Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules 61381 

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. 

Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate procedures may be 

required.’’ 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Judy 

Coyle, Aerospace Engineer, ANM–140S, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 917–6497; fax 

(425) 917–6590; has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested in 

accordance with the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

6, 2008. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–24579 Filed 10–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0693; FRL–8729–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans: 1-Hour Ozone 

Extreme Area Plan for San Joaquin 

Valley, CA 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

state implementation plan revisions 

submitted by the State of California to 

meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements applicable to the San 

Joaquin Valley (SJV), California 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. These 

requirements applied to the SJV 

following its reclassification from severe 

to extreme for the 1-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standard on April 

16, 2004. Although EPA subsequently 

revoked the 1-hour ozone standard 

effective June 15, 2005, the requirement 

to submit a plan for that standard 

remains in effect for the SJV. EPA is 

proposing to approve the SIP revisions 

for the SJV as meeting applicable CAA 

requirements except for the provision 

addressing the reasonably available 

control technology requirements that 

the State has withdrawn. 

DATES: Comments may be submitted 

until November 17, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2008–0693, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Agency Web site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. EPA prefers 

receiving comments through this 

electronic public docket and comment 

system. Follow the on-line instructions 

to submit comments. 

2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

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

4. Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office 

of Air Planning (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through the 

agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or 

e-mail. The agency Web site and 

eRulemaking portal are anonymous 

access systems, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

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

copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Wicher, U.S. EPA Region 9, 

415–972–3957, wicher.frances@epa.gov 

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

actions. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

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

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What is the history of 1-hour ozone air 

quality planning in the SJV? 

B. What are the elements in the new plan? 

C. What Clean Air Act requirements apply 

to this extreme area 1-hour ozone plan? 

II. Review of the 2004 SIP, the SJV Portion 

of the Final 2003 State Strategy and the 

2008 SIP Clarification 

A. Did the SJVAPCD and ARB meet the 

CAA procedural requirements? 

B. Do the baseline and projected emissions 

inventories meet CAA requirements? 

C. Is the air quality modeling consistent 

with the CAA and EPA’s modeling 

guidelines? 

D. Do the control measures meet CAA 

requirements? 

E. Does the plan show the CAA-required 

rate of progress? 

F. Does the plan provide for attainment by 

the CAA-required deadline? 

G. Do the contingency measures meet CAA 

requirements? 

H. Are the motor vehicle emissions budgets 

approvable? 

III. Summary of Proposed Actions 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. What is the history of 1-hour ozone 

air quality planning in the SJV? 

The San Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (SJV) includes the 

following counties in California’s 

central valley: San Joaquin, part of Kern, 

Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, 

Stanislaus and Tulare. 40 CFR 81.305. 

Upon enactment of the 1990 Clean Air 

Act Amendments, the SJV was classified 

by operation of law as a serious 

nonattainment area with an attainment 

date of no later than November 15, 1999. 

56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). On 

November 15, 1994, the California Air 

Resources Board (ARB) submitted ‘‘The 

1994 California State Implementation 

Plan for Ozone’’ (1994 SIP), a 

comprehensive ozone plan for the State 

of California that included a local 

nonattainment plan developed for the 

SJV by the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or 

the District). On January 8, 1997, EPA 

approved the 1994 SIP. 62 FR 1150. 

On November 8, 2001, EPA found that 

the SJV had failed to attain the 1-hour 

ozone standard by the serious area 

deadline of November 15, 1999 and 

reclassified the area by operation of law 

to severe. 66 FR 56476. In the final 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
61382 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1The submittals included the District’s 

‘‘Amended 2002 and 2005 Ozone Rate of Progress 

Plan for the San Joaquin Valley’’ (submitted April 

10, 2003 and found complete on September 4, 

2003). On July 10, 2003, we found adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes the motor 

vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) in this plan. 

Letter, Jack P. Broadbent, EPA Region 9 to Catherine 

Witherspoon, ARB, July 10, 2003. A table attached 

to the letter summarized our adequacy 

determination. Our notice of adequacy for these 

budgets was published in the Federal Register on 

July 24, 2003 at 68 FR 43724 and was effective 15 

days later, on August 8, 2003. 

2Chapter 8 ‘‘California Clean Air Act Triennial 

Progress Report and Plan Review’’ was included in 

the plan to meet a State requirement to report every 

three years on the area’s progress toward meeting 

California’s air quality standards. Nothing in the 

chapter was intended to address federal Clean Air 

Act requirements. 

3On February 13, 2008, ARB withdrew from EPA 

consideration specified portions of the ‘‘Final 2003 

State and Federal Strategy for the California State 

Implementation Plan’’ as they relate to the 2003 SIP 

for the South Coast Air Basin. These withdrawals 

do not affect the 2003 Strategy as it relates 

specifically to the San Joaquin Valley. Letter from 

James N. Goldstene, ARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, 

February 13, 2008. 

reclassification action to severe, EPA 

explained that the State would need to 

submit by May 31, 2002 a SIP revision 

addressing the severe area requirements 

including, but not limited to, a 

demonstration of attainment of the 1- 

hour ozone standard by November 15, 

2005 and a rate of progress (ROP) 

demonstration of creditable ozone 

precursor emission reductions of at least 

3 percent per year until attainment. Id. 

On October 2, 2002, EPA found that 

the State failed to submit by May 31, 

2002 several severe area SIP revisions 

for the SJV including a demonstration of 

attainment and a ROP demonstration. 67 

FR 61784. The State subsequently 

requested a reclassification to extreme 

and submitted all of the severe area 

requirements except for the attainment 

demonstration. See 69 FR 8126 

(February 23, 2004).1 On April 16, 2004, 

EPA granted the State’s request to 

voluntarily reclassify the SJV from a 

severe to an extreme 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area and required the 

State to submit by November 15, 2004 

an extreme area plan providing for the 

attainment of the ozone standard as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than November 15, 2010. 69 FR 20550. 

B. What are the elements in the new 

plan? 

The SJVAPCD adopted the ‘‘Extreme 

Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan’’ 

on October 8, 2004 and amended it on 

October 20, 2005 to, among other things, 

substitute for the original chapter a new 

‘‘Chapter 4: Control Strategy.’’ The State 

submitted the plan (with the exception 

of Chapter 8 2) and amendment on 

November 15, 2004 and March 6, 2006, 

respectively. See letters from Catherine 

Witherspoon, ARB, to Wayne Nastri, 

EPA, November 15, 2004 and March 6, 

2006. The plan and amendment, 

collectively, will be referred to as the 

‘‘2004 SIP’’ in this proposed rule. The 

2004 SIP addresses CAA requirements 

for extreme 1-hour ozone areas, 

including emission inventories, 

modeling, control measures, 

contingency measures, and ROP and 

attainment demonstrations. 

The 2004 SIP relies in part on the 

‘‘Final 2003 State and Federal Strategy 

for the California State Implementation 

Plan,’’ which identifies ARB’s 

regulatory agenda to reduce ozone and 

particulate matter in California and 

includes defined statewide control 

measures to be reflected in future SIPs 

and provisions specific to air quality 

plans for the San Joaquin Valley. On 

October 23, 2003, ARB adopted the 

‘‘Final 2003 State and Federal Strategy 

for the California State Implementation 

Plan,’’ which consists of two elements: 

(1) The Proposed 2003 State and Federal 

Strategy for the California State 

Implementation Plan (released August 

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

03–22 which approves the Proposed 

2003 State and Federal Strategy with the 

revisions to that Strategy set forth in 

Attachment A. On January 9, 2004, ARB 

submitted to EPA the ‘‘Final 2003 State 

and Federal Strategy for the California 

State Implementation Plan.’’ Letter from 

Catherine Witherspoon, ARB, to Wayne 

Nastri, EPA, January 9, 2004.3

In this proposed rule we refer to the 

two documents comprising the ‘‘Final 

State and Federal Strategy for the 

California State Implementation Plan’’ 

after the withdrawal of the South Coast 

portions, collectively, as the ‘‘Final 2003 

State Strategy’’ or individually as the 

‘‘State Strategy’’ and ‘‘ARB Resolution 

03–22’’, respectively. 

On August 21, 2008, the SJVAPCD 

adopted ‘‘Clarifications Regarding the 

2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration Plan’’ (2008 SIP 

Clarification). The State submitted the 

2008 SIP Clarification on September 5, 

2008. Letter from James N. Goldstene, 

ARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, with 

enclosures, September 5, 2008. The 

2008 SIP Clarification provides updates 

to the 2004 SIP related to RACT, control 

measures adopted by the SJVAPCD, the 

rate of progress demonstration, and 

contingency measures. 

C. What Clean Air Act requirements 

apply to this extreme area 1-hour ozone 

plan? 

The requirements for extreme 1-hour 

ozone areas are found in section 182 of 

the CAA and the general planning and 

control requirements for nonattainment 

plans are found in sections 110 and 172. 

These requirements are discussed in 

Section II of this proposed rule. EPA has 

issued a General Preamble describing 

our preliminary views on how the 

Agency intends to review SIPs 

submitted to meet the CAA’s 

requirements for 1-hour ozone plans. 

‘‘General Preamble for Implementation 

of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990.’’ 57 FR 13498 

(April 16, 1992). EPA has also issued 

other guidance documents related to 1- 

hour ozone plans which we cited as 

necessary when discussing our 

evaluation of the 2004 SIP. 

In an April 30, 2004 final rule, EPA 

designated and classified most areas of 

the country under the 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) promulgated in 40 CFR 50.10. 

69 FR 23858. On April 30, 2004, EPA 

also issued a final rule entitled ‘‘Final 

Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard—Phase 1’’ (Phase 1 Rule). 69 

FR 23951. Among other matters, this 

rule revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

in the SJV (as well as in most other areas 

of the country), effective June 15, 2005. 

See 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 and 

70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005). The 

Phase 1 Rule also set forth antibacksliding principles to ensure 

continued progress toward attainment of 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by identifying 

which 1-hour requirements remain 

applicable in an area after revocation of 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Among the 

requirements not retained was the 

requirement to implement contingency 

measures pursuant to CAA sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for failure to 

make reasonable further progress (RFP) 

toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS 

or for failure to attain that NAAQS. See 

69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and 70 FR 

30592 (May 26, 2005). 

On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1 Rule. 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 

2006). Subsequently, in South Coast Air 

Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 489 

F.3d 1295 (DC Cir. 2007) in response to 

several petitions for rehearing, the court 

clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was 

vacated only with regard to those parts 

of the rule that had been successfully 

challenged. With respect to the 

challenges to the anti-backsliding 

provisions of the rule (codified in 40 

CFR 51.905), the court vacated several 

provisions that would have allowed 

states to remove from the SIP or to not 

adopt several 1-hour obligations once 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules 61383 

4EPA has issued the following guidance 

regarding air quality modeling used to demonstrate 

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

for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed 

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

on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate 

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

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

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

‘‘Guidance for Improving Weight-of-Evidence 

Through Identification of Additional Emission 

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

documents may be found on EPA’s Web site at 

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

this proposed rule. 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked, 

among them, contingency measures to 

be implemented pursuant to CAA 

sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). 

The provisions in 40 CFR 51.905(a)– 

(c) remain in effect and areas must 

continue to meet those anti-backsliding 

requirements for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. However, the contingency 

measure provision noted previously, 

which is specified in 51.905(e), was 

vacated by the court. As a result, states 

must continue to meet the obligation for 

1-hour ozone contingency measures. 

II. Review of the 2004 SIP, the SJV 

Elements of the Final 2003 State 

Strategy and the 2008 SIP Clarification 

A. Did the SJVAPCD and ARB meet the 

CAA procedural requirements? 

1. What are the applicable CAA 

provisions? 

CAA section 110 requires SIP 

submissions to be adopted by the state 

after reasonable notice and public 

hearing. EPA has promulgated specific 

requirements for SIP submissions in 40 

CFR part 51, subpart F. 

2. How does the plan address these 

provisions? 

The District provided the requisite 

notice and public comment periods 

prior to adoption of the 2004 SIP and 

2008 SIP Clarification. The State 

provided the requisite notice and public 

comment period prior to adoption of the 

2004 SIP, Final 2003 State Strategy and 

2008 SIP Clarification. See January 9, 

2004, November 15, 2004 and March 6, 

2006 letters from Catherine 

Witherspoon, ARB, to Wayne Nastri, 

EPA, with enclosures and September 5, 

2008 letter from James. N. Goldstene to 

Wayne Nastri, with enclosures. 

3. Does the plan meet the CAA 

procedural requirements for SIP 

submissions? 

The submittal packages for the 2004 

SIP, Final 2003 State Strategy and 2008 

SIP Clarification include evidence of 

public notice and hearing, District and 

ARB responses to public comments, and 

evidence of District and ARB adoption. 

Based on our review of these materials, 

we find that the procedural 

requirements of CAA section 110 and 40 

CFR part 51, subpart F have been met. 

4. Are the plan submittals complete? 

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

determine whether a plan is complete 

within 60 days of receipt and any plan 

that has not been determined to be 

complete or incomplete within 6 

months shall be deemed complete by 

operation of law. EPA’s completeness 

criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart V. 

The 2004 SIP, comprised of the 

original and subsequent amendment, 

was deemed complete by operation of 

law on May 15, 2005 and September 6, 

2006. On February 18, 2004, we 

determined the Final 2003 State 

Strategy to be complete. Letter from 

Deborah Jordan, EPA, to Catherine 

Witherspoon, CARB, February 18, 2004. 

We found the 2008 SIP Clarification 

complete on September 23, 2008. Letter 

from Deborah Jordan, EPA, to James N. 

Goldstene, ARB, September 23, 2008. 

B. Do the baseline and projected 

emission inventories meet CAA 

requirements? 

1. What are the applicable CAA 

provisions? 

CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) 

require nonattainment areas to submit a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources, in accordance with guidance 

provided by EPA. The inventory is to 

represent weekday emissions during the 

ozone season. General Preamble at 

13502. EPA guidance for 1-hour ozone 

SIP emission inventories includes, in 

addition to the General Preamble: 

‘‘Procedures for the Preparation of 

Emission Inventories for Carbon 

Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone, 

Volume I: General Guidance for 

Stationary Sources,’’ EPA—450/4–91– 

016; and ‘‘Procedures for Emission 

Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: 

Mobile Sources,’’ EPA—450/5–91–026d 

Revised. 

2. How does the plan address these 

provisions? 

Chapter 3 of the 2004 SIP presents the 

baseline and projected emission 

inventories. This chapter also discusses 

the methodology used to determine 

1999 emissions and identifies the 

growth and control factors used to 

project emissions for the 2000 baseline 

inventory and the 2008 and 2010 

projected year inventories. The plan 

presents weekday summer inventories 

for 2000, 2008 and 2010 for all major 

source categories. Emissions are 

calculated for the two major ozone 

precursors—oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

and volatile organic compounds 

(VOC)—as well as for the less significant 

precursor, carbon monoxide (CO). 2004 

SIP at Table 3–1. Motor vehicle 

emissions were based on estimates of 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provided 

by the regional transportation planning 

agencies and the California Department 

of Transportation. The plan uses ARB’s 

EMission FACtor (EMFAC) 2002, 

version 2.2, to calculate the emission 

factors for cars, trucks and buses. On 

April 1, 2003, we approved EMFAC 

2002 for use in SIP development. 68 FR 

15720. 

3. Does the plan meet the CAA 

provisions for the emission inventories? 

We have determined that the emission 

inventories in the 2004 SIP were 

comprehensive, accurate, and current at 

the time the SIP was submitted. 

Accordingly, we propose to approve the 

emissions inventories in the 2004 SIP as 

consistent with the CAA and applicable 

EPA guidelines. 

C. Is the air quality modeling consistent 

with the CAA and EPA’s modeling 

guidelines? 

1. What are the applicable CAA 

provisions and EPA’s guidelines? 

Areas classified as extreme for the 1- 

hour ozone standard such as the SJV 

must demonstrate attainment ‘‘as 

expeditiously as practicable’’ but not 

later than November 15, 2010 as 

specified in CAA section 181(a). For 

purposes of demonstrating attainment, 

CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires 

extreme areas to use photochemical grid 

modeling or an analytical method EPA 

determines to be as effective. 

EPA guidance identifies the features 

of a modeling analysis that are essential 

to obtain credible results.4 The 

photochemical grid modeling analysis is 

performed for days when the 

meteorological conditions are conducive 

to the formation of ozone. For purposes 

of developing the information to put 

into the model, the state must select 

days in the past with elevated ozone 

levels that are representative of the 

ozone pollution problem in the 

nonattainment area and a modeling 

domain that encompasses the 

nonattainment area. The state must then 

develop both meteorological data 

describing atmospheric conditions for 

the selected days and an emission 

inventory to evaluate the model’s ability 

to reproduce the monitored air quality 

values. Finally, the state needs to verify 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
61384 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

5EPA has not recommended a model for 

attainment demonstrations for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

that the model is properly simulating 

the chemistry and atmospheric 

conditions through diagnostic analyses 

and model performance tests. 

Once these steps are satisfactorily 

completed, the model can be used to 

generate future year air quality estimates 

to support an attainment demonstration. 

A future-year emissions inventory, 

which includes growth and controls 

through the attainment year, is 

developed for input to the model to 

predict air quality in the attainment 

year. 

For the 1-hour ozone standard, the 

modeled attainment test compares 

model-predicted 1-hour daily maximum 

ozone concentrations in all grid cells for 

the attainment year to the level of the 

NAAQS. For the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, 

a predicted concentration above 0.124 

parts per million (ppm) indicates that 

the area is expected to exceed the 

standard in the attainment year and a 

prediction at or below 0.124 ppm 

indicates that the area is expected to 

attain the standard. 

Attainment is demonstrated when all 

predicted concentrations inside the 

modeling domain are at or below the 

NAAQS or at an acceptable upper limit 

above the NAAQS permitted under 

certain conditions by EPA’s guidance. 

When the predicted concentrations are 

above the NAAQS, a weight of evidence 

determination, which incorporates other 

analyses such as air quality and 

emissions trends, may be used to 

address the uncertainty inherent in the 

application of photochemical grid 

models. 

2. How does the plan address these 

provisions? 

EPA recommended that states use the 

Urban Airshed Model (UAM) version IV 

as the ozone model of choice for the 

grid-point modeling required by the 

CAA for 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstrations.5 Other models are 

allowed if the state shows that they are 

scientifically valid and they perform 

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

better than, UAM IV. California selected 

the Comprehensive Air Quality Model 

with Extensions (CAMx) based on 

slightly better performance for the SJV 

than the other tested models. Details on 

the model and its selection can be found 

in Appendix D to the 2004 SIP. The 

meteorological modeling was based on a 

hybrid approach, using the Meso-scale 

Model 5 (MM5) and Calmet models, 

because of the ability of this modeling 

system to reproduce the measured 

design value near the Fresno monitoring 

site. 

Information on how the CAMX 

modeling meets EPA guidance is 

summarized here and detailed in the 

State’s submittals. 2004 SIP at Chapter 

5 and Appendix D. The air quality 

modeling domain extends from the 

Oregon border in the north to Los 

Angeles County in the south, and from 

the Pacific Ocean in the west to Nevada 

in the east. 

EPA’s Guideline on the use of 

photochemical grid models 

recommends that areas model three or 

more episodes, including the types of 

weather conditions most conducive to 

ozone formation. The final 

photochemical grid modeling submitted 

by California focused on the CAMx 

modeling for one several day episode, 

July 27 to August 2, 2000. This episode 

represents high measured ozone, with a 

peak measured concentration of 151 

parts per billion (ppb) at Bakersfield on 

August 2, 2000. The episode was typical 

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

highest potential for ozone formation) of 

episodes in the San Joaquin Valley. 

The CAMx model was run using the 

MM5/CALMET meteorological 

processor with State emission 

inventories for the 2000 base year and 

with projected emissions representing 

grown and controlled emissions for the 

attainment year. The projected 2010 

emissions inventory was developed for 

modeling simulations and included the 

effects of projected growth and control 

measures, as discussed in section II.B. 

above. 

The CAMx simulation for July 30, 

with the emission inventory for the year 

2010, was used to develop targets for 

reduction of VOC and NOX in the 

attainment year. 

3. Does the air quality modeling meet 

EPA’s modeling guidelines? 

EPA has established the following 

guidelines for model performance: 

unpaired peak ratio 0.80–1.2, 

normalized bias +/¥15%, and gross 

error less than 35%. The model 

performance is presented in Appendix 

D to the 2004 SIP for the Fresno and 

Bakersfield areas, representing areas of 

highest 1-hour ozone levels in the SJV 

and shows that the CAMx model 

predicts ozone within the quality limits 

set by EPA guidance on most days for 

most subregions of the modeling 

domain. On those days for which a 

subregion had peak measured ozone 

concentrations above 125 ppb, the 

model performance meets the EPA 

criteria. 

We conclude that the modeling is 

consistent with the CAA and EPA 

modeling guidance; therefore, we 

propose to approve the modeling 

analysis that underlies the attainment 

demonstration in the 2004 SIP. We 

discuss the attainment demonstration in 

more detail later in this proposed rule. 

See also ‘‘Technical Support Document 

for the Extreme One-Hour Ozone 

Attainment Plan Modeling for the San 

Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area,’’ 

EPA Region 9, September 2008, found 

in the docket for this proposed rule. 

D. Do the control measures meet CAA 

requirements? 

1. What are the applicable CAA 

provisions? 

The CAA section 172(c)(1) requires 

nonattainment area plans to provide for 

the implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) 

including reasonably available control 

technology (RACT). EPA has previously 

provided guidance interpreting the 

RACM requirement in the General 

Preamble at 13560 and a memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on the Reasonably 

Available Control Measure Requirement 

and Attainment Demonstration 

Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas,’’ John Seitz, Director, OAQPS to 

Regional Air Directors, November 30, 

1999. In summary, EPA guidance 

requires that states, in addressing the 

RACM requirement, should consider all 

potential measures for source categories 

in the nonattainment area to determine 

whether they are reasonably available 

for implementation in that area and 

whether they would advance the area’s 

attainment date. 

Under the CAA, RACT is required for 

major VOC sources and for all VOC 

source categories for which EPA has 

issued Control Techniques Guideline 

(CTG) documents. In addition, EPA has 

issued Alternative Control Techniques 

(ACT) documents to help states in 

making RACT determinations. CAA 

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

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

section 182(f) requires that RACT also 

apply to major stationary sources of 

NOX. In extreme areas, such as the SJV, 

a major source is one that emits or has 

the potential to emit 10 tons of VOC or 

NOX per year. CAA section 182(e). 

The CAA also requires that SIPs 

‘‘shall include enforceable emission 

limitations, and such other control 

measures, means or techniques * * * as 

well as schedules and timetables for 

compliance, as may be necessary or 

appropriate to provide for attainment 

* * * by the applicable attainment date. 

* * *’’ CAA section 172(c)(6). CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(A) contains almost 

identical language. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules 61385 

6The current set of the District’s adopted 

regulations is available at: http://www.valleyair.org/ 

rules/1ruleslist.htm. The current status of EPA 

approval of the District’s rules is posted at: http:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/R9/r9sips.nsf/Agency?ReadForm&

count=500&state=California&cat=

San+Joaquin+Valley+Unified+APCD-Agency-Wide+

Provisions. 

7See chapter 3 (page 38) of the ‘‘Air Resources 

Board’s Proposed State Strategy for California’s 

2007 State Implementation Plan,’’ Revised Draft 

(Release date: April 26, 2007) for a list of adopted 

State measures. 

8The State Strategy makes clear that this 

commitment was intended for immediate inclusion 

in the 2003 PM–10 plan for the San Joaquin Valley 

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

the SJV. State Strategy at I–23 and I–26. 

9The State uses the term ‘‘reactive organic gases’’ 

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

proposed rule, VOC and ROG are interchangeable. 

Finally, CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) 

requires that extreme areas submit 

transportation control measures (TCMs) 

sufficient to offset any growth in 

emissions from growth in VMT or the 

number of vehicle trips, and to provide 

(along with other measures) the 

reductions needed to meet ROP. EPA 

interprets this CAA provision to allow 

areas to meet the requirement by 

demonstrating that emissions from 

motor vehicles decline each year 

through the attainment year. General 

Preamble at 13522. 

2. How does the plan address these 

provisions? 

a. RACM 

To determine which measures would 

be feasible for the SJV, the District 

looked at measures implemented in 

other areas (including the South Coast 

Air Basin, the San Francisco Bay Area, 

and the Houston-Galveston area), 

documents produced by ARB, as well as 

measures suggested by the public at 

workshops. The District then screened 

the identified measures and rejected 

those that affected few or no sources in 

the SJV, had already been adopted as 

rules or were in the process of being 

adopted. The remaining measures were 

evaluated using baseline inventories, 

available control technologies, and 

potential emission reductions as well as 

whether the measure could be 

implemented on a schedule that would 

contribute to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone standard by the deadline of 2010. 

2004 SIP at section 4.2.1. 

Based on this evaluation, the District 

developed an expeditious rule adoption 

schedule listing 21 measures involving 

adoption of eight new rules and 

revisions to over 20 existing rules. 2004 

SIP, Table 4–1. Since submittal of the 

SIP in 2004, the District has completed 

action on all of these rules and 

submitted all except one of the adopted 

rules to EPA for approval. 2008 SIP 

Clarification, Table 1 and Table 1 

below.6

In addition to the District’s efforts, the 

eight San Joaquin Valley Regional 

Transportation Planning Agencies 

(RPTAs) also conducted a RACM 

evaluation for transportation sources. 

This evaluation, described in section 

4.6.3. of the 2004 SIP, resulted in 

extensive local government 

commitments to implement programs to 

reduce auto travel and improve traffic 

flow. 2004 SIP at section 4.6 and 

Appendix C. The local governments also 

provide reasoned justifications for any 

measures that they did not adopt. See 

2004 SIP at Appendix C. 

The 2004 SIP relies on the Final 2003 

State Strategy to address mobile and 

area source categories not under the 

District’s jurisdiction. 2004 SIP at 

section 4.7. Table I–1 in the State 

Strategy shows the impressive list of 

both mobile and area source measures 

that have been adopted by California 

between 1994 and 2003, along with the 

mobile source rules that have been 

adopted by EPA during this period. 

Table I–2 lists proposed new State 

measures, most of which have already 

been adopted.7 This list of new State 

measures was developed through a 

public process intended to identify and 

refine new emission reductions 

strategies for California. State Strategy at 

ES–5. 

b. RACT 

The 2004 SIP includes a brief section 

4.2.5 discussing the RACT obligation 

and specific source categories where 

further analysis and potential future 

controls may be required in order to 

ensure that RACT levels of control are 

applied to sources down to the 10 tons 

per year (tpy) level. The District 

concluded that only a few categories 

would need additional work, since the 

District’s existing rules already applied 

a stringent degree of control to sources 

with relatively low levels of emissions. 

Subsequently, the District adopted, on 

August 17, 2006, and the State 

submitted on January 31, 2007, an 8- 

hour ozone RACT SIP addressing 

sources down to the 25 tpy size. In 

submitting the 2008 SIP Clarification, 

the State formally withdrew the RACT 

portion of the 2004 SIP, specifically 

section 4.2.5, stating that the District 

would fill the resulting 1-hour ozone 

RACT gap with the revised 8-hour 

ozone RACT SIP now under further 

development. The District intends to 

address sources down to the 10 tpy level 

of emissions in this revised 8-hour 

RACT SIP. 2008 SIP Clarification, page 

3. Because the State has withdrawn this 

portion of the 2004 SIP and has not yet 

submitted a revised RACT SIP to 

address the extreme area requirements, 

we are not acting on RACT in this 

action. 

c. Enforceable Limitations and Other 

Control Measures 

i. Adopted Regulations 

The 2004 SIP’s modeling analysis 

determined that attainment of the 1- 

hour ozone standard required reducing 

2000 baseline emissions from 556.8 tons 

per day (tpd) NOX and 443.5 tpd VOC 

to 343.5 tpd NOX and 314.4 tpd VOC. 

2004 SIP at 3–7 through 3–11 and 5–9 

through 5–12 and ‘‘Proposed 2004 State 

Implementation Plan for Ozone in the 

San Joaquin Valley,’’ September 28, 

2004, Air Resources Board Staff Report 

(ARB Staff Report for the 2004 SIP) at 

Table III–6. 

As shown in Table 3 below, of the 

213.3 tpd NOX and 129.1 tpd VOC 

needed for attainment, approximately 

160 tpd of NOX and 78.4 tpd of VOC 

reductions come from rules and 

regulations that were already adopted 

when the plan was submitted in 2004. 

ii. Commitments 

The 2004 SIP contains both State and 

District commitments to adopt control 

measures to achieve specified emissions 

reductions. The Final 2003 State 

Strategy, adopted prior to the 2004 SIP, 

includes an enforceable commitment to 

reduce NOX emissions in the SJV by 10 

tpd by 2010.8 State Strategy at I–24 

through I–26. Possible measures to 

achieve these reductions are described 

and listed in the State Strategy at I–14 

through I–26 and ARB Resolution 03– 

22, Attachment A. The State Strategy 

also states that beyond its emission 

reduction commitment, new 

commitments to achieve further VOC9

and NOX reductions would be needed 

for the future SJV 1-hour ozone plan 

(which the SJVAPCD and ARB 

subsequently adopted as the 2004 SIP) 

and would be considered as part of that 

plan. State Strategy at I–26. To that end, 

the 2004 SIP incorporates the Final 2003 

State Strategy as it applies to the SJV 

and includes an additional commitment 

by the State to achieve by 2010 

emissions reductions of 10 tpd NOX and 

15 tpd VOC. 

Although the Final 2003 State 

Strategy identifies possible control 

measures that could deliver these 

reductions, the State’s commitment is 

only to achieve these NOX and VOC 

emission reductions in the aggregate by 

2010. Thus, the State’s total enforceable 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
61386 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

10 In these documents the State’s commitment is 

sometimes referred to as 20 tpd NOX and sometimes 

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

commitment for 10 tpd NOX in the Statewide 

Strategy and ARB’s additional commitment for 10 

tpd NOX in the 2004 SIP at section 4.7 and ARB 

Board Resolution 04–29. See also ARB Staff Report 

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

ARB’s additional commitment for 10 tpd NOX in 

the 2004 SIP at section 4.7 and ARB Resolution 04– 

29. 

commitments in the 2004 SIP are to 

achieve 20 tpd NOX and 15 tpd VOC 

emission reductions in the aggregate by 

2010. See State Strategy at I–7 through 

I–9 and I–26; ARB Board Resolution 04– 

29, October 28, 2004; ARB Staff Report 

for the 2004 SIP at 29–30; 2004 SIP at 

section 4.7 (including Table 4–3 which 

duplicates Table I–2 in the State 

Strategy).10

In the 2004 SIP, the District commits 

to adopt specific rules by specified dates 

(quarter and year), to submit the rules 

within one month of adoption to ARB 

for submittal to EPA, and to achieve 

from each measure the specified 

reductions in 2010. 2004 SIP at Table 4– 

1 and SJVAPCD Resolution No. 5–10–12 

(October 20, 2005) p. 4, item 9. This 

information is updated in Table 1 of the 

2008 SIP Clarification which shows not 

only the original commitment in the 

2004 SIP but also the date on which the 

District adopted the rule associated with 

each commitment and the actual 

emissions reductions achieved by each 

rule. A summary of the information 

found in Table 1 in the 2008 SIP 

Clarification is presented in our Table 1. 

Table 1 below also gives the date the 

rule was submitted to EPA or the date 

on which EPA approved the rule into 

the SIP. 

TABLE 1—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 2004 EXTREME OZONE ATTAINMENT PLAN ‘‘NEW

MEASURE’’ COMMITMENTS

Rule #, description and commitment ID from 2004 SIP 

2004 SIP 

commitment 

(2010–tpd) 

Achieved 

emission 

reductions 

(2010–tpd) 

Local 

adoption 

Submittal date or approval 

cite/date 

NOX Control Measures 

9310 Fleet rule-School buses (C) ........................................... 0.1 1.6 9/21/06 12/29/06 

9510, 3180 Indirect Source Mitigation (D) .............................. 4.0 4.0 12/15/05 12/29/06 

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

4352 Solid fuel boilers (G) ...................................................... 0.0 0.0 5/18/06 72 FR 29887 (5/30/07) 

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

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

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

4103 Open Burning (Q) .......................................................... 1.1 1.7 5/17/07 

4703 Sta. Gas Turbines (S) .................................................... 0.6 1.9 8/17/06 12/29/06 

NOX Totals ....................................................................... 16.0 32.6 

EPA-Approved NOX Reductions ............................................. 10.2 23.4 

NOX Reductions Not Approved by EPA ................................. 5.8 9.2 

VOC Control Measures 

Rule # and Description: 

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

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

4694 Wineries (F) ............................................................ 0.7 0.8 12/15/05 6/16/06 

4565 Composting/Biosolids (J) ........................................ 0.1 0.3 3/15/07 8/24/07 

4612 Automotive Coating (incorporates Rule 4602) (K) 0.1 1.0 9/20/07 3/7/08 

4570 CAFO Rule (L) ........................................................ 15.8 17.7 6/15/06 10/5/06 

4662 Org. Solvent Degreasing (M) 

4663 Org. Sol. Cleaning (M) 

4603 Metal Parts/Products (M) 

4604 Can and Coil Coating (M) ....................................... 1.3 3.1 9/20/07 3/7/08 

4605 Aerospace Coating (M) 

4606 Wood Products Coating (M) 

4607 Graphic Arts (M) 

4612 Automotive Coating (M) 

4653 Adhesives (M) 

4684 Polyester Resin Operation (M) 

4401 Steam-Enhanced Oil-well (O) ................................. 1.4 0.3 12/14/06 5/8/07 

4651 Soil Decontamination (P) ........................................ <0.5 0.0 9/20/07 3/7/08 

4103 Open Burning (Q) ................................................... 2.9 3.9 5/17/07 — 

4682 Polymeric Foam Mfg. (R) ....................................... 0.1 0.1 9/20/07 3/7/08 

4621 & 4624 Gasoline storage & trans. (T & U) ............. 0.9 1.9 12/20/07 3/7/08 

VOC totals ................................................................ 28.2 34.5 

EPA-Approved VOC Reductions ............................................ 4.9 5.2 

VOC Reductions Not Approved by EPA ................................. 23.3 29.3 

In addition to the emission reductions 

associated with the rules listed in Table 

1 above, the District also commits to 

achieve an additional 5 tpd NOX and 5 

tpd VOC reductions in aggregate by 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules 61387 

11Commitments approved by EPA under section 

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

citizens under, respectively, sections 113 and 304 

of the CAA. In the past, EPA has approved 

enforceable commitments and courts have enforced 

these actions against states that failed to comply 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments, 

EPA could make a finding of failure to implement 

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

18-month period for the State to correct the 

nonimplementation before mandatory sanctions are 

imposed. 

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

‘‘shall include enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means or techniques * * * 

as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, 

as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirement of the Act.’’ Section 

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

nonattainment SIPs, is virtually identical to section 

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

CAA is quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any 

‘‘means or techniques’’ that EPA determines are 

‘‘necessary or appropriate’’ to meet CAA 

requirements, such that the area will attain as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later than the 

designated date. Furthermore, the express 

allowance for ‘‘schedules and timetables’’ 

demonstrates that Congress understood that all 

required controls might not have to be in place 

before a SIP could be fully approved. 

12The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

upheld EPA’s interpretation of CAA sections 

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

application of the three factor test in approving 

enforceable commitments in the Houston-Galveston 

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

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

2010 from long-term measures. 2004 SIP 

at Table 5–1. 

d. TCMs To Offset Growth in Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Under 182(d)(1) 

The 2008 SIP Clarification provides a 

demonstration that emissions from 

motor vehicles in the San Joaquin 

Valley decline each year from 2000 to 

2011. This demonstration is reproduced 

in Table 2 below. 2008 SIP Clarification 

at 8. The emissions derive from the 

emissions inventory used in the 

modeling analysis for the 2004 SIP, and 

so are calculated using EMFAC2002, 

version 2.2, and the same transportation 

activity projections used in the 2004 

SIP. 

TABLE 2—BASELINE MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS, 2000–2011 

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

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

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

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

3. Does the plan meet the CAA 

provisions for control measures? 

a. RACM 

As described above, the District 

evaluated a range of potentially 

available measures for inclusion in its 

2004 SIP and committed to adopt those 

it found to be feasible for attaining the 

1-hour standard. The process and the 

criteria the District used to select certain 

measures and reject others are 

consistent with EPA’s RACM guidance. 

We also describe above the measure 

evaluation process undertaken by the 

RPTAs and the local jurisdictions. This 

process is also consistent with EPA’s 

RACM guidance. Based on our review of 

results of these RACM analyses, the 

State Strategy, and the resulting 

commitments to adopt and implement 

controls, we propose to find that there 

are, at this time, no additional 

reasonably available measures that 

would advance attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone standard in the SJV. Therefore, 

we also propose to find that the 2004 

SIP, together with the Final 2003 State 

Strategy, provides for the 

implementation of RACM as required by 

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

finding does not affect the District’s 

continuing obligation under the CAA to 

implement RACT for its major sources 

of VOC and NOX and sources covered 

by an EPA CTG document. 

b. RACT 

As discussed above, the State has 

withdrawn the RACT portion of the 

2004 Plan with the intent to fill the 

resulting 1-hour ozone RACT gap with 

the revised 8-hour ozone RACT SIP now 

under further development by the 

District. The District intends that this 

revised RACT SIP will, among other 

things, address sources down to the 10 

tpy level of emissions as required for 

extreme areas. We agree with the 

District and the State that this approach 

is an efficient way to deal with the 

remaining RACT issues. See Letter, 

Deborah Jordan, EPA to Seyed Sadredin, 

SJVAPCD, September 9, 2008. 

c. Enforceable Limitations and Other 

Control Measures 

As stated above, measures already 

adopted by the District and State 

provide the majority of emission 

reductions needed to demonstrate 

attainment. The balance of the needed 

reductions is in the form of enforceable 

commitments by the District and ARB. 

EPA believes, consistent with past 

practice, that the CAA allows approval 

of enforceable commitments that are 

limited in scope where circumstances 

exist that warrant the use of such 

commitments in place of adopted 

measures.11 Once EPA determines that 

circumstances warrant consideration of 

an enforceable commitment, EPA 

considers three factors in determining 

whether to approve the enforceable 

commitment: (a) Does the commitment 

address a limited portion of the 

statutorily-required program; (b) is the 

state capable of fulfilling its 

commitment; and (c) is the commitment 

for a reasonable and appropriate period 

of time.12

We believe that circumstances here 

warrant the consideration of enforceable 

commitments. As discussed above, the 

bulk of emission reductions needed for 

attainment comes from regulations 

already fully adopted by the District and 

the State. These previously adopted 

measures include ARB regulations 

governing area and mobile sources and 

SJVAPCD rules governing stationary 

sources. 

Moreover, as shown above and 

discussed further below, the 2008 SIP 

Clarification demonstrates that the 

District has fulfilled its commitments in 

the 2004 SIP to achieve the identified 

emission reductions from specific rules 

and to achieve an additional 5 tpd VOC 

and 5 tpd NOX reductions in the 

aggregate from long-term measures. 

As a result of District’s and ARB’s 

previous efforts, the vast majority of 

sources in the SJV are already subject to 

stringent, adopted rules and it is 

increasingly difficult to develop 

regulations for the remaining universe 

of uncontrolled sources. Although the 

State is continuing its efforts to increase 

the stringency of existing controls on 

mobile sources and consumer products, 

the diverse nature of these source 

categories makes them difficult to 

regulate. As a result, rule development 

places an increasing burden on the State 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
61388 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

13The 2004 SIP at Table 5–1 includes 2010 

baseline inventory numbers which reflect control 

measures adopted through September 2002. The 

ARB Staff Report for the 2004 SIP at Table III–6 

refers to the measures adopted as of September 

2002 as the adopted measures. Thus, for the 2004 

SIP, measures adopted as of September 2002 are 

considered to be the baseline adopted measures. 

14 Includes the updated VOC and NOX emissions 

reductions from the ‘‘Achieved Emission 

Reductions’’ column of Table 1 above and in the 

2008 SIP Clarification and 2.4 tpd VOC and 12.2 

tpd of NOX from measures adopted after September 

2002, but prior to the adoption of the 2004 SIP by 

the District and State, and which have since been 

approved by EPA. See ARB Staff Report for the 

2004 SIP at Tables III–6 and III–7, 68 FR 51187, 68 

FR 52510, 69 FR 60962, 69 FR 28061, 70 FR 28826, 

69 FR 30006, 30026–30027. 

to analyze advanced technologies and 

develop increasingly complex control 

approaches, and several years may be 

required to complete the tasks 

prerequisite to successful regulation. 

We, therefore, believe it is appropriate 

to allow an additional short period of 

time in order for them to determine 

which sources should be regulated and 

how. 

Finally, the SJV does not rely on these 

enforceable commitments to meet the 

required rate of progress milestones. 

The 2008 SIP Clarification demonstrates 

achievement of the required ROP 

without the need for any reductions 

from commitments. See discussion in 

section II.E. below. 

Having concluded that the 

circumstances warrant consideration of 

enforceable commitments, we consider 

below the three factors in determining 

whether to approve the submitted 

commitments. 

i. The commitments address a limited 

portion of the 2004 SIP. Table 1 in the 

2008 SIP Clarification and Table 1 above 

show that all of the District’s 

commitments in Table 4–1 of the 2004 

SIP have been converted to adopted 

rules, all but one has been submitted to 

EPA, and many have been approved by 

EPA. These tables demonstrate that the 

rules the District has adopted pursuant 

to these commitments will achieve 32.6 

tpd NOX and 34.5 tpd VOC. These 

reductions amount to 16.6 tpd NOX and 

6.3 tpd VOC more than the District 

originally committed to achieve in the 

2004 Plan and are not only sufficient to 

meet all of its original emission 

reduction commitments from specified 

measures but also to satisfy the District’s 

long-term measure commitment to 

achieve additional 5 tpd NOX and 5 tpd 

VOC by 2010. 

The EPA-approved rules in Table 1 

account for 23.4 tpd NOX and 5.2 tpd 

VOC. Table 3 below shows that the 

reductions from commitments needed to 

attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are 17.7 

tpd NOX (8.3%) and 43.1 tpd VOC 

(33.4%). 

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

NOX VOC 

2000 baseline emissions ..................................................................................................................................................... 556.8 443.5 

2010 attainment target ......................................................................................................................................................... 343.5 314.4 

Reductions needed to attain ................................................................................................................................................ 213.3 129.1 

Reductions from baseline measures adopted by 9/02 13 .................................................................................................... 160.0 78.4 

Reductions needed from commitments in 2004 SIP ........................................................................................................... 53.3 50.7 

Reductions achieved from EPA-approved rules 14 .............................................................................................................. 35.6 7.6 

Reductions needed to attain from commitments ................................................................................................................. 17.7 43.1 

Percent of reductions needed to attain from commitments (row 3) .................................................................................... 8.3% 33.4% 

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

Of the 17.7 tpd NOX commitments, 

9.2 tpd are from measures already 

adopted by the District but not yet acted 

on by EPA. Similarly, of the 43.1 tpd 

VOC commitments, 29.3 tpd are from 

measures already adopted by the 

District. This leaves only 8.5 tpd NOX

and 13.8 tpd VOC (or approximately 3% 

NOX and 11% VOC) reductions that are 

needed for attainment from the State’s 

commitments. The State has committed 

to achieve 20 tpd NOX and 15 tpd VOC 

which is more than is needed for 

attainment in 2010. Given the difficulty 

of controlling the State’s sources and the 

near term adoption and implementation 

dates, we believe the portion of 

reductions from enforceable 

commitments in the 2004 SIP is 

acceptable and the first factor is 

satisfied. 

ii. The State and District are capable 

of fulfilling their commitments. As 

discussed above, the District has already 

adopted the rules needed to fulfill the 

commitments made in its 2004 SIP and 

the only commitment that remains to be 

fulfilled is that of the State to achieve 

20 tpd NOX and 15 tpd VOC reductions 

by 2010. The 2004 SIP at section 4.7 and 

State Strategy at I–7 through I–9 and I– 

23 through I–26 identify the State’s 

development, adoption and 

implementation schedule for achieving 

its commitment. 

Since the development of the 2004 

SIP, the State has in fact adopted many 

controls that have the potential to 

contribute to meeting this obligation. 

Previous ARB regulatory achievements 

are listed in chronological order in a 

table in chapter 3 (page 38) of the ‘‘Air 

Resources Board’s Proposed State 

Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan,’’ Revised Draft 

(Release date: April 26, 2007). The 

controls typically represent the most 

stringent regulations yet enacted in the 

Country and include In-Use Diesel 

Agricultural Engine Requirements, 

Consumer Product Lower Emission 

Limits, Zero Emission Bus Rule 

Amendments, etc. Finally, the State has 

an ongoing rulemaking agenda for 2008 

posted at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/ 

2008calfin.pdf. 

We believe that this consistent record 

of achievement shows that the State will 

be able to meet its enforceable 

commitments to achieve 20 tpd NOX

and 15 tpd VOC by 2010. We, therefore, 

conclude that the second factor is 

satisfied. 

iii. The commitments are for a 

reasonable and appropriate period of 

time. The State is not obligated to fulfill 

its emission reduction commitments 

until 2010. This schedule is reasonable 

given the type of measures that remain 

to be pursued, e.g., retrofit controls for 

existing heavy-duty off-road diesel 

equipment. 2003 State Strategy, 

Measure OFF–RD CI–1. These types of 

measures typically require substantial 

time to develop, adopt and implement. 

Therefore, the State’s schedule is 

reasonable and appropriate, and we 

conclude that the third factor is 

satisfied. 

iv. Conclusion. For the above reasons, 

we believe that the three factors EPA 

considers in determining whether to 

approve enforceable commitments are 

satisfactorily addressed with respect to 

the District’s and the State’s 

commitments. We are therefore 

proposing to approve the State’s 

enforceable commitment in the 2004 

SIP, ARB Board Resolution 04–29 and 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules 61389 

15On January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150, 1172), we 

approved the ROP demonstrations for the 1996 and 

1999 milestones in the serious area 1-hour ozone 

SIP for the SJV, which was submitted in November 

1994 and revised on July 12, 1996. Following 

reclassification of the area to severe, ROP 

demonstrations were prepared and submitted for 

the 2002 and 2005 milestones as part of the severe 

area SIP. The District prepared and submitted to 

EPA milestone compliance reports, as required by 

CAA section 182(g)(1) and (2), demonstrating 

achievement of the 2002 and 2005 milestones. See 

2004 SIP at section 7.6.2 and letter from Scott 

Nestor, SJVAPCD, to Catherine Witherspoon, ARB, 

March 30, 2006, with attachment (‘‘San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basin Rate of Progress Milestone 

Compliance Demonstration for 2005 the 1-hr Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards’’). 

Final 2003 State Strategy to achieve 20 

tpd NOX and 15 tpd VOC reductions by 

2010. We also propose to approve the 

District’s enforceable commitments in 

the 2004 SIP to adopt specific rules by 

specified dates to achieve in 2010 the 

reductions in the column labeled 

‘‘Achieved Emission Reductions’’ in 

Table 1 in the 2008 SIP Clarification 

(and Table 1 above). Final approval of 

these commitments would make the 

commitments enforceable by EPA and 

by citizens. 

d. TCMs To Offset Growth in Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Under 182(d)(1) 

Additional information submitted in 

the 2008 SIP Clarification and 

reproduced in Table 2 above show that 

on-road mobile source emissions of 

VOC and NOX decline steadily from 

2000 to 2011. Because emissions decline 

each year for both VOC and NOX, the 

plan need not include TCMs to offset 

growth; therefore, we propose to find 

that this CAA requirement is met. 

E. Does the plan show the CAA-required 

rate of progress? 

1. What are the applicable CAA 

provisions? 

CAA section 172(c) requires 

nonattainment area plans to provide for 

reasonable further progress (RFP) which 

is defined in section 171(1) as such 

annual incremental reductions in 

emissions as are required in part D or 

may reasonably be required by the 

Administrator in order to ensure 

attainment of the relevant NAAQS by 

the applicable date. 

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

that serious and above area SIPs include 

ROP quantitative milestones that are to 

be achieved every 3 years after 1996 

until attainment. For ozone areas 

classified as serious and above, section 

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

provide for reductions in ozone-season, 

weekday VOC emissions of at least 3 

percent per year net of growth averaged 

over each consecutive 3-year period. 

This is in addition to the 15 percent 

reduction over the first 6-year period 

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

areas classified as moderate and above. 

The CAA requires that these milestones 

be calculated from the 1990 inventory 

after excluding, among other things, 

emission reductions from ‘‘[a]ny 

measure related to motor vehicle 

exhaust or evaporative emissions 

promulgated by the Administrator by 

January 1, 1990 and emission reductions 

from certain federal gasoline volatility 

requirements.’’ CAA section 

182(b)(1)(B)–(D). EPA has issued 

guidance on meeting 1-hour ozone ROP 

requirements. See General Preamble at 

13516 and ‘‘Guidance on the Post-1996 

Rate-of-Progress Plan and the 

Attainment Demonstration,’’ EPA–452/ 

R–93–015, OAQPS, EPA, February 18, 

1994 (corrected). 

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

NOX reductions which occur after 1990 

to be used to meet the post-1996 ROP 

emission reduction requirements, 

provided that such NOX reductions 

meet the criteria outlined in the CAA 

and EPA guidance. The criteria require 

that: (1) The sum of all creditable VOC 

and NOX reductions must meet the 3 

percent per year ROP requirement; (2) 

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

for the relevant pollutant; and (3) the 

sum of all substituted NOX reductions 

cannot be greater than the cumulative 

NOX reductions required by the 

modeled attainment demonstration. See 

General Preamble at 13517 and ‘‘NOX

Substitution Guidance,’’ OAQPS, EPA, 

December 1993. 

Our guidance in the General Preamble 

states that by meeting the specific ROP 

milestones discussed above, the general 

RFP requirements in CAA section 

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

Preamble at 13518. 

2. How does the plan address these 

provisions? 

Chapter 7 of the 2004 SIP, updated by 

Table 2 in the 2008 SIP Clarification, 

provides a demonstration that the SJV 

meets both the 2008 and 2010 ROP 

milestones.15 We have summarized this 

ROP demonstration in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—SAN JOAQUIN RATE OF PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION

[Summer planning tons per day] 

Base year Milestone year 

1990 2008 2010 

VOC Calculations 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOX Calculations 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
61390 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

16The ROP demonstration relies on ‘‘the emission 

control program as it existed when the Valley’s 

2004 SIP was submitted * * *.’’ 2008 SIP 

Clarification at 6. 

17See ‘‘How to calculate non-creditable 

reductions for motor vehicle programs in California 

as required for reasonable further progress (RFP) 

SIPs,’’ EPA, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Transportation and Regional Program 

Division, September 6, 2007. 

TABLE 4—SAN JOAQUIN RATE OF PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION—Continued 

[Summer planning tons per day] 

Base year Milestone year 

1990 2008 2010 

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

(Line F¥Line G) .................................................................................................................................. .................... 17.5% 16.0% 

Because there are insufficient VOC 

reductions to meet the milestones, the 

ROP demonstration relies on NOX

substitution, consistent with EPA’s 

guidance, to show that the area meets 

the emission reduction requirements for 

2008 and 2010. The demonstration does 

not depend on reductions from any 

measures that are in the 2004 SIP 16 or 

on reductions from any measures that 

are not creditable under the terms of 

section 182(b)(1). 

3. Does the plan meet the CAA 

provisions for rate of progress? 

The 2008 SIP Clarification follows 

EPA’s guidance on addressing the pre1990 motor vehicle program 

adjustments, using the pre-1990 

California motor vehicle exhaust and 

evaporative standards in lieu of the 

national motor vehicle control 

program.17 Because the 2004 SIP and 

the 2008 SIP Clarification demonstrate 

that sufficient emission reductions have 

or will be achieved to meet the 2008 and 

2010 ROP milestones, we propose to 

approve the ROP provisions in these 

documents. As stated above, if the ROP 

milestones are met, we deem the general 

RFP requirements of CAA section 

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

Therefore, we also propose to approve 

the ROP provisions as meeting the 

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2) 

and 182(c)(2). 

F. Does the plan provide for attainment 

by the CAA-required deadline? 

1. What are the applicable CAA 

provisions? 

One-hour ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as extreme under CAA section 

181(b)(3) must demonstrate attainment 

‘‘as expeditiously as practicable’’ but 

not later than the date specified in CAA 

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

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

severe and extreme areas to use 

photochemical grid modeling or an 

analytical method EPA determines to be 

as effective. 

2. How does the plan address these 

provisions? 

The 2004 SIP’s air quality modeling 

identified the SJV’s ‘‘carrying capacity’’ 

or 2010 attainment target as 343.5 tpd 

NOX and 314.4 tpd VOC. 2004 SIP at 

section 5.6; ARB Staff Report for the 

2004 SIP at section III.C. See also Table 

3 above. We discuss the modeling in 

section II.C. above. The ‘‘carrying 

capacity’’ represents the maximum level 

of emissions that can be emitted in the 

SJV without causing exceedances of the 

1-hour ozone standard. The EPAapproved rules and the commitments in 

the 2004 SIP as updated by the 2008 SIP 

Clarification and the remaining State 

commitments for the SJV in the 2003 

State Strategy reduce the 2000 projected 

baseline emissions (556.8 tpd NOX and 

443.5 tpd VOC) to these levels by the 

2010 attainment deadline for extreme 

areas. These levels represent a 38% NOX

and 29% VOC decrease in emissions 

from the 2000 baseline. 

3. Does the plan meet the CAA 

provisions for attainment? 

The 2004 SIP provides an attainment 

demonstration that shows sufficient 

reductions will be achieved to attain by 

the CAA deadline of November 15, 

2010. Table 5 provides a summary of the 

2004 SIP attainment demonstration. 

This attainment demonstration is based 

on air quality modeling that is 

consistent with the CAA and EPA 

modeling guidance. See section II.C. of 

this proposed rule. 

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

NOX (tpd) VOC (tpd) 

2000 Baseline .................................................................................................................................................................. 556.8 443.5 

2010 Attainment Target ................................................................................................................................................... 343.5 314.4 

Total Reductions Needed to Attain in 2010 ............................................................................................................. 213.3 129.1 

Reductions from 2004 Baseline Measures, pre-9/02 ...................................................................................................... 160.0 78.4 

Reductions from 2004 EPA-Approved Rules .................................................................................................................. 35.6 7.6 

Reductions from Remaining District and State Commitments ........................................................................................ 29.2 44.3 

Total Reductions Achieved from Approved Rules and Commitments ..................................................................... 224.8 130.3 

As can be seen from Table 5, the total 

reductions achieved from EPA-approved 

rules and the commitments in the 2004 

SIP as updated by the 2008 SIP 

Clarification are greater than the total 

reductions needed to attain the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS by 2010. 

The 2004 SIP attainment reductions 

are not ‘‘backloaded’’ but rather derive 

from ambitious State and District rule 

development projects to adopt or amend 

new regulations to tighten controls 

expeditiously on existing sources and to 

regulate a few previously uncontrolled 

sources. Moreover, both agencies 

typically set tight compliance schedules 

for amended and newly adopted rules, 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules 61391 

18The State and District have a variety of 

regulatory and incentive programs to accelerate the 

retrofit or replacement of existing sources including 

the District’s school bus fleet regulation (Rule 

9310), which is given specific emission reductions 

in the 2004 SIP. The 2004 SIP does not claim 

emission reduction credit for incentive programs 

and from the recently adopted State in-use off-road 

diesel vehicles rule (available at: http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf), 

ARB’s various incentive programs (described at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ba/fininfo.htm#grants), and 

the District’s incentive programs (described at: 

http://www.valleyair.org/Grant_Programs/ 

GrantPrograms.htm). 

19See Memorandum from G.T. Helms, EPA, to 

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

Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

August 13, 1993. 

requiring full compliance in most cases 

within one year or less and the District 

has been able to achieve considerably 

more reductions than the 2004 SIP 

anticipated. 

Attainment reductions also come from 

the benefits of mobile source fleet 

turnover to meet increasingly stringent 

Federal and State emission standards. 

California now has in place ambitious 

programs to accelerate this turnover.18

We propose to conclude that the 2004 

SIP’s demonstration of attainment meets 

the requirements of CAA sections 172 

and 181 that areas classified as extreme 

demonstrate attainment ‘‘as 

expeditiously as practicable’’ but no 

later than November 15, 2010. 

G. Do the contingency measures meet 

CAA requirements? 

1. What are the applicable CAA 

provisions? 

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

CAA require that SIPs contain 

contingency measures that will take 

effect without further action by the state 

or EPA if an area fails to attain the 

NAAQS by the applicable date or fails 

to meet ROP milestones. The Act does 

not specify how many contingency 

measures are needed or the magnitude 

of emission reductions that must be 

provided by these measures. However, 

EPA provided initial guidance 

interpreting the contingency measure 

requirements of 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) 

in the General Preamble at 13510. Our 

interpretation is based upon the 

language in sections 172(c)(9) and 

182(c)(9) in conjunction with the 

control measure requirements of 

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

the reclassification and failure to attain 

provisions of section 181(b) and other 

provisions. In the General Preamble, 

EPA indicated that states with moderate 

and above ozone nonattainment areas 

should include sufficient contingency 

measures so that, upon implementation 

of such measures, additional emission 

reductions of up to 3 percent of the 

emissions in the adjusted base year 

inventory (or such lesser percentage that 

will cure the identified failure) would 

be achieved in the year following the 

year in which the failure is identified. 

The states must show that the 

contingency measures can be 

implemented with minimal further 

action on their part and with no 

additional rulemaking actions. In 

subsequent guidance, EPA stated that 

contingency measures could be 

implemented early, i.e., prior to the 

milestone or attainment date.19

2. How does the plan address these 

provisions? 

Table 2 in the 2008 SIP Clarification 

provides an updated ROP 

demonstration that shows that, after 

meeting the VOC ROP milestones for 

2008 and 2010 with NOX substitution, 

there are still creditable NOX reductions 

for both the 2008 and 2010 milestones 

in excess of the 3 percent sufficient to 

satisfy the contingency measure 

requirement. See also Table 4 in this 

proposed rule. Table 2 in the 2008 SIP 

Clarification includes reductions from 

measures adopted before September 

2002 and does not rely on any of the 

measures adopted after September 2002, 

such as those in Table 1 in the 2008 SIP 

Clarification (and Table 1 above). 

In addition, Table 3 in the 2008 SIP 

Clarification, which is reproduced as 

Table 2 above, shows that onroad fleet 

turnover will continue to deliver 

substantial reductions in 2011, i.e., an 

additional 10 tpd NOX and 5 tpd VOC 

beyond the reductions shown in Tables 

1 and 2 in the 2008 SIP Clarification. 

These reductions are available to serve 

as additional contingency reductions in 

2011. 

3. Does the plan meet the CAA 

requirements for contingency measures? 

We find that there are sufficient 

excess NOX reductions shown in Table 

2 of the 2008 SIP Clarification and Table 

4 above to satisfy the contingency 

measure requirement for the milestone 

year 2008. These reductions are above 

and beyond those needed for ROP for 

2008 and occur prior to the year the 

milestone demonstrations will be made, 

2009. 

For the attainment year, 2010, the 

requirement is to show that there are 

contingency measures that will provide 

continued ROP, i.e., 3 percent 

reductions from the pre-1990 adjusted 

baseline, if attainment is not achieved. 

Consistent with the ROP demonstration, 

an additional 3 percent in the 

attainment year equates to 

approximately 15.3 tpd of VOC or 20.7 

tpd of NOX with NOX substitution. 

These contingency measure reductions 

would be required by 2011. Table 2 

above shows that there are 10 tpd of 

additional reductions in 2011 beyond 

the 2010 attainment. Table 5 above 

shows that there are 11.5 tpd of excess 

reductions not needed for attainment in 

2010. In addition, Tables 2 and 5 show 

that there are excess VOC reductions of 

approximately 6 tpd. 

Thus, we believe that there are 

sufficient excess reductions to satisfy 

the contingency measure requirement 

for the attainment year which are above 

and beyond attainment for 2010 and 

will be achieved prior to the year 

attainment would be determined, 2011. 

As discussed above, the use of excess 

reductions from already adopted 

measures to meet the CAA sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) is consistent 

with EPA policy and has been approved 

by EPA in numerous SIPs. See 62 FR 

15844 (April 3, 1997); 62 FR 66279 

(December 18, 1997); 66 FR 30811 (June 

8, 2001); 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634 

(January 3, 2001). The key is that the 

CAA requires extra reductions that are 

not relied on for ROP or attainment and 

that are in the demonstrations to 

provide a cushion while the plan is 

being revised. Nothing in the CAA 

precludes a state from implementing 

such measures before they are triggered. 

A recent court ruling upheld this 

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

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

Thus we propose to approve the 

contingency measure provisions in 

Tables 2 and 3 of the 2008 SIP 

Clarification as meeting the contingency 

measure requirements in CAA sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). 

H. Are the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets approvable? 

1. What are the applicable CAA 

provisions? 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects in nonattainment or 

maintenance areas that are funded or 

approved under title 23 U.S.C. and the 

Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. Chapter 

53) must conform to the applicable SIP. 

In short, a transportation plan and 

program are deemed to conform to the 

applicable SIP if the emissions resulting 

from the implementation of that 

transportation plan and program are less 

than or equal to the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) established 

in the control strategy SIPs for the 

attainment year, ROP years, 

maintenance year and other analysis 

years. See, generally, 40 CFR part 93. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
61392 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

20CAA section 176(c) states that conformity 

applies to SIPs in nonattainment and maintenance 

areas, rather than individual metropolitan planning 

areas within a single state. When subarea budgets 

area created for each MPO, the sum of the subarea 

budgets equals the total amount of emissions the 

area can have from the transportation sector and 

still attain and maintain the NAAQS. When one 

subarea lapses, then the other MPOs cannot show 

that their planned transportation activities would 

conform to the SIP for the whole area until the lapse 

is resolved. See ‘‘Companion Guidance for the July 

1, 2004, Final Transportation Conformity Rule: 

Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing 

and New Air Quality Standards’’ (EPA 420–B–04– 

012). 

In addition to meeting the criteria for 

attainment, as a control strategy SIP, 

this ROP and attainment plan must 

contain MVEBs that, in conjunction 

with emissions from all other sources, 

are consistent with attainment. A MVEB 

is the total emissions from on-road 

vehicles projected to the attainment year 

and consistent with the attainment 

demonstration. The budget must have 

been developed using the latest 

planning assumptions and consistent 

with the control measures in the 

attainment plan. All of the criteria by 

which we determine whether a SIP’s 

MVEBs are adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes are outlined in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4). We have described 

our process for determining the 

adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in 

the preamble to revisions to EPA’s 

conformity regulations. 68 FR 38974 

(June 30, 2003) and 69 FR 40004 (July 

1, 2004). 

2. How does the plan address these 

provisions? 

The MVEBs for the SJV were 

developed using emission factors 

generated using ARB’s EMFAC2002 

model, version 2.2 (April 2003) and 

using the latest assumptions regarding 

VMT. EMFAC2002 was approved by 

EPA on April 1, 2003, 68 FR 15720, for 

use in SIPs and transportation 

conformity analyses. EMFAC2002 

produces emissions for a wide range of 

motor vehicles (passenger cars, trucks, 

motorcycles, buses and motor homes) 

for calendar years out to 2040. The 

MVEBs were developed for the ROP and 

attainment years of 2008 and 2010, 

respectively. The MVEBs are for both 

VOC and NOX as precursors to ozone 

formation, and were applicable for the 

SJV upon the effective date of the MVEB 

adequacy finding. 

The 2004 SIP includes county-bycounty subarea MVEBs for 2008 and 

2010 for VOC and NOX. The 2004 SIP 

budgets are summarized in the 2004 SIP 

at Table 3–4. Additional details 

regarding the budgets are presented in 

Appendix A to the 2004 SIP. 

3. Does the plan meet the CAA 

provisions for MVEBs? 

On February 7, 2005, we found 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes the MVEBs in the 2004 SIP. 

Letter from Deborah Jordan, EPA to 

Catherine Witherspoon, ARB, February 

7, 2005. A table attached to the letter 

summarized our adequacy 

determination. Our notice of adequacy 

for these budgets was published in the 

Federal Register on February 15, 2005, 

at 70 FR 7734 and was effective 15 days 

later, on March 2, 2005. 

We are now proposing to approve the 

VOC and NOX MVEBs contained in the 

2004 SIP (and in Table 5 below) for 

transportation conformity purposes. We 

propose to approve the budgets because 

we conclude that they are consistent 

with and clearly related to the emission 

inventory and control measures 

identified in the 2004 SIP, and that the 

2004 SIP as a whole demonstrates 

timely attainment with the 1-hour ozone 

standard and the required rate of 

progress. We also propose to approve 

the individual county level subarea 

budgets for VOC and NOX, as shown in 

Table 5 below, consistent with 40 CFR 

93.124(d), which allows for a 

nonattainment area with more than one 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO) to establish subarea emission 

budgets for each MPO. Note that if an 

individual MPO lapses, then the 

remaining MPOs in the SJV cannot 

make new conformity determinations.20

If approved, the 2008 and 2010 MVEBs 

must be used for transportation 

conformity purposes. As mentioned 

earlier, the county subarea motor 

vehicle emissions budgets that we are 

proposing to approve are listed in Table 

5 below. 

TABLE 5—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS SUBAREA BUDGETS IN THE 2004 SIP 

[Tons per day] 

County 

VOC NOX

2008 2010 2008 2010 

Fresno ...................................................................................................................................................... 15.8 13.0 33.7 27.7 

Kern (part) ................................................................................................................................................ 11.5 9.6 32.7 27.2 

Kings ........................................................................................................................................................ 2.5 2.1 6.2 5.4 

Madera ..................................................................................................................................................... 3.9 3.3 8.4 7.2 

Merced ..................................................................................................................................................... 5.0 4.0 11.4 9.1 

San Joaquin ............................................................................................................................................. 9.3 7.7 22.4 17.9 

Stanislaus ................................................................................................................................................ 8.5 7.0 17.4 14.0 

Tulare ....................................................................................................................................................... 8.5 6.9 18.8 15.3 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 65.0 53.6 151.0 123.8 

While we are proposing to approve 

these 1-hour ozone budgets into the SIP, 

it should be noted that we anticipate 

that these motor vehicle emissions 

budgets will be used in few, if any, 

future transportation conformity 

determinations. Because EPA has 

revoked the 1-hour ozone standard, 

transportation conformity 

determinations are no longer required 

for that air quality standard. 

Additionally, while these budgets have 

been used in the initial conformity 

determinations in the SJV for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard, these budgets 

only serve that purpose until motor 

vehicle emissions budgets are found 

adequate or are approved for the 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

III. Summary of Proposed Actions 

A. EPA is proposing to approve 

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

following elements of the 2004 SIP and 

the 2008 SIP Clarification: 

(1) The emission inventories as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1); 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules 61393 

(2) the rate of progress demonstration 

as meeting the requirements of CAA 

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

(3) the attainment demonstration as 

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

and 181(a); 

(4) the District’s commitments in the 

2004 SIP to adopt specific rules by 

specified dates to achieve in 2010 the 

reductions in the column labeled 

‘‘Achieved Emission Reductions’’ in 

Table 1 in the 2008 SIP Clarification as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

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

(5) the contingency measures as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9); and 

(6) the VOC and NOX MVEBs for 

transportation conformity purposes as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 176(c). 

B. EPA is proposing to approve 

pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3) 

section 4.7 in the 2004 SIP and the 

provisions of the Final 2003 State 

Strategy and ARB Board Resolution 04– 

29 that relate to aggregate emission 

reductions in the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Basin as meeting the requirements of 

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

C. EPA is proposing to approve 

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

2004 SIP, the Final 2003 State Strategy 

and the 2008 SIP Clarification as 

meeting the RACM requirements of 

CAA section 172(c) only. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely proposes 

to approve a State-adopted attainment 

plan for the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Basin and does not impose any 

additional requirements. Accordingly, 

the Administrator certifies that this 

proposed action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

proposed rule does not impose any 

additional enforceable duty, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the plan is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. This proposed action also 

does not have Federalism implications 

because it does not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This proposed action 

merely proposes to approve a State 

adopted ozone attainment plan and does 

not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Executive Order 12898 establishes a 

Federal policy for incorporating 

environmental justice into Federal 

agency actions by directing agencies to 

identify and address, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority and low-income 

populations. Today’s action involves a 

proposed approval of a State adopted 

ozone attainment plan. It will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

effects on any communities in the area, 

including minority and low-income 

communities. 

This proposed action also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

because it is not economically 

significant. The requirements of section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

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

proposed action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, National 

parks, Nitrogen oxides, Volatile organic 

compounds, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: October 7, 2008. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E8–24416 Filed 10–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS