 

Response 2: We disagree with the 

contention that the plain language of the 

CAA does not allow for reliance on 

section 182(e)(5) when a state fails to 

meet its initial attainment date and a 

new attainment date must be 

established. Section 182(e) expressly 

provides EPA with the authority to 

approve an attainment demonstration 

for ‘‘extreme’’ ozone areas that 

anticipates ‘‘development of new 

control techniques or improvement of 

existing control technologies,’’ referred 

to herein as ‘‘new technology’’ 

measures, if certain conditions are met. 

Nothing in this provision limits its 

application only to the initial 

designations and classification that 

occurred immediately following 

enactment of the CAA Amendments of 

1990. The commenter does not explain 

why it is ‘‘no longer possible’’ to meet 

the conditions of section 182(e)(5), and 

we explain in the proposed rule why the 

State has met those requirements. See 

79 FR at 29722–29724 (May 23, 2014). 

Comment 3: Earthjustice argues that 

an area that fails to attain by its 

applicable attainment date should not 

be allowed to include CAA section 

182(e)(5) measures because it gives 

states no incentive to close the ‘‘black 

box’’ within the attainment time frames 

of the Act. Earthjustice believes that 

allowing areas to rely on section 

182(e)(5) provisions after the attainment 

time frames of the Act creates an 

incentive to continually roll ‘‘black’’ box 

reductions past the attainment date. 

Response 3: We disagree that 

approving a revised 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration that relies on 

new technology measures under CAA 

section 182(e)(5) (and referred to as the 

‘‘black box’’ by Earthjustice) removes 

the incentive for states to follow through 

on the related emissions reductions 

within the timeframes of the Act. First, 

if the new technology measures in the 

2012 AQMP do not achieve the 

emissions reductions upon which the 1- 

hour ozone attainment demonstration 

relies (i.e., 17 tpd of VOC and 150 tpd 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 52531 

of NOX), then CARB must submit 

contingency measures to make up for 

the shortfall. CARB has made a 

commitment to develop and submit 

such contingency measures by January 

1, 2019. 

Given the extent to which emissions 

sources in the South Coast are already 

controlled, development of section 

182(e)(5) contingency measures will 

present a significant regulatory 

challenge to CARB that can only be 

avoided or reduced if the new 

technology measures achieve a 

significant portion, if not all, of the 

emissions reductions expected from 

them in the 2012 AQMP. Further, upon 

the effective date of today’s action, the 

commitment submitted by CARB to 

submit such contingency measures will 

be part of the California SIP and thus 

enforceable by EPA or private citizens. 

Comment 4: Earthjustice asserts that 

allowing the 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration in the 2012 AQMP to 

rely on section 182(e)(5) measures 

conflicts with the purpose of section 

182(e)(5) because section 182(e)(5)(A) 

specifically precludes reliance on new 

technology measures to comply with 

emissions reductions necessary in the 

first ten years after enactment of the 

1990 Amendments to the Act and 

thereby indicates Congress’s intention 

that a 10-year period is too short to 

allow reliance on ‘‘black box’’ measures 

to comply with CAA requirements; 

because, as a practical matter, the 

shortened planning horizon for 

attainment in the 2012 AQMP does not 

provide the time necessary to develop 

and implement new technology 

measures; and because section 

182(e)(5)(B) requires contingency 

measures to be submitted at least three 

years in advance of implementation of 

the measures if the anticipated 

technologies do not achieve the 

anticipated emissions reductions. 

Earthjustice contends that emissions 

reductions must be in place by January 

1, 2020 to provide the three years of 

clean data prior to an attainment date of 

December 31, 2022, which means that 

the contingency measures under CAA 

section 182(e)(5)(B) must be submitted 

by January 1, 2017, less than three years 

from the present. Given the contrast 

between the planning horizon for the 1- 

hour ozone standard in the 2012 AQMP 

and the longer (20-year) planning 

horizon for the initial South Coast 

AQMP established under the CAA 

Amendments of 1990, Earthjustice 

concludes that section 182(e)(5) 

measures cannot be relied upon for the 

1-hour ozone attainment demonstration 

in the 2012 AQMP. 

Response 4: First, the language of 

section 182(e)(5)(A) does not preclude 

reliance on new technology provisions 

in the new 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration. Section 182(e)(5)(A) is 

the first condition necessary to support 

reliance on new technology provisions, 

and to meet this condition, the EPA 

must find that such provisions ‘‘are not 

necessary to achieve the incremental 

emission reductions required during the 

first ten years after November 15, 1990.’’ 

Since the 10-year attainment period for 

the area runs from 2013 until January 1, 

2022, by definition the State has met 

this condition. Given the plain language 

of the Act in this regard, there is no 

ambiguity to resolve and for which 

Congressional intent might be taken into 

consideration. 

Second, with respect to the practical 

consideration of whether sufficient time 

is available to develop new technology 

measures to provide emissions 

reductions by January 1, 2022 to provide 

for attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard by December 31, 2022, we note 

that the processes used by the relevant 

air agencies to develop and implement 

the new technology measures are not 

new to the 2012 AQMP, but represent a 

continuation of the effort initiated in the 

wake of development of the 2007 AQMP 

for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and that is unfolding over a 

longer planning period, similar to that 

for the 1-hour ozone plan developed 

pursuant to the CAA Amendments of 

1990. Third, with respect to the timeline 

for emissions reductions and submittal 

of contingency measures under the 2012 

AQMP, we note that the deadline for 

emissions reductions necessary for 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

by December 31, 2022 is January 1, 

2022, not January 1, 2020 as asserted by 

Earthjustice. We explain the basis for 

this timeframe in our response to 

comment #13. Given that all emission 

reductions necessary for attainment of 

the standard must be achieved by 

January 1, 2022, the contingency 

measures under CAA section 

182(e)(5)(B) are due to EPA no later than 

January 1, 2019, not January 1, 2017. 

Thus, CARB had about six years from 

adoption of the 2012 AQMP, and has 

about four years remaining from the 

date of this final action, to determine 

whether it will be able to achieve 17 tpd 

of VOC and 150 tpd of NOX reductions 

in the South Coast for 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration purposes 

through the new technology measures or 

whether it will need to adopt alternative 

‘‘contingency’’ measures to cover some 

or all of the necessary emissions 

reductions. This timeframe does not 

render application of section 182(e)(5) 

absurd; to the contrary, we believe that 

it is both practicable and reasonable. 

Comment 5: Earthjustice asserts that 

CAA section 179 governs what happens 

when a region fails to meet an ozone 

standard, and that section 179 does not 

permit the use of section 182(e)(5) 

measures. Specifically, Earthjustice 

notes that section 179(d)(2) states that 

the new plan required under section 179 

shall comply with sections 110 and 172 

of the CAA and makes no reference to 

allowing for reliance on section 

182(e)(5). 

Response 5: This comment appears to 

take issue with EPA’s previous final 

action determining that the South Coast 

had failed to attain the 1-hour ozone 

standard by the November 15, 2010 

applicable attainment date. See 76 FR 

82133, at 82145 (December 30, 2011). In 

that action, we were clear that the basis 

for our action was CAA sections 301(a) 

and 181(b)(2) and not section 179(c). 

Thus the new 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration is not governed by the 

requirements under section 179(d)(2). 

Regardless, we note that while section 

179(d)(2) requires that the new SIP meet 

the requirements of CAA sections 110 

and 172, it does not speak to nor 

preclude reliance on section 182(e)(5). 

We do not believe, and the commenter 

does not suggest, how a SIP for an ozone 

area classified as extreme would be 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

sections 110 and 172. 

Comment 6: Even if reliance on CAA 

section 182(e)(5) were allowed, EPA’s 

approval is arbitrary and capricious, 

contends Earthjustice, because EPA has 

not determined whether the section 

182(e)(5) new technology measures will 

produce sufficient emission reductions 

to allow the South Coast to meet the 

attainment deadline. Earthjustice 

contends that over half of the proposed 

section 182(e)(5) measures in the 2012 

AQMP have not been evaluated for their 

potential to reduce emissions. 

Additionally, Earthjustice asserts that, 

to rely on section 182(e)(5) measures to 

demonstrate attainment, the SIP must 

contain enforceable commitments from 

agencies responsible for developing and 

implementing the measures and that it 

is unclear from EPA’s proposed rule 

whether such commitments have been 

made. 

Response 6: We disagree that to 

approve the new technology provisions 

in the 2012 AQMP, we must determine 

that the identified new technology 

measures will in fact achieve the 

reductions necessary to attain the 

standard. Section 182(e)(5) 

contemplates that States will rely on 

measures not yet fully evolved and for 

that reason it is difficult to attribute a 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
52532 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

13Additional relevant EPA guidance includes 

EPA memorandum titled ‘‘Guidance on the 

Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) 

Requirement and Attainment Demonstration 

Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

November 30, 1999, and EPA memorandum titled 

‘‘Additional Submission on RACM from States with 

Severe One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs,’’ 

December 14, 2000. 

specific tonnage reduction to such 

measures. The new technology 

provisions in the 2012 AQMP reflect 

greater specificity than the 

corresponding provisions from the 2007 

AQMP, but do not provide evidence that 

they will produce sufficient emissions 

reductions to allow the South Coast to 

meet the attainment deadline for the 1- 

hour ozone standard. For many of the 

individual new technology measures, 

emissions reductions were not 

estimated because they depend upon 

funding levels, which are uncertain at 

this time. 

The fact that the specific emissions 

reduction estimates for the individual 

new technology measures in the 2012 

AQMP are not available, however, is 

immaterial. Section 182(e)(5) requires, 

as relevant here, that the State submit 

‘‘enforceable commitments to develop 

and adopt contingency measures’’ to be 

implemented if the new technologies do 

not achieve the planned reductions. In 

this case, the 2012 AQMP is relying on 

17 tpd of VOC and 150 tpd of NOX

reductions from the new technology 

provisions for 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration purposes. Such 

contingency measures must be 

‘‘adequate to produce emissions 

reductions sufficient, in conjunction 

with other approved plan provisions, to 

achieve the periodic emission 

reductions . . . and attainment by the 

applicable dates.’’ CARB has submitted 

the necessary commitment to develop, 

adopt and submit such contingency 

measures by January 1, 2019. See CARB 

Resolution 13–3 and Corey Letter dated 

May 2, 2014. 

Although section 182(e)(5) does not 

require an enforceable commitment 

with respect to the new technology 

measures, we note that the State has 

identified the specific agencies that will 

be responsible for developing and 

implementing the controls or techniques 

anticipated under the individual new 

technology measures, and for the 2012 

AQMP, the SCAQMD has identified 

such agencies for each of the new 

technology measures. In addition, as 

noted in connection with the 2007 

AQMP, EPA, CARB, the SCAQMD and 

the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUACPD) 

have signed a memorandum of 

agreement committing the agencies to 

coordinate efforts to develop and test 

new sustainable technologies to 

accelerate progress in meeting air 

quality goals. See 76 FR 57872, at 57882 

(September 16, 2011). 

RACM 

Comment 7: Earthjustice asserts that 

EPA’s interpretation of RACM does not 

comport with the Clean Air Act’s 

mandate for nonattainment area plans to 

provide for attainment of the NAAQS as 

‘‘expeditiously as practicable’’ but no 

later than the applicable attainment 

date. Earthjustice bases this assertion on 

what it perceives to be the inconsistency 

between the ‘‘expeditiously as 

practicable’’ mandate and EPA 

guidance, which provides that, to 

address the requirement to adopt all 

RACM, states should consider all 

potentially reasonable control measures 

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. Earthjustice contends that the 

one-year condition is arbitrary and that 

it allows the states to avoid 

implementation of otherwise feasible 

and cost-effective control measures if 

implementation of those measures 

would not advance attainment by at 

least one year. Earthjustice also 

contends that it is arbitrary and 

capricious for EPA to rely on a guidance 

document that limits RACM to measures 

that advance attainment by one year as 

opposed to measure that may advance 

attainment by 9 months, 6 months, 3 

months or even 1 month. 

The one-year condition on the RACM 

requirement, Earthjustice asserts, is 

exacerbated by EPA taking this position 

for extreme ozone nonattainment areas 

that may rely on new technology 

measures under CAA section 182(e)(5), 

as well as areas that have missed their 

attainment dates ‘‘because the region 

has not even identified enough control 

measures to attain in the first place.’’ 

Earthjustice claims that the availability 

of CAA section 182(e)(5) in extreme 

areas means that measures can be 

rejected arbitrarily as not meeting 

RACM. 

Lastly, Earthjustice suggests that EPA 

should instead change its interpretation 

of RACM in extreme nonattainment 

areas that rely on new technology 

measures to require a demonstration 

that all feasible control measures have 

been adopted, regardless of whether 

those control measures can be 

demonstrated to advance attainment by 

a year. It also requests clarification that 

RACM represents the minimum level of 

control states are required to 

demonstrate in nonattainment plans and 

that other measures are also required, as 

necessary or appropriate, to attain the 

NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, 

regardless of whether the measures are 

considered RACM. 

Response 7: EPA has consistently 

interpreted RACM as a collection of 

measures that would advance the 

attainment date by at least one year, and 

the courts have determined that the 

statutory RACM requirement is 

ambiguous and deferred to EPA’s 

interpretation of the requirement. See 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 744– 

745 (5th Cir. 2002); see also Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 294 F.3d, 155, 162 (D.C. Cir. 

2002). See also 57 FR 13498, 13560 

(April 16, 1992); 44 FR 20372, 20374 

(April 4, 1979).13 In considering 

whether a collection of measures would 

advance the attainment date of an area, 

EPA has previously interpreted the 

phrase ‘‘advance the attainment date’’ as 

meaning that the attainment date would 

be advanced by at least one year. See 

e.g., 66 FR 57160, 57182 (November 14, 

2001) (approval of Houston 1-hour 

ozone SIP); 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001) 

(approval of DC area 1-hour ozone SIP); 

76 FR 57872, 57877 (September 16, 

2011)(proposed approval of South Coast 

8-hour ozone SIP—finalized at 77 FR 

12674 (March 1, 2012); and 77 FR 

12652, 12659–12660 (March 1, 

2012)(approval of San Joaquin Valley 8- 

hour ozone SIP). EPA’s use of a one-year 

increment in determining whether a 

collection of measures would advance 

the attainment date is reasonable and 

consistent with the fact that 

determinations of attainment, or failure 

to attain, the 1-hour ozone standard are 

based on data compiled on a calendaryear basis (see 40 CFR 50.9 and 

appendix H to 40 CFR part 50). 

Furthermore, sections 172(a)(2)(C) and 

181(a)(5) use one year as the increment 

by which attainment date extensions 

can be granted. Thus, requiring 

evaluation of whether control measures 

would advance attainment by an 

increment of one year is a reasonable 

approach. 

Second, we disagree that the one-year 

condition for consideration of RACM in 

areas that rely on CAA section 182(e)(5) 

new technology measures to 

demonstrate attainment (and thus have 

not identified the specific measures 

needed to attain the standard) allows for 

arbitrary rejection of measures as not 

meeting RACM. So long as attainment 

plans developed for such areas identify 

base year emissions, an attainment date, 

and attainment-year emission targets, 

the emissions reductions associated 

with advancement of the attainment 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 52533 

date by one year can be calculated. Such 

an estimate can be used to judge 

whether a collection of reasonably 

available measures would advance 

attainment by one year notwithstanding 

the reliance on new technology 

measures. Thus, EPA’s long-standing 

interpretation of RACM in terms of a 

collection of measures that would 

advance the attainment date of an area 

is not arbitrary as applied to areas that 

rely on section 182(e)(5) new technology 

measures. 

In the case of the 1-hour ozone 

standard and the 2012 AQMP, the 

emissions reductions associated with 

advancement of the attainment date by 

one year are roughly 14 tpd of VOC and 

46 tpd of NOX based on 2008 base year 

emissions and the emissions targets for 

attainment by December 31, 2022. As 

described in appendix VI (‘‘Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACM) 

Demonstration’’) of the 2012 AQMP, the 

SCAQMD updated previous RACM 

demonstrations for purposes of 

evaluating all feasible control measure 

concepts for inclusion in the 2012 

AQMP. Ultimately, SCAQMD adopted 

15 new committal measures (see table 5 

of our proposed rule) to ensure 

implementation of RACM. The 

collection of measures that were 

rejected as RACM were rejected because 

the hypothetical reductions were 

deemed non-quantifiable and thus they 

would not collectively advance the 

attainment date. See pages VI–18 and 

VI–19 of appendix VI of the 2012 

AQMP. 

Also, we disagree with the contention 

that EPA’s one-year condition for 

consideration of RACM is absurd as 

applied to areas that have failed to 

attain the standard ‘‘because the region 

has not even identified enough control 

measures to attain in the first place.’’ 

RACM demonstrations and the 

attainment demonstrations upon which 

they rely are prepared, submitted and 

approved years before the applicable 

attainment date and are based on the 

best information available at the time. 

Notwithstanding approval of wellconceived and well-grounded RACM 

and attainment demonstrations that 

meet all CAA requirements, the area to 

which the demonstrations apply may 

still fail to attain the standard by the 

applicable attainment date for any 

number of reasons, such as assumptions 

regarding atmospheric chemistry or 

population forecasts that ultimately 

prove to be inaccurate when viewed in 

retrospect. Thus, the failure of an area 

to attain the standard by the applicable 

attainment date sheds no light on the 

appropriateness of the state’s RACM 

demonstration or EPA approval of it 

years before but sets the stage for a new 

attainment date, and the type of RACM 

reevaluation and new attainment 

demonstration that is included in the 

2012 AQMP. 

Lastly, the EPA confirms that 

implementation of RACM as 

expeditiously as practicable represents 

the minimum level of control states are 

required to demonstrate in 

nonattainment plans. See CAA section 

172(c)(1). We clarify that, in such plans, 

other measures are also required, as may 

be necessary or appropriate, to provide 

for attainment of the NAAQS ‘‘by the 

applicable attainment date specified in 

this part.’’ See CAA section 172(c)(6). 

Comment 8: Even if EPA’s 

interpretation of RACM is adequate, 

SCAQMD did not perform a proper 

RACM analysis because SCAQMD did 

not evaluate Indirect Source Rule Fees 

for RACM, which was a RACM 

commitment in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Response 8: We disagree with the 

contention that SCAQMD’s RACM 

demonstration for the 2012 AQMP was 

insufficient because it did not evaluate 

Indirect Source Rule (ISR) Fees. We 

recognize that the San Joaquin Valley air 

district has adopted, and EPA has 

approved, an ISR rule, Rule 9510 

(‘‘Indirect Source Review’’), which 

includes an off-site fee element. 

However, in doing so, the air district 

and EPA acted under CAA section 

110(a)(5). See 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 

2011). Under that section of the CAA, 

EPA is prohibited from requiring states 

to include ISR programs in SIPs. 

Specifically, CAA section 110(a)(5)(A)(i) 

states in relevant part: ‘‘Any State may 

include in a State implementation plan, 

but the Administrator may not require 

as a condition of approval of such plan 

under this section, any indirect source 

review program. The Administrator may 

approve and enforce, as part of an 

applicable implementation plan, an 

indirect source review program which 

the State chooses to adopt and submit 

as part of its plan.’’ [Emphasis added.] 

An ISR Fee rule would constitute an ISR 

program, and thus, EPA may not require 

SCAQMD to consider such a rule as a 

RACM. 

Comment 9: Earthjustice asserts that 

SCAQMD must evaluate the programs 

that SCAQMD is planning to use as 

‘‘qualified’’ programs to fund the Rule 

317 section 172(e) fee equivalency 

account, as RACMs. Earthjustice claims 

that, under Rule 317, ‘‘qualified’’ 

programs represent those that are 

‘‘surplus’’ to the plan requirements to 

attain the 1-hour ozone standard and 

that reduce emissions from mobile 

sources by providing incentive funding 

that advances the state of mobile source 

emission reduction technology, 

improves fuel and engine infrastructure, 

and accelerates fleet turnover. The 

programs included in Rule 317, the 

commenter explains, include School 

Bus Replacement, Truck Retrofits, Clean 

Vehicle Rebate Programs, Hybrid Truck 

and Bus Voucher Incentives, Natural 

Gas Taxi Cabs and Shuttle Vans, a 

Lawnmower Exchange program, and 

others. Earthjustice asserts that 

SCAQMD must analyze all of the 

programs cited in Rule 317 under the 

RACM analysis to determine whether 

the programs will individually or 

collectively advance the date of 

attainment to meet the requirements of 

section 172(c)(1), and that, if any of the 

programs meet the definition of RACM, 

the programs must be adopted by 

SCAQMD in enforceable form in the 

nonattainment plans to meet the 1-hour 

and 8-hour ozone standards in the 

South Coast. 

Response 9: SCAQMD Rule 317 

(‘‘Clean Air Act Non-attainment Fees’’) 

is intended to satisfy the requirements 

of sections 182 and 185 of the Act under 

EPA’s anti-backsliding rules governing 

the transition from the revoked 1-hour 

ozone standard to the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. The rule utilizes an 

equivalency approach consistent with 

the principles of section 172(e) of the 

Act. EPA approved Rule 317 as a 

revision to the California SIP at 77 FR 

74372 (December 14, 2012). 

RACM identifies a certain level of 

control of existing emissions sources 

that must be adopted in legally 

enforceable form. Incentive programs by 

their nature are voluntary, i.e., not 

enforceable, and thus are not the types 

of programs that a State must consider 

in its RACM evaluation. Moreover, the 

types of sources to which the incentive 

programs in Rule 317 apply are mobile 

sources, and as explained in our 

proposed rule, 79 FR at 29720 (May 23, 

2014), we have found that CARB’s 

mobile source program continues to 

meet the RACM requirement for such 

sources. CARB’s mobile source program 

includes regulations for many types of 

existing (i.e, in-use) vehicles and 

equipment, including the types of 

vehicles and equipment to which the 

Rule 317 incentive programs apply. 

Comment 10: The commenter asserts 

that, because the South Coast failed to 

attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the 

revised 1-hour ozone attainment plan 

must include such additional measures 

as EPA may reasonably prescribe, 

including all measures that can be 

feasibly implemented in the area in light 

of technological achievability, costs, and 

any non-air quality and other air 

quality-related health and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
52534 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

14See CARB’s Proposed State Strategy for 

California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan, 

Release Date: April 26, 2007, pages 100–101. 

15See CARB’s Proposed State Strategy for 

California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan, 

Release Date: April 26, 2007, pages 107–110. 

environmental impacts to comply with 

the requirements for such plans under 

CAA section 179(d)(2). The commenter 

states that pursuant to that provision, 

EPA should have prescribed potential 

feasible measures for achieving the 

standard, and suggests that the 

elimination of the exemption of 

methane from the definition of ‘‘volatile 

organic compounds’’ (VOCs) is one such 

potential measure that should have been 

prescribed and evaluated. 

Response 10: In December 2011, we 

issued a final action determining 

pursuant to CAA sections 301(a) and 

181(b)(2), that the South Coast had 

failed to attain the 1-hour standard by 

the applicable attainment date. We did 

not base that determination on section 

179(c), and thus the plan requirements 

specified in CAA section 179(d) do not 

apply. Thus, this comment is not timely. 

We note that EPA regulations exempt 

methane from the definition of VOC, 40 

CFR 51.100(s), and the South Coast 

regulations are consistent with the EPA 

regulation. The EPA regulation 

exempting methane from the definition 

of ‘‘VOC’’ stems from the Agency’s 

determination that methane is an 

organic compound that has negligible 

photochemical reactivity and thus need 

not be controlled for the purposes of 

reducing ground-level ozone 

concentrations. Independent of that, 

however, we recognize methane as a 

potent greenhouse gas and we note that 

many control measures that reduce VOC 

emissions have the co-benefit of 

reducing methane. Because EPA 

regulations exempt methane from the 

definition of VOC for the purpose of 

reduce ground-level ozone 

concentrations, it would not be 

appropriate for the State to rely on 

methane reductions as part of its plan to 

attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Enforceable Commitments 

Comment 11: Earthjustice contends 

that EPA cannot approve California’s 

reliance on section 172(c)(6) enforceable 

commitments because the state’s 

proposed commitments are not 

enforceable and are insufficient to 

substitute for the credible emission 

reductions needed to demonstrate 

attainment. More specifically, 

Earthjustice notes that three of CARB’s 

existing commitments in the 2012 

AQMP do not have schedules for 

implementation, and without such 

schedules for implementation, CARB’s 

measures are not ‘‘independently 

enforceable’’ under Ninth Circuit case 

law, citing El Comite Para El Bienestar 

de Earlimart v. Warmerdam, 539 F.3 

1062, at 1071–1073 (9th Cir. 2008). The 

three CARB measures cited by 

Earthjustice include expanding 

passenger vehicle retirement, promoting 

cleaner ship engines and fuel, and 

adopting off-road recreational vehicle 

expanded emissions standards. In 

addition, Earthjustice contends that the 

SCAQMD’s reservation of the right to 

substitute measures for the 15 specific 

measures adopted by SCAQMD to meet 

its emissions reduction commitment 

renders the measures unenforceable 

should the District choose to implement 

other, undisclosed measures. 

Response 11: The 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration in the 2012 

AQMP relies on existing CARB 

commitments approved by EPA in 

connection with the attainment 

demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard in the 2007 AQMP. 

More specifically, the 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration in the 2012 

AQMP relies on the same commitments 

made by CARB, and approved by EPA, 

in connection with the 2007 AQMP to 

take certain defined measures to its 

Board for consideration and to achieve 

certain aggregate emissions reductions 

in certain years. In responses to 

comments in our final rule approving 

the commitments for the 8-hour ozone 

standard attainment demonstration, we 

addressed in detail the issue of 

enforceability of the commitments. See 

77 FR 12674, at 12675–12677 (March 1, 

2012). In short, however, we draw a 

sharp distinction between the 

commitments for the 2007 AQMP and 

the aspirational goals found to be 

unenforceable by certain courts. In 

contrast to an unenforceable 

aspirational goal, we found: 

The language in CARB’s and the District’s 

commitments . . . is specific; the intent of 

the commitments is clear; and the strategy of 

adopting measures to achieve the required 

reductions is completely within CARB’s and 

the District’s control. Furthermore . . . CARB 

and the District identify specific emission 

reductions that they will achieve, how they 

could be achieved and the time by which 

these reductions will be achieved, i.e., by the 

2023 attainment year. 77 FR 12674, at 12676– 

12677 (March 1, 2012). 

Although the excerpt from our March 

2012 final rule refers to the 

commitments for the attainment year for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, CARB 

also made similar types of commitments 

for certain interim years, including year 

2020, and a similar rationale applies. 

See 77 FR at pages 12689–12692 (March 

1, 2012). 

As to commitments related to 

expanding passenger vehicle retirement, 

promoting cleaner ship engines and 

fuel, and adopting off-road recreational 

vehicle expanded emissions standards, 

we disagree that the CARB has failed to 

include schedules for implementation 

and that, therefore, the commitments are 

unenforceable. We discuss the 

commitments related to these three 

control strategies and the current status 

of implementation in the following 

paragraphs. 

First, with respect to expanding 

passenger vehicle retirement, CARB’s 

2007 State Strategy calls for expanding 

the existing vehicle retirement program 

to vehicles that are off-cycle from their 

Smog Check inspections over an 

implementation period of 2008–2014.14

In 2007, the California enacted the 

California Alternative and Renewable 

Fuel, Vehicle Technology, Clean Air, 

and Carbon Reduction Act of 2007 

(Assembly Bill (AB) 118), which creates 

the Air Quality Improvement Program 

(AQIP). The Enhanced Fleet 

Modernization Program (EFMP), one of 

the AQIP programs, is a voluntary 

vehicle retirement program that is 

funded through a $1 increase in vehicle 

registration fees (roughly $30 million 

annually) and that broadens eligibility 

criteria beyond vehicle failure under the 

Smog Check program. The California 

Legislature recently extended the 

program through 2023 (AB 8). In June 

2014, CARB proposed amendments to 

the EFMP that would improve the 

program by focusing the program on 

low-income participants, expanding 

program flexibility to improve 

participation, and ensuring that retired 

vehicles are functional, which should 

improve emissions benefits from the 

program. 

Second, as to promoting cleaner ship 

engines and fuel, CARB committed to 

adopting regulations to require use of 

cleaner, low-sulfur fuel by ocean-going 

vessels (OGV) in transit within 24 miles 

of the California coast with 

implementation expected from 2007– 

2010.15 In 2008, CARB adopted the OGV 

clean fuel (i.e., low sulfur) regulations, 

and later amended the regulations in 

2011. CARB’s OGV clean fuel regulation 

is expected to be supplanted in 2015 by 

equivalent fuel standards applicable to 

a much wider area (200 nautical miles) 

along the California coast under the 

2010 amendments, adopted by the 

International Maritime Organization 

(IMO), to the International Convention 

for the Prevention of Pollution from 

Ships (MARPOL) designating the North 

American Emission Control Area (ECA). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 52535 

16The current Tier I NOX standards range from 

9.8 to 17 g/kW-h, depending on engine speed. The 

Tier II standards represent a 20 percent NOX

reduction below Tier I, and the Tier III standards 

represent an 80 percent NOX reduction below Tier 

I. 

17See CARB’s Progress Report on Implementation 

of PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the 

South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, 

Release Date: March 29, 2011, appendix B 

(‘‘Rulemaking Calendar’’). 

18The full statement from our May 23, 2014 

proposed rule regarding the few opportunities to 

further reduce emissions is: ‘‘As a result of these 

State and District efforts, most sources in the South 

Coast nonattainment area are currently subject to 

stringent rules adopted and approved by EPA (or for 

which EPA has issued waivers or authorization in 

the case of CARB regulations) prior to the 

development of the 2012 AQMP, leaving few 

opportunities (and generally more technologically 

and economically challenging ones) to further 

reduce emissions.’’ 79 FR 29712, at 29721 (May 23, 

2014). 

MARPOL Tier III NOX standards 16 will 

apply within the North American ECA 

to marine diesel engines that are 

installed on a ship constructed on or 

after January 1, 2016. 

Third, as to adopting off-road 

recreational vehicle expanded emissions 

standards, CARB committed to bringing 

the emissions standards to its Board for 

consideration in 2013, with 

implementation schedules to be 

determined in the rulemaking process.17

In July 2013, CARB adopted regulations 

establishing more extensive evaporative 

emissions standards for new offhighway recreational vehicles beginning 

with model year 2018. 

As to the enforceability of SCAQMD’s 

commitments in the 2012 AQMP, 

Earthjustice is correct that, in 

committing to develop, adopt, 

implement and submit the 15 measures 

listed in table 5 of the proposed rule, 

SCAQMD reserved the right to 

substitute measures where a listed 

measure is found to be infeasible and to 

otherwise substitute measures that can 

achieve equivalent reductions in the 

same adoption or implementation 

timeframes. See 2012 AQMP, pages 4– 

42 and 4–43. However, SCAQMD’s 

commitment to the 15 defined measures 

is supported by the related, but 

independently enforceable, commitment 

to achieve aggregate emission 

reductions of 6 tpd of VOC and 11 tpd 

of NOX by January 1, 2022. The 

aggregate emissions reduction 

commitment sufficiently ensures that 

the District will achieve the 6 tpd of 

VOC and 11 tpd of NOX that is relied 

upon by the 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration, notwithstanding the 

potential for substitution of the 

individual measures by the SCAQMD. 

Moreover, the SCAQMD has 

committed to be bound by a process 

with significant safeguards to ensure the 

integrity of the regulatory commitment. 

For instance, as described in more detail 

on pages 4–43 and 4–44 of the 2012 

AQMP, the SCAQMD has defined 

‘‘infeasibility’’ for the purposes of 

measure substitution, set cost-benefit 

thresholds triggering refined analysis, 

and established a public review and 

decision process. With such safeguards, 

we expect SCAQMD to make few 

substitutions, leaving most of the 

individual measures fully enforceable as 

part of the SIP. 

Comment 12: Earthjustice challenges 

EPA’s determination that CARB and 

SCAQMD are capable of fulfilling their 

aggregate emission reduction 

commitments, contending that such a 

determination conflicts with EPA’s 

earlier finding that there are few 

opportunities to further reduce 

emissions and that six of SCAQMD’s 

defined measures do not have estimated 

emission reductions. Without such 

reduction estimates, Earthjustice argues, 

EPA has no reason to believe that 

California will satisfy its emission 

reductions commitments. 

Response 12: EPA’s statement as to 

the few opportunities to further reduce 

emissions was made by way of 

explanation for why we believe that, 

with respect to the 2012 AQMP 1-hour 

ozone attainment demonstration, 

circumstances warrant the consideration 

of enforceable commitments as part of 

the attainment demonstration for the 

South Coast. We do not find this 

statement to be in conflict with our 

stated belief that CARB and SCAQMD 

are capable of fulfilling their aggregate 

emissions reductions ‘‘given the State’s 

and SCAQMD’s efforts to date to reduce 

emissions and the proposed stationary 

and mobile source strategies found in 

the 2012 AQMP.’’ The former simply 

acknowledges the unique challenges 

facing the air agencies in the South 

Coast relative to other parts of the 

country to identify source categories for 

additional controls beyond those 

already adopted and implemented, 

while the latter notes the long-term 

success of the air agencies in identifying 

sources to regulate emission sources to 

achieve the necessary reductions 

notwithstanding the challenges.18

Earthjustice is correct that SCAQMD 

does not provide emissions reduction 

estimates for six of the 15 measures that 

the District has committed to develop, 

adopt, submit and implement. However, 

as further explained in the proposed 

rule, 79 FR 29712, at 29721 (May 23, 

2014), SCAQMD is relying on emissions 

reductions from the SOON program as 

well as the emissions reductions from 

the 15 individual measures to meet its 

aggregate emissions reduction 

commitment. The emissions reductions 

estimated from the SOON program plus 

those from the measures for which 

SCAQMD has provided emissions 

reduction estimates is equal to the 

aggregate commitment. See table 5 from 

the proposed rule and pages IV–B–30 

through IV–B–32 from appendix IV–B of 

the 2012 AQMP. Thus, we continue to 

believe that SCAQMD is capable of 

fulfilling its aggregate emission 

reduction commitment to achieve 

necessary emissions reductions by 

January 1, 2022. 

Comment 13: Earthjustice contends 

that CARB’s and SCAQMD’s emissions 

reduction commitments are not for a 

‘‘reasonable and appropriate period of 

time,’’ because the agencies anticipate 

fulfilling their commitments by January 

1, 2022—less than a year before the 1- 

hour ozone attainment deadline of 

December 31, 2022, and that EPA 

provides no support for the notion that 

the agencies will meet the December 31, 

2022 deadline simply by fulfilling their 

commitments by January 1, 2022. To the 

contrary, Earthjustice argues, these 

agencies have not demonstrated that the 

emissions reduction would occur within 

a 12-month time frame. In addition, 

Earthjustice claims that the agencies 

could not achieve three years of clean 

data if the agencies wait until January 1, 

2022 to fulfill commitments. 

Response 13: First, SCAQMD and 

CARB have committed to achieve 

aggregate emissions reductions by 

January 1, 2022 and are already at work 

meeting that commitment, and thus, 

these agencies have more than seven 

years to fulfill the commitments and 

achieve the reductions necessary for 

attainment, not 12 months as suggested 

by the commenter. 

Second, SCAQMD and CARB 

commitments to achieve emissions 

reductions by January 1, 2022 is 

consistent with the requirement to 

ensure that necessary emissions 

reductions are in place by the beginning 

of the ozone season immediately 

preceding the attainment deadline. 

Since the attainment deadline is 

December 31, 2022, the ozone season 

immediately preceding that deadline 

begins on January 1, 2022 for the South 

Coast. 

Reductions necessary to demonstrate 

attainment by December 31, 2022 need 

not be in place three years before the 

deadline. The three-year record of clean 

data applies to an attainment 

determination, not to an attainment 

demonstration, the latter of which we 

are approving today. The determination 

of attainment required by CAA section 

181(b)(2), which is made by reviewing 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
52536 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

19See Chapter 6 (‘‘Attainment Demonstrations’’) 

of Guideline for Regulatory Application of the 

Urban Air Shed Model (July 1991, OAQPS, EPA). 

ambient air quality monitoring data after 

the attainment date, is distinctly 

different from the demonstration of 

attainment required by CAA section 

182(c)(2), which is based on projections 

of future air quality levels and 

submitted before the attainment date. 

For the 1-hour ozone standard, an 

attainment determination is based on 

monitored air quality levels in the three 

years preceding the attainment date. See 

57 FR 13498, at 13506 (April 16, 1992). 

In contrast, an attainment 

demonstration is based on air quality 

modeling showing that projected 

emissions in the attainment year will be 

at or below the level needed to prevent 

violations of the relevant ambient air 

quality standard. For ozone, the 

attainment year is defined as the 

calendar year that includes the last full 

ozone season prior to the statutory 

attainment date. See 75 FR 10420, at 

10431 (March 8, 2010) (Final approval 

of San Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration; later 

withdrawn at 77 FR 70376 (November 

26, 2012) on other grounds). EPA has 

consistently interpreted the Act to 

require that the attainment 

demonstration show that air quality 

levels will be at or below the level of the 

standard in the attainment year and not 

for each of the three ozone seasons prior 

to the attainment date. 

We believe this position is consistent 

with the ozone attainment provisions in 

subpart 2 of title 1, part D of the CAA. 

The program Congress crafted for ozone 

attainment does not require that all 

measures needed to attain the standard 

be implemented three years prior to the 

area’s attainment date. For example, 

moderate areas were required by section 

182(b)(1) to provide for VOC emissions 

reductions of 15 percent reduction by 

November 15, 1996 which was also the 

attainment date for these areas. For 

areas classified serious and above, CAA 

section 182(c)(2)(B) requires that ROP of 

3 percent per year averaged over 3 years 

‘‘until the attainment date’’ (a total of 9 

percent reduction in emissions in the 3 

years leading up to an area’s attainment 

date). EPA does not believe that 

Congress intended these mandatory 

reductions to be in excess of what is 

needed to attain. 

This position is also consistent with 

the attainment date extension 

provisions in CAA section 181(a)(5). 

Under this section, an area that does not 

have three years of data meeting the 

ozone standard by its attainment date, 

but has complied with all requirements 

and commitments pertaining to the area 

in the applicable implementation plan 

and has no more than one exceedance 

of the standard in the attainment year, 

may receive a one-year extension of its 

attainment date. Assuming these 

conditions are again met the following 

year, the area may receive an additional 

one-year extension. If the area has no 

more than one exceedance in this final 

extension year, then it will have three 

years of data indicating that it has 

attained the ozone standard. 

EPA has consistently taken this 

position in guidance and in our 

approval of 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstrations. Our ozone modeling 

guidance, which was issued less than a 

year after the 1990 CAA Amendments 

were enacted, requires States to model 

the ozone season before the attainment 

date and not the third ozone season 

before the attainment date.19 The ozone 

attainment demonstrations that EPA has 

approved since the CAA Amendments 

of 1990 have been based on this 

modeling guidance and show that there 

will be no violations in the attainment 

year. See, for example, 61 FR 10921 

(March 18, 1996) and 62 FR 1150 

(January 8, 1997), proposed and final 

approval of California’s attainment 

plans for 7 nonattainment areas; 66 FR 

54143 (October 26, 2001), approval of 

Pennsylvania’s 1-hour ozone attainment 

plan for the Philadelphia area; and 67 

FR 30574 (May 7, 2002), approval of 

Georgia’s 1-hour ozone attainment plan 

for Atlanta. 

We took the same position on 

attainment demonstrations for the 8- 

hour ozone standard promulgated in 

1997 when we promulgated regulations 

specifying the deadline for 

implementing emissions reductions for 

purposes of attainment of that standard. 

Specifically, 40 CFR 51.908(d) provides: 

‘‘For each nonattainment area, the State 

must provide for implementation of all 

control measures needed for attainment 

no later than the beginning of the 

attainment year ozone season.’’ 

‘‘Attainment year ozone season’’ is 

defined as ‘‘the ozone season 

immediately preceding a nonattainment 

area’s attainment date.’’ 40 CFR 

51.900(g). 

Third, we do not find that CARB’s 

and SCAQMD’s commitments to be for 

a reasonable and appropriate period of 

time simply because the aggregate 

emissions reductions will be in place at 

the beginning of ozone season prior to 

the attainment date, but also because the 

agencies have committed to take certain 

near-term regulatory actions in support 

of those emissions reductions 

commitments. More specifically, 

SCAQMD has committed to develop, 

adopt, and submit, and implement 

specific control measures as 

expeditiously as possible. SCAQMD’s 

commitment includes adoption dates for 

the specific measures (the latest of 

which calls for adoption in 2016) and 

implementation dates. Likewise, CARB 

has committed to bring certain 

regulatory measures to its Board for 

action on a certain schedule. 

Therefore, we continue to find the 

reliance of the 2012 AQMP on these 

commitments to be acceptable because, 

among other reasons, we find the 

commitments to be for a reasonable and 

appropriate period of time. 

Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) 

Comment 14: Earthjustice claims that 

the emissions reductions from SCAG’s 

Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) 

have been included in the baseline but 

that such inclusion is not appropriate 

because SCAG has not provided any 

information that the claimed emissions 

reductions will come from enforceable 

measures nor has EPA approved the 

SCS as a control measure. Earthjustice 

contends that the SCS should be 

submitted as a control measure towards 

attainment of the 1-hour and 8-hour 

ozone standards in the South Coast. 

Response 14: The SCS is a new 

requirement for Regional Transportation 

Plans (RTPs) in California pursuant to 

state law (Senate Bill 375). As described 

in the 2012 South Coast AQMP, the 

primary goal of the SCS is to provide a 

vision for future growth in Southern 

California that will decrease per capita 

greenhouse gas emissions from 

automobiles and light trucks through 

integrated transportation, land use, 

housing and environmental planning. 

This leads to strategies that can help 

reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled 

over the next 25 years. While the SCS 

is intended to reduce GHG emissions, it 

will also produce reductions in ozone 

precursors. 

SCAG’s most recent adopted RTP, the 

2012–2035 Regional Transportation 

Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 

(RTP/SCS), reflects SCS principles to 

achieve per capita emission reduction 

targets. Earthjustice is correct that the 

baseline inventory for the South Coast 

2012 AQMP includes emissions 

reductions from the RTP/SCS to the 

extent that it reflects the same 

population, employment, economic 

activity, vehicle and transit activity 

forecasts and transportation control 

measures as the RTP/SCS and those 

forecasts and measures are projected to 

result in lower transportation-related 

emissions than would have occurred 

under the RTP baseline case. However, 

because SCS strategies are fully 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 52537 

20EPA’s Improving Air Quality through Land Use 

Activities, EPA420–R–01–001, January 2001), page 

35. This guidance document can be found at the 

following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/ 

stateresources/policy/transp/landuse/r01001.pdf. 

21CH&SC section 40404.5 states: ‘‘The Legislature 

further finds and declares that the south coast 

district, in fulfilling its directive to require the use 

of best available control technology for new 

sources, and in consideration of the state policy to 

promote and encourage the use of solar energy 

systems, shall make reasonable efforts to 

incorporate solar energy technology into its air 

quality management plan in applications where it 

can be shown to be cost-effective.’’ 

22BARCT is defined in CH&SC section 40406: 

‘‘As used in this chapter, ‘‘best available retrofit 

control technology’’ means an emission limitation 

that is based on the maximum degree of reduction 

achievable, taking into account environmental, 

energy, and economic impacts by each class or 

category of source.’’ 

integrated into the RTP/SCS, separate 

emissions reduction estimates 

attributable to land use pattern changes 

cannot reliably be made apart from 

those associated with the various 

forecasts, transportation projects, and 

TCMs in the RTP/SCS. Distinguishing 

between emissions reductions 

associated with the types of changes in 

land use development patterns 

associated with SCS principles from 

those associated with transportation 

projects and TCMs is confounded by the 

fact that, as noted in the 2012 South 

Coast AQMP, the regional transportation 

system is appropriately viewed on a 

systems-level basis, and not by its 

components, since each of the 

individual transportation improvements 

and strategies affect each other and the 

system. 

In addition, to the extent that the 

RTP/SCS reflects land use policies, we 

note that we have historically allowed 

States to take into account land use 

policies in their baseline (as opposed to 

being specifically approved into the SIP) 

if those policies are not being relied on 

as part of the control strategy. 

Specifically, we state: ‘‘EPA believes 

that it would be appropriate to include 

a specific land use policy in the land 

use assumptions made for the initial 

forecast [of future emissions] only if: 

A. The policy meets one of the 

following conditions: 

• It has already been adopted by an 

appropriate jurisdiction, or 

• the policy is planned and there is 

an enforcing mechanism to ensure it 

will happen; and 

B. The effects of the policy haven’t 

already been accounted for in the land 

use assumptions—that is, you are not 

double counting.’’ 20

In this instance, to the extent that the 

RTP/SCS embodies certain land use 

policies, those policies are not being 

relied upon as part of the control 

strategy to demonstrate attainment of 

the 1-hour ozone standard in the South 

Coast by the applicable attainment date 

and are enforceable through 

mechanisms provided in SB 375, and 

the effects of the policies have not 

already been accounted for in the land 

use assumptions. 

Solar Power 

Comment 15: Noting ongoing 

litigation between PSPC and SCAQMD 

over the 2012 AQMP, PSPC calls for 

adoption by SCAQMD of rules to 

implement an Immediate Total Solar 

Conversion Plan, with full 

implementation by 2020, or 2023 at the 

latest, contending that that the 

Immediate Total Solar Conversion Plan 

is cost effective and represents 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT), Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT), and Best Available 

Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT). 

PSPC asserts that California Health and 

Safety Code (CH&SC) section 40404.5 

mandates a solar conversion plan within 

the South Coast. 

Response 15: For ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

moderate or above, CAA section 

182(b)(2) requires the implementation of 

provisions that require the 

implementation of RACT on all major 

stationary sources of VOC and for each 

VOC source category for which EPA has 

issued Control Techniques Guideline 

(CTG) documents. CAA section 182(f) 

requires that RACT under section 

182(b)(2) also apply to major stationary 

sources of NOX. In extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas such as the South 

Coast, 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). The 

current rulemaking does not address the 

RACT SIP for the South Coast, thus the 

issue of whether a particular control is 

required for a specific source or source 

category is not pertinent to this 

rulemaking. With respect to the 

requirement to ensure implementation 

of emission limits representing BACT, 

we note that, for federal law purposes, 

BACT determinations are made in 

connection with preconstruction review 

and permitting of new major sources or 

major modifications of existing major 

sources under the provisions of the CAA 

and EPA regulations for the Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD). As 

such, BACT is relevant in the context of 

individual major source permit 

applications, but not in the context of 

EPA’s action on the regional air quality 

plan. 

Though not relevant to this 

rulemaking, we note that we are 

currently unaware of any sources that 

use solar power to control or limit VOC 

or NOX emissions. SJVUAPCD has 

researched solar-powered aeration for 

green waste composting, but recent 

discussions with SJVUAPCD staff 

indicated that while this work shows 

promise, it is still in the research phase. 

Lastly, our role in reviewing SIP 

revisions is to ensure that they meet the 

applicable requirements of federal law, 

not state law, and thus, the issue of 

whether state law, in this case, CH&SC 

section 40404.5, mandates a solar 

conversion plan within the South Coast 

and whether the 2012 AQMP complies 

with the provisions of CH&SC section 

40404.5 is not relevant for the purposes 

of our review of the 2012 AQMP under 

CAA section 110(k).21 Similarly, the 

term ‘‘Best Available Retrofit Control 

Technology’’ is a term established under 

state law, and thus is also not relevant 

to our action on the 2012 AQMP.22

III. Final Action 

Under section 110(k) of the CAA, and 

for the reasons discussed above and in 

our May 23, 2014 proposal (see 79 FR 

29712), the EPA is approving certain 

ozone-related portions of the 2012 

South Coast AQMP as a revision to the 

California SIP. The relevant portions of 

the 2012 AQMP that are being approved 

include the updated control strategy for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the 

demonstration of attainment of the 1- 

hour ozone standard in the South Coast 

by December 31, 2022. In so doing, we 

are approving the following 

commitments and measures upon which 

the 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration relies as well as the 

State’s reliance on the approved control 

strategy for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard: 

• SCAQMD’s commitments to 

develop, adopt, submit and implement 

the measures as summarized in table 5 

of the proposed rule, subject to findings 

of infeasibility and measure 

substitution, and a commitment to meet 

aggregate emissions reductions targets of 

6 tpd of VOC and 11 tpd of NOX by 

January 1, 2022; 

• The new technology provisions 

(summarized in table 6 of the proposed 

rule) through which the 2012 AQMP 

expects to achieve emissions reductions 

of 17 tpd of VOC and 150 tpd of NOX

in the South Coast by January 1, 2022; 

and 

• CARB’s commitment to submit 

contingency measures by January 1, 

2019 as necessary to ensure that the 

emissions reductions from new 

technology measures are achieved. 

In approving this SIP revision, EPA 

finds that an attainment date of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3
52538 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

December 31, 2022 is appropriate in 

light of the severity of the 1-hour ozone 

problem in the South Coast and given 

the extent to which emissions sources in 

the South Coast have already been 

controlled and the difficulty of 

developing regulations and controlling 

additional emissions. EPA also finds 

that the South Coast 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration is based on 

reasonable estimates and forecasts of 

ozone precursor emissions and 

appropriate photochemical modeling 

techniques and assumptions and an 

acceptable control strategy. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves a state plan as meeting federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 3, 2014. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen Oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 13, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(439) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(439) The following plan was 

submitted on February 13, 2013, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional material. 

(A) California Air Resources Board. 

(1) Resolution 13–3, dated January 25, 

2013, adopting the Final 2012 Air 

Quality Management Plan (December 

2012) prepared by the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District. 

(2) Letter from Richard W. Corey, 

Executive Officer, California Air 

Resources Board, dated May 2, 2014. 

(B) South Coast Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) Governing Board Resolution No. 

12–19, dated December 7, 2012, 

adopting the Final 2012 Air Quality 

Management Plan. 

(2) The following portions of the Final 

2012 Air Quality Management Plan 

(December 2012): Ozone-related 

portions of chapter 4 (‘‘Control Strategy 

and Implementation’’); Appendix IV–A 

(‘‘District’s Stationary Source Control 

Measures’’); Appendix IV–B (‘‘Proposed 

Section 182(e)(5) Implementation 

Measures’’); Appendix IV–C (‘‘Regional 

Transportation Strategy and Control 

Measures’’); and Appendix VII (‘‘1-Hour 

Ozone Attainment Demonstration’’). 

(3) Letter from Barry R. Wallerstein, 

D.Env, Executive Officer, South Coast 

Air Quality Management District, May 

1, 2014. 

[FR Doc. 2014–20790 Filed 9–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES3