ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0366; FRL-]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; South 

Coast; Attainment Plan for 1997 PM2.5 Standards

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part state 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by California to 

provide for attainment of the 1997 fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards in the Los 

Angeles-South Coast area (South Coast). These SIP revisions are 

the South Coast 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (South Coast 

2007 AQMP) (revised 2011) and South Coast-related provisions of 

the 2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011). EPA is 

approving the emissions inventory; reasonably available control 

measures/reasonably available control technology demonstration; 

the reasonable further progress and attainment demonstrations

and associated air quality modeling; and the transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA is also granting

California‟s request to extend the attainment deadline for the 

South Coast to April 5, 2015 and approving commitments to 

measures and reductions by the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District and the California Air Resources Board. 
2

Finally, we are disapproving the SIP‟s contingency measures and 

issuing a protective finding under 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3), and we 

are rejecting the assignment of 10 tons per day (tpd) of 

nitrogen oxide (NOx) reductions to the federal government. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on [FEDERAL 

REGISTER OFFICE: INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION].

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2009-

0366 for this action. The index to the docket is available 

electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 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.

Copies of the SIP materials are also available for 

inspection in the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, 

CA 95812

South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. 

Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. 
3

The SIP materials are also electronically available at 

http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/index.html and 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office 

(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 

947-4192, tax.wienke@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us”

and “our” refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of EPA’s Proposed and Final Actions on the 2007 State 

Implementation Plan for Attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 Standards in 

the South Coast Nonattainment Area

II. Summary of Public Comments Received on the Proposals and EPA 

Responses

III. Approval Status of the Control Strategy Measures and 

Enforceable Emissions Reduction Commitments

IV. Approval of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

V. Final Actions and Clean Air Act Consequences 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of EPA’s Proposed and Final Actions on the 2007 State 

Implementation Plan for Attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 Standards in 

the South Coast Nonattainment Area
4

 On July 14, 2011 (76 FR 41562), EPA proposed to approve in 

part and disapprove in part California‟s state implementation 

plan (SIP) for attaining the 1997 fine particulate (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Los 

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area (South Coast).1 California 

developed this SIP to provide for expeditious attainment of the 

PM2.5 standards in the South Coast and to meet other applicable 

PM2.5 planning requirements in Clean Air Act (CAA) section 172(c) 

and EPA‟s PM2.5 implementation rule.2

In all, California has made six submittals to address 

these PM2.5 SIP planning requirements for the South Coast. The 

two principal ones are the South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD or District) Final 2007 South Coast Air Quality 

Management Plan (AQMP) (amended 2011) and the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) Final 2007 State and Federal Strategy 

(2007 State Strategy)(amended 2009 and 2011).3 Together, the 

 

1 The area referred to as “Los Angles-South Coast Air Basin” (South Coast Air 

Basin or “South Coast”) includes Orange County, the southwestern two-thirds 

of Los Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino County, and western 

Riverside County. For a precise description of the boundaries of the Los 

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, see 40 CFR 81.305.

2 “The Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,” 

72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007) and codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z (PM2.5

implementation rule).

3 These SIP submittals are: 

1. SCAQMD, Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), adopted on 

June 1, 2007 by the SCAQMD and September 27, 2007 by CARB, submitted on 

November 28, 2007. 

2. CARB, Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan, as amended and adopted on September 27, 2007 by CARB, 

submitted on November 16, 2007.
5

South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy present a 

comprehensive and innovative strategy for attaining the 1997 

PM2.5 standards in the South Coast. 

In our July 2011 notice, we proposed multiple approval 

actions on the South Coast 2007 AQMP. First, we proposed to 

approve the SIP‟s base year emissions inventory, the reasonably 

available control measure (RACM)/reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) demonstration, the reasonable further progress 

(RFP) and attainment demonstrations and associated air quality 

modeling, and related motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets).

4

Second, we proposed to approve enforceable commitments by both 

 

3. CARB, Status Report on the State Strategy for California’s 2007 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revisions to the SIP Reflecting 

Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy (pages 11-27 only), adopted on 

April 24, 2009 by CARB, submitted on August 12, 2009.

4. CARB, Progress Report on Implementation of PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air 

Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions (Appendices B, C and D only), adopted on 

April 28, 2011 by CARB, submitted on May 18, 2011. “2011 Progress Report.”

5. SCAQMD, Revisions to the 2007 PM2.5 and Ozone State Implementation 

Plans for the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley (SIP Revisions), 

adopted on March 4, 2011 by the SCAQMD Governing Board and approved by the 

CARB Board on April 28, 2011 and submitted on May 19, 2011.

6. CARB, 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical 

Revisions to the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity 

Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, (South Coast 

PM2.5 SIP MVEBs only) adopted on July 21, 2011 by CARB and submitted on July 

29, 2011. (2011 Ozone SIP Revision). Only the PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions 

budgets in this submittal are addressed in today‟s action.

4 The 2011 Progress Report contained budgets that were not approvable because 

they included emissions reductions from a rule that was ineligible for SIP 

credit. These budgets also included data entry errors. See 76 FR 41338, 

41360. In lieu of these budgets, we proposed to approve alternative budgets 

that CARB had developed and posted for public comment as part of its 2011 

Ozone SIP Revision and stated that the approval was contingent on our receipt 

of the SIP revision containing the revised budgets. Id. CARB submitted that 

SIP revision on July 29, 2011.
6

the District and CARB to certain measures and specific amounts 

of emissions reductions. Third, we also proposed to concur with 

the State‟s determination that NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx), and 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) are, and ammonia is not,

attainment plan precursors for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the South Coast nonattainment area. Fourth, we proposed to 

grant California‟s request to extend the attainment date for the 

South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area to April 5, 2015. See 76 FR 

41562.

We also proposed to disapprove the contingency measure 

provisions of the South Coast 2007 AQMP as failing to meet the 

requirements of the CAA as interpreted in EPA guidance. In 

addition, we noted that we were rejecting the assignment of 10 

tpd of NOx emissions to the federal government.

A more detailed discussion of each of California‟s SIP 

submittals for the South Coast area, the CAA and EPA 

requirements applicable to them, and our evaluation and proposed 

actions, can be found in the July 14, 2011 Federal Register

notice and the technical support document (TSD) for this final 

action.5

 

5

“Final Technical Support Document and Response to Comments, Final Rulemaking 

Action on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM2.5 and the South Coast Portions of 

the Revised 2007 State Strategy,” Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, September 

30, 2011. The TSD can be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
7

Our July 2011 proposal was the second time that EPA 

proposed action on California‟s South Coast 2007 AQMP to address 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. On November 22, 2010, (75 FR 

71294) rule, EPA proposed to disapprove the majority of the 

provisions in this SIP. During the comment period for the 

November 2010 proposal, we received several comment letters from 

the public as well as comment letters from CARB and the 

District. Subsequent to the close of that comment period, CARB 

adopted and submitted revisions to the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 

2007 State Strategy. After considering information contained in 

the comment letters and the supplemental SIP submittals, we 

issued the July 2011 proposed rule which substantially amended 

our November 2010 proposal. As part of our final action, EPA has 

considered and provided responses to all significant comments 

submitted in response to both the November 2010 and the July 

2011 proposals. 

EPA is today approving most elements of the South Coast 

2007 AQMP based on our conclusion that they comply with 

applicable CAA requirements and provide for expeditious 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the South Coast 

nonattainment area. We are also today disapproving the SIP‟s 

contingency measure provisions because they do not provide 

sufficient emissions reductions. We are continuing to work with 
8

the State and District to identify additional control measures 

and programs that meet the CAA's requirements for contingency 

measures consistent with EPA regulations and policy.

II. Summary of Public Comments Received on the Proposals and EPA 

Responses

As part of our final action, EPA has considered and 

provided responses to all significant comments submitted in 

response to both the November 2010 and the July 2011 proposals. 

 We received eleven comment letters in response to our 

November 22, 2010 proposal and July 14, 2011 supplemental 

proposal. In the following sections, we summarize our responses 

to the most significant comments that we received on the 

proposals. Our full responses to all the comments received can 

be found in the “Response to Comments” section of the TSD 

accompanying today‟s rulemaking.

We received comments on both proposals from the Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) representing various 

organizations. 

We received letters on both proposals from Communities for 

a Better Environment (CBE) representing various organizations. 

We received comment letters on both proposals from the 

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 
9

We received comments from CARB on our November proposal.6

We received comments from Kirk Marckwald, California 

Environmental Associates, on behalf of the Association of 

American Railroads, on our November proposal.

Michael W. Lewis, Construction Industry Air Quality 

Coalition (CIAQC), on behalf of a number of its members, 

submitted comments on our July amended proposal.

Lawrence J. Joseph, on behalf of the American Road and 

Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), submitted comments 

on our July amended proposal.

Robin Hall, private citizen, submitted comments on our 

November proposal. 

A. Comments on Proposed Approval of the Emissions Inventory

Comment: NRDC comments that EPA proposes to approve the 

inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP because they were 

current and accurate “at the time the Plan was developed and 

submitted,” citing 76 Fed. Reg. 41567. NRDC argues that such 

language is not in the CAA and the addition is not a reasonable 

extension of Congress‟s intent. NRDC argues that Congress did 

not mean for EPA to rely on inventory data that EPA knew to be 

incorrect on the basis that the data was thought to be accurate 

 

6 The majority of CARB‟s and the District‟s comments addressed the November 

2010 proposed disapprovals and EPA‟s grounds for them. These comments were, 

for the most part, addressed by our July 2011 amended proposal.
10

at the time it was submitted because Congress‟ goal is to ensure 

the adoption and approval of SIPs that will achieve clean air. 

NRDC notes that section 172(c)(3) expressly envisions that EPA 

may require revisions to the inventory “to assure that the 

requirements of this part are met.” EPA‟s interpretation would 

suggest that the only time such revisions are needed is when it 

is found that the inventory is not current or accurate as of the 

date it is submitted and this would undermine any assurance that 

“the requirements of [Part D] are met.” 

Response: EPA does not dispute the importance of emissions 

inventories. We evaluated the emissions inventories in the 2007

AQMP to determine whether they satisfy the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(3) and adequately support the Plan‟s RACM, RFP 

and attainment demonstrations. Based on this evaluation, we have

concluded that the South Coast 2007 AQMP‟s base year emissions

inventory was based on the most current and accurate information 

available to the State and District at the time that it was 

developed and submitted and comprehensively addresses all source 

categories in the South Coast area, consistent with applicable 

CAA requirements and EPA guidance. See 76 FR 41562 at 41566-

41567 and July 2011 TSD7 at section II.A.; see also “General 

 

7 “Technical Support Document for the Revised Proposed Rulemaking Action on 

the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM2.5 and the South Coast Portions of the 2007 

State Strategy,” Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9, June 29, 2011, “July 2011 

TSD.” 
11

Preamble for Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 at 13502 (April 16, 1992) 

(“General Preamble”). 

We do not agree with NRDC‟s suggestion that this inventory 

undermines the attainment demonstration in the Plan. To the 

contrary, as discussed in the proposed rule (76 FR 41562, 41567) 

and in section II.B. below, we have concluded that the State‟s 

changes to its methodologies for estimating future emissions do 

not significantly affect the 2002 base year inventories and, 

consequently, do not undermine the modeling or other analyses 

that rely on those inventories. Although significant changes to 

a base year inventory that undermine the assumptions in an 

attainment demonstration may call for a more comprehensive 

reevaluation of the modeling and other planning analyses 

supporting that demonstration, we conclude based on our 

technical assessment that such a comprehensive reevaluation is 

not necessary in this case. We note that states are required to 

report comprehensive emissions inventories to EPA every three 

years under the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements in 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart A. See 40 CFR section 51.30(b).

CAA section 172(b) provides that “the State containing [a 

nonattainment] area shall submit a plan or plan revision 

(including the plan items) meeting the applicable requirements 

of [section 172(c) and section 110]” on the schedule established 
12

by EPA, and section 172(c) contains, inter alia, the requirement 

that nonattainment plans “shall include a comprehensive, 

accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources 

of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area.” We 

believe it is reasonable to read these provisions together as 

requiring that the State submit an inventory that is 

“comprehensive, accurate, [and] current” at the time the State 

submitted it to EPA, rather than requiring that the State 

continually revise its plan as new emissions data becomes 

available. See Brief of Respondents, EPA, in Sierra Club, et al. 

v. U.S. EPA, et al., Case Nos. 10-71457 and 10-71458 

(consolidated), May 5, 2011. States could never effectively plan 

for air quality improvement if they had to constantly revise 

their inventories as new data became available. Air quality 

planning is an iterative process and states and EPA must rely on 

the best available data at the time the plans are created.

As we stated in our proposal, since late 2007, California 

has experienced an economic recession that has greatly reduced 

current levels of economic activity in the State‟s construction 

and goods movement sectors. The recession has resulted in 

lowered projected future levels of activity in this sector. 2011 

Progress Report, Appendix E. As a result, projected emission 

levels from these categories are now substantially lower than 

the levels projected for 2008 and later in the Plan as submitted 
13

in 2007. At this time, California is addressing these recession 

impacts on future economic activity through adjustments to the 

baseline inventories for specific source categories. See 2011 

Progress Report, Appendix E, page 2. There are no recessionrelated adjustments to the 2002 base year inventory in the South 

Coast 2007 AQMP. CARB also made technical changes to the 

inventories for diesel trucks, buses, and certain categories of 

off-road mobile source engines as part of its December 2010 

rulemaking amending the In-Use On-Road Truck and Bus Rule and 

the In-Use Off-Road Engine rule.

8 Id. The State estimates that 

these changes collectively reduce the 2002 base year total 

inventory in the South Coast by 4 percent for NOX and 5 percent 

for PM2.5. See 76 FR 41562, at 41567.

Comment: NRDC questions EPA‟s calculations that estimated the 

emissions changes to the 2002 base year inventory (see 76 FR 

41562, at 41567), noting that EPA‟s calculations come from a May 

18, 2011 letter from CARB providing supplemental information. 

NRDC then asserts that these numbers do not match with 

statements in staff reports on the diesel rules; however, NRDC 

does not provide the statements or data from the staff reports.

 

8 CARB revised population, regional allocation factors, lifetime odometer 

assumptions, growth rates, and forecasted vehicle age distributions for heavy 

duty truck and buses, and updated equipment population, activity, load 

factors, and future equipment sales for construction equipment, based on 

updated information. See 

http://www.arb.ca.govregact/2010/truckbus10/truckbus10.htm and 

http://www.arb.ca.govregact/2010/offroadlsi10/offroadlsi10.htm.
14

Response: As NRDC noted, EPA calculated the change in the 2002 

base year emission inventory based on information provided in 

the 2011 Progress Report Supplement, transmitted by CARB on May 

18, 2011. We took the difference between the “SIP” estimate and 

the “Current Estimate” columns in Attachment 1, Table SC-2002, 

to the May 18 letter and divided by the “SIP” estimate to 

calculate the percent change in the inventories. We explain 

these calculations in our TSD in Section II.A. 

B. Comments on Credit for Baseline Measures 

Comment: NRDC asserts that EPA‟s proposed rule and TSD fail to 

clearly and accurately account for the measures that contribute 

to specific emission reductions, such as the Federal, state, and 

district rules adopted before October 2006 (“baseline measures”) 

that are incorporated into the baseline inventory. NRDC argues 

that California and SCAQMD must have the data related to these 

emission reduction estimates, which are critical to the 

integrity of the Plan, and that an EPA approval of the emissions 

inventories in the absence of this data would be arbitrary and 

capricious. NRDC also argues that this “gap in data” is made 

more problematic by the fact that EPA does not require 

California‟s mobile source control measures that have received a 

waiver of preemption under CAA section 209 (“waiver measures”) 

to be approved into the SIP.
15

Response: As to the commenter‟s assertion about the “gap in 

data” regarding baseline measures and projected baseline 

inventories, we disagree that there is any inadequacy in the 

emissions projections that undermines the RACM, RFP or 

attainment demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 

State Strategy. We explained in our amended proposal (76 FR 

41562 at 41566-41567) our reasons for concluding both that the 

2002 base year inventory in the South Coast 2007 AQMP is 

comprehensive, accurate, and current as required by CAA section 

172(c)(3) and that the projected baseline inventories for 2009, 

2012 and 2014 provide adequate bases for the RACM, RFP and 

attainment demonstrations in the Plan. 

With respect to mobile source emissions, we believe that 

credit for emissions reductions from implementation of 

California mobile source rules that are subject to CAA section 

209 waivers (“waiver measures”) is appropriate notwithstanding 

the fact that such rules are not approved as part of the 

California SIP. In the TSD supporting our July 14, 2011 

proposal (76 FR 41562), we explained why we believe such credit 

is appropriate. See TSD at section II.F.4.a.i (pp. 97-100). 

Historically, EPA has granted credit for the waiver measures 

because of special Congressional recognition, in establishing 

the waiver process in the first place, of the pioneering 

California motor vehicle control program and because amendments 
16

to the CAA (in 1977) expanded the flexibility granted to 

California in order “to afford California the broadest possible 

discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of 

its citizens and the public welfare” (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th 

Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977)). In allowing California to take 

credit for the waiver measures notwithstanding the fact that the 

underlying rules are not part of the California SIP, EPA treated 

the waiver measures similarly to the Federal motor vehicle 

control requirements, which EPA has always allowed States to 

credit in their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP 

revision. 

EPA‟s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for 

motor-vehicle-related waiver measures by allowing California to 

include motor vehicle emissions estimates made by using 

California‟s EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle 

emissions factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the 

emissions reductions from motor-vehicle-related waiver measures 

through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updated from time 

to time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as 

well as newly-established emissions standards. (Emissions 

reductions from EPA‟s motor vehicle standards are reflected in 

an analogous model known as MOVES.) The South Coast 2007 AQMP 

was developed using a version of the EMFAC model referred to as 

EMFAC2007, which EPA has approved for use in SIP development in 
17

California. See 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). Thus, the 

emissions reductions that are from the California on-road 

“waiver measures” and that are estimated through use of EMFAC 

are as verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied upon by 

states other than California in developing their SIPs based on 

estimates of motor vehicle emissions made through the use of the 

MOVES model and prior to the release of MOVES made through the 

use of the MOBILE model. All other states use the MOVES model in 

their baseline inventories without submitting the federal motor 

vehicle regulations for incorporation into their SIPs.

Similarly, emissions reductions that are from California‟s 

waiver measures for non-road engines and vehicles (e.g., 

agricultural, construction, lawn and garden and off-road 

recreation equipment) are estimated through use of CARB‟s 

OFFROAD emissions factor model.9 (Emissions reductions from EPA‟s 

non-road engine and vehicle standards are reflected in an 

analogous model known as NONROAD). Since 1990, EPA has treated 

California non-road standards for which EPA has issued waivers 

in the same manner as California motor vehicle standards, i.e., 

allowing credit for standards subject to the waiver process 

without requiring submittal of the standards as part of the SIP. 

In so doing, EPA has treated the California non-road standards 

 

9Information about CARB‟s emissions inventories for on-road and non-road 

mobile sources, and the EMFAC and OFFROAD models used to project changes in 

future inventories, is available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm.
18

similarly to the Federal non-road standards, which are relied 

upon, but not included in, various SIPs.

CARB‟s EMFAC and OFFROAD models employ complex routines 

that predict vehicle fleet turnover by vehicle model years and 

include control algorithms that account for all adopted 

regulatory actions which, when combined with the fleet turnover 

algorithms, provide future baseline projections. See 2007 State 

Strategy, Appendix F at 7-8. For stationary sources, the 

California Emission Forecasting System (CEFS) projects future 

emissions from stationary and area sources (in addition to 

aircraft and ships) using a forecasting algorithm that applies 

growth factors and control profiles to the base year inventory.10

See id. at 7. The CEFS model integrates the projected 

inventories for both stationary and mobile sources into a single 

database to provide a comprehensive statewide forecast 

inventory, from which nonattainment area inventories are 

extracted for use in establishing future baseline planning 

inventories. See Id. The South Coast 2007 AQMP describes how 

the District developed the future baseline inventories in the

plan, based in part on the emissions data and baseline 

 

10 Information on base year emissions from stationary point sources is 

obtained primarily from the districts, while CARB and the districts share 

responsibility for developing and updating information on emissions from 

various area source categories. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 21; 

see also South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III at pp. 1-9 through 1-15 

(describing the SCAQMD‟s and CARB‟s methodologies for developing 2002 base 

year emissions estimates for stationary point and area sources).
19

projections provided by CARB and other California agencies. See 

generally South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III. The District‟s 

projections took into account the controls implemented under 

SCAQMD rules adopted as of June 2006, most CARB regulations 

adopted by June 2005, and a specific set of growth rates from 

the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for 

population, industry, and motor vehicle activity, among other 

factors. See id. at 2-3. In 2011, CARB updated the baseline 

emissions projections for several source categories to account 

for, among other things, more recent economic forecasts and 

improved methodologies for estimating emissions from the heavyduty truck and construction source categories. See 2011 

Progress Report at Appendix E. These methodologies for 

projecting future emissions based on growth factors and existing 

Federal, State, and local controls were consistent with EPA 

guidance on developing projected baseline inventories. See TSD 

at section II.A; see also “Procedures for Preparing Emissions 

Projections,” EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

EPA-450/4-91-019, July 1991; “Emission Projections,” 

STAPPA/ALAPCO/EPA Emission Inventory Improvement Project, Volume 

X, December 1999 (available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume10/x01.pdf).
20

In sum, the 2002 base year and future projected baseline 

inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP were prepared using a 

sophisticated set of CARB and SCAQMD methodologies to estimate 

and project emissions from stationary sources, in addition to 

the most recent emissions factors and models and updated 

activity levels for emissions associated with mobile sources, 

including: (1) the latest EPA-approved California motor vehicle 

emissions factor model (EMFAC2007) and the most recent motor 

vehicle activity data from SCAG; (2) improved methodologies for 

estimating emissions from specific source categories; and (3) 

CARB's non-road mobile source model (the OFFROAD model). See 

TSD at Section II.A (referencing, inter alia, South Coast 2007 

AQMP at Appendix III and 2007 State Strategy at Appendix F) and 

2011 Progress Report. EPA has approved numerous California SIPs 

that rely on base year and projected baseline inventories 

including emissions estimates derived from the EMFAC, OFFROAD, 

and CEFS models. See, e.g., 65 FR 6091 (February 8, 2000) 

(proposed rule to approve 1-hour ozone plan for South Coast) and 

65 FR 18903 (April 10, 2000) (final rule); 70 FR 43663 (July 28, 

2005) (proposed rule to approve PM-10 plan for South Coast and 

Coachella Valley) and 70 FR 69081 (November 14, 2005) (final 

rule); 74 FR 66916 (December 17, 2009) (direct final rule to 

approve ozone plan for Monterey Bay). The commenter has 

provided no information to support a claim that these 
21

methodologies for developing base year inventories and 

projecting future emissions in the South Coast are inadequate to 

support the RACM, RFP, and attainment demonstrations in the 

South Coast 2007 AQMP. 

For all of these reasons and as discussed in our amended 

proposal (76 FR 41562 at 41566-41567), we have concluded that 

the 2002 base year inventory in the South Coast 2007 AQMP is a 

“comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions 

from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants” in the 

South Coast area, consistent with the requirements for emissions 

inventories in CAA section 172(c)(3), 40 CFR section 51.1008,

and 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. In addition, we conclude that the 

projected baseline inventories for 2009, 2012 and 2014 were 

prepared consistent with EPA‟s guidance on development of 

emissions inventories and attainment demonstrations and, 

therefore, provide an adequate basis for the RACM, RFP and 

attainment demonstrations in the Plan. See TSD at section II.A. 

C. Comments on PM2.5 Plan Precursors 

Comment: NRDC commented that our proposed rule does not 

adequately explain why ammonia (NH3) is not a precursor for PM2.5

formation. 
22

Response: Under the PM2.5 implementation rule, ammonia is not a 

PM2.5 plan precursor unless either EPA or the State provides an 

appropriate technical demonstration showing that ammonia 

emissions from sources in the State significantly contribute to 

PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 

section 51.1002(c)(4). Absent such a technical demonstration, 

the State is not required to address ammonia in its PM2.5 

attainment plan or to evaluate sources of ammonia emissions in 

the State for control measures.

Comment: Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) asserts 

that methane is a reactive VOC, a smog precursor, and a potent 

greenhouse gas (GHG), and that EPA should require the SCAQMD to 

revise its definition of VOC in Rule 102 to remove the exemption 

for methane. In support of these assertions, CBE states that: 

(1) a 2002 Harvard University modeling study11 concludes that 

methane reductions could be highly effective in reducing ambient 

ozone levels; (2) SCAQMD's draft 2007 AQMP identified 

significantly larger amounts of Total Organic Gases (TOG) 

including methane from refineries than VOC emissions (10.1 tons 

per day (tpd) of TOG versus 6 tpd of VOC); (3) the District 

should require control of all organic gases from oil refineries; 

and (4) the District should also review its list of other TOG 

 

11 Fiore, et al, Harvard University, Linking ozone pollution and climate 

change: The case for controlling methane, 2002. 

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/amf0201.pdf .
23

compounds that are exempt from regulation. CBE contends that 

regulation of methane is a reasonably available control measure 

that should be required because additional VOC reductions are 

needed to satisfy RACT/RACM requirements. 

Response: The SCAQMD‟s definition of VOC in Rule 102 is 

consistent with EPA‟s definition of VOC in 40 CFR section 

51.100(s), which excludes methane because it has been determined 

to have negligible photochemical reactivity. 40 CFR section 

51.100(s)(1); see also 62 FR 44900 (August 25, 1997) (final rule 

revising definition of VOC to exclude methane and other 

compounds). EPA approved Rule 102 into the SCAQMD portion of 

the California SIP on January 8, 2007. See 72 FR 656. 

Accordingly, pursuant to its SIP-approved definition of VOC, 

SCAQMD is not required to regulate methane as a VOC for purposes 

of preparing SIPs to attain the NAAQS. To the extent that CBE 

intended to challenge the exclusion of methane from EPA‟s 

regulatory definition of VOC at 40 CFR section 51.100(s), such a 

challenge is outside the scope of today‟s action on the PM2.5

attainment plan for the South Coast area. Likewise, CBE‟s 

assertions about the effect of methane controls on ambient ozone 

levels are also outside the scope of today‟s action, which 

addresses the State‟s plan for attaining the 1997 PM2.5

standards. 
24

D. Comments on Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)

Demonstration 

Comment: CBE states that EPA should require the SCAQMD to 

complete a new RACM/RACT demonstration including assessment of 

all available control measures for direct emissions of PM2.5 as 

well as measures for control of secondary PM2.5 resulting from 

NOx, SOx, and VOC emissions. CBE also provides a list of 

potential pollution control and energy efficiency measures that 

it asserts should be included “as part of a new, broader, and 

complete RACM/RACT assessment to demonstrate attainment 

expeditiously.” Finally, CBE asserts that because the South 

Coast 2007 AQMP is several years old, it is important to 

reassess and update the control measures in the plan, especially 

given the SCAQMD‟s failure to demonstrate attainment. CBE is 

also opposed to what it characterizes as EPA proposed approval 

of a commitment by CARB to propose measures later, as a lump 

sum.

Response: Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires that each 

attainment plan “provide for the implementation of all 

reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as 

practicable (including such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the 

adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control 

technology), and shall provide for attainment of the national 
25

primary ambient air quality standards.” For over 30 years, EPA 

has consistently interpreted this provision to require that 

States adopt only those “reasonably available” measures 

necessary for expeditious attainment and to meet RFP 

requirements. 40 CFR section 51.1010; see also 44 FR 20372 

(April 4, 1979) (Part D of title I of the CAA “does not require 

that all sources apply RACM if less than all RACM will suffice 

for [RFP] and attainment”); 57 FR 13498 at 13560 (April 16, 

1992) (“where measures that might in fact be available for 

implementation in the nonattainment area could not be 

implemented on a schedule that would advance the date for 

attainment in the area, EPA would not consider it reasonable to 

require implementation of such measures”); “Guidance on the 

Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and 

Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas,” November 30, 1999 (1999 Seitz Memo) (a State may justify 

rejection of a measure as not “reasonably available” for that 

area based on technological or economic grounds); and 70 FR 

71612 (November 29, 2005) at 71661 (noting that States “need 

adopt measures only if they are both economically and 

technologically feasible and will advance the attainment date or 

are necessary for RFP”). EPA‟s interpretation of section 

172(c)(1) has been upheld by several courts. See, e.g., Sierra 
26

Club v. EPA, et al., 294 F. 3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Under the PM2.5 Implementation Rule at 40 CFR section

51.1010, a RACM demonstration must include “the list of the 

potential measures considered by the State, and information and 

analysis sufficient to support the State‟s judgment that it has 

adopted all RACM, including RACT.” 40 CFR section 51.1010(a). 

In addition, “[p]otential measures that are reasonably available 

considering technical and economic feasibility must be adopted 

as RACM if, considered collectively, they would advance the 

attainment date by one year or more.” As explained in the 

preamble to the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, Congress provided EPA 

and States broad discretion to determine what measures to 

include in an attainment plan, and the language in section 

172(c)(1) requiring only “reasonably available” measures and 

implementation of these measures “as expeditiously as 

practicable” indicates that Congress intended for the RACT/RACM 

requirement to be driven by an overall requirement that the 

measure be “reasonable.” 72 FR 20586 at 20610 (April 25, 2007). 

Thus, the rule of “reason” drives the decisions on what controls 

to apply, what should be controlled, by when emissions must be 

reduced, and finally, the rigor required in a State‟s RACT/RACM 

analysis. See id. States may, as part of a RACM analysis, 

consider the costs of potential control measures and whether the 
27

measures can be readily and effectively implemented without 

undue administrative burden. See id. (citing 55 FR 38327 and 66 

FR 26969).

As discussed in our July 14, 2011 amended proposal, we have 

evaluated the collection of reasonably available control 

measures that CARB, the District, and the Southern California 

Association of Governments (SCAG) have adopted and submitted 

with the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP 

and 2007 State Strategy to meet the RACM/RACT requirement in CAA 

section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR section 51.1010. See 76 FR 41562 

at 41568-41572 and TSD at section II.D. For the reasons 

discussed in our amended proposal and as further discussed 

below, we conclude that the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 

State Strategy demonstrate that the State has adopted all 

reasonably available control measures (including RACT for 

stationary sources) necessary to demonstrate attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements, 

as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR section 51.1010. 

Thus, we disagree with CBE‟s assertion that the additional 

measures it has identified are required RACM under CAA section 

172(c)(1) for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast 

and or that it is necessary to reassess or update the control 

measures in the plan at this time. We explain more specifically 

below our reasons for concluding that the additional control 
28

options and energy efficiency measures identified by CBE are not 

required RACM for purposes of attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the South Coast. 

Comment: CBE objects to what it characterizes as CARB‟s “promise 

to „propose‟ measures later, in a lump sum,” and argues that 

this provides the public with no assurance that attainment will 

be achieved. CBE asserts that individual emission reduction 

targets should be attached to each separate measure and they 

should be individually required. Finally, CBE argues that 

“[a]lternative control measures and emissions trading should not 

be allowed, because of deficiencies in the reliability of such 

programs.”

Response: We disagree with CBE‟s contention that it is necessary 

for the State to commit to individual measures with specific 

emission reduction targets for each measure. For the reasons 

discussed in our proposed rule (see 76 FR 41562 at 41575-41577) 

and further below (see responses to comments on “enforceable 

commitments”), we conclude that CARB and the SCAQMD have 

satisfied the criteria that EPA has historically applied in 

approving attainment demonstrations based in part on enforceable 

commitments in lieu of adopted measures. The 2007 State 

Strategy includes commitments to propose defined new measures 

and an enforceable commitment for emissions reductions 

sufficient, in combination with existing measures and the 
29

District‟s commitments, to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS in the South 

Coast by April 5, 2015. See 76 FR 41562, at 41571 and CARB 

Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007, Attachment B, p. 3). As 

discussed below in our responses to comments on “enforceable 

commitments,” the 2011 SIP revisions changed the total amount of 

reductions needed from control strategy measures in 2014 to 44 

tpd of VOC reductions, 129 tpd of NOx reductions, and 41 tpd of 

SOx reductions (the PM2.5 remaining commitment stayed the same at 9 

tpd of directly-emitted PM2.5). See July 2011 TSD, Table F-10. 

Although CARB‟s commitment provides that it may adopt 

“alternative” measures (i.e., measures different from the 

potential control options identified in the South Coast 2007 

AQMP or 2007 State Strategy), ultimately the State is obligated 

to achieve these specific aggregate amounts of emission 

reductions through the adoption of enforceable measures no later 

than the beginning of 2014. See 40 CFR section 51.1007(b) 

(requiring implementation of all control measures needed for 

expeditious attainment no later than the beginning of the year 

prior to the attainment date). The State‟s commitments to 

achieve specific amounts of emission reductions by 2014 are 

enforceable by EPA and citizens under CAA sections 113 and 304, 

respectively. We note that CARB has already adopted and 

submitted to EPA either for SIP-approval or for a CAA section 

209 waiver most of the measures it had committed to adopt in the 
30

2007 State Strategy, as revised. See 2011 Progress Report, 

Appendix B, Table B-1. 

It is unclear what CBE intends by stating that “alternative 

control measures and emissions trading should not be allowed” 

because of deficiencies in their reliability.

Comment: CBE asserts that the South Coast 2007 AQMP must set 

Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) standards for 

NOx and other PM2.5 precursor emissions from industrial boilers 

and heaters, and that it should require replacement of old and 

severely inefficient equipment at oil refineries and other large 

sources. CBE also asserts that the SCAQMD‟s Regional Clean Air 

Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program does not produce the 

emission reductions that are achievable from industrial boilers 

and heaters because it allows sources to buy and sell credits. 

CBE contends that a RACM demonstration should include evaluation 

of each industrial boiler and heater, including its age, the

type of fuel it uses, and its emissions of criteria pollutants, 

toxics and GHGs. Additionally, CBE claims that CARB, as part of 

its recent Greenhouse Gas (GHG) regulatory process under 

California‟s Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), identified numerous 

methods for increasing energy efficiency, reducing fuel use, and 

thus reducing emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors as 

well as GHGs statewide, and that EPA should require the SCAQMD 

to carry out the same evaluation for industrial boilers and 
31

heaters in the South Coast. CBE contends that such energy 

efficiency measures could also save money. Finally, CBE asserts 

that Ultra-Low NOx burners are cost-effective and must be 

evaluated as part of a RACM analysis for industrial boilers and 

heaters.

Response: The SCAQMD had adopted two regulations to control NOx 

emissions from industrial boilers, steam generators and process 

heaters in the South Coast: Rule 1146.1 (for boilers with rated 

heat inputs between 2 and 5 MMBtu/hour) and Rule 1146 (for 

boilers with rated heat inputs above 5 MMBtu/hour, with certain 

exemptions). EPA has approved both of these rules into the SIP. 

See 67 FR 16640 (April 8, 2002) and 60 FR 46220 (September 6, 

1995). EPA recently proposed a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of revisions to these rules that further tighten the 

NOx emission limits in both rules. See 76 FR 40303 (July 8, 

2011).12 As part of that action, we evaluated the stringency of 

the rules‟ control requirements and proposed to conclude that 

the rules together require all control measures that are 

 

12 Our proposed limited disapproval was based on specific deficiencies in the 

compliance provisions in both rules. These enforceability deficiencies do 

not alter our proposal to conclude that the NOx emission limits in the rule, 

which are more stringent than the SIP-approved version of the rule, represent 

RACT-level controls. See TSDs at page 3. Note, however, that these measures 

are not eligible for SIP credit until EPA approves rule revisions correcting 

the enforceability deficiencies identified in our proposal. We expect the 

State to submit, as expeditiously as practicable, rule revisions to address 

these deficiencies consistent with its enforceable emission reduction 

commitments. See 76 FR 41562 at 41569, Table 3. 
32

reasonably available for covered boilers, steam generators and 

process heaters. See id. and associated technical support 

documents (TSDs). We also noted that the NOx emission limits in 

both rules are equivalent to California BARCT standards for 

these types of boilers, steam generators and process heaters. 

See id. According to the SCAQMD‟s staff report on Rule 1146, 

most boilers subject to the rule will have to use either ultralow NOx burners or selective catalytic reduction (SCR) controls 

to meet the rule's emission limits, depending on the size of the 

boiler. See Final Staff Report, Proposed Amended Rule 1146 -

Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Industrial, Institutional, 

and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters, 

at ES-1. Boilers with rated heat inputs above 40 MMBtu/hour 

located at refineries are subject to the NOx and SOx emission 

caps in SCAQMD‟s RECLAIM program, discussed immediately below. 

See e-mail dated September 22, 2011, from Ken Mangelsdorf 

(SCAQMD) to Idalia Perez (EPA Region 9), re: “question about 

refineries and RECLAIM.” These adopted measures require all 

RACM for covered industrial boilers, steam generators and 

process heaters in the South Coast and provide an adequate basis 

for approving the RACM demonstration in the South Coast 2007 

AQMP with respect to such emission units. We therefore disagree 

with CBE‟s assertion that the SCAQMD is required to evaluate 
33

additional control measures for industrial boilers and heaters 

as part of its RACM demonstration for the 1997 PM2.5 standards. 

We also disagree with CBE‟s objections to the inclusion of 

RECLAIM as a RACM measure. RECLAIM is a market incentive 

program designed to provide sources flexibility in complying 

with emissions limitations. Cap and trade programs, like 

RECLAIM, can take into account emissions control technology by 

limiting the size of the emissions cap. EPA policy provides that 

a cap and trade program may satisfy RACT by ensuring that the 

level of emission reductions resulting from implementation of 

the program will be equal, in the aggregate, to those reductions 

expected from the direct application of RACT on affected sources 

within the nonattainment area. See 59 FR 16690 (April 7, 1994) 

and "Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive 

Programs," EPA-452/R-01-001 (January 2001), at Section 16.7. EPA 

approved the RECLAIM program into the California SIP in June 

1998 based in part on a conclusion that the NOx emission caps in 

the program satisfied the RACT requirements of CAA section 

182(b)(2) and (f) for covered NOx emission sources13 in the 

aggregate. See 61 FR 57834 (November 8, 1996) and 63 FR 32621 

(June 15, 1998). In 2005 and 2010, the SCAQMD tightened the NOx 

and SOx emissions caps in Rule 2002 to address California Health 

 

13 RECLAIM generally applies to facilities that emit 4 tons or more per year 

of NOx or SOx in the year 1990 or subsequent years. See Rule 2001.
34

and Safety Code requirements for BARCT,14 to require that 

agricultural sources be subject to existing command-and-control 

regulations instead of RECLAIM, and to satisfy a NOx reduction 

commitment in the 2003 AQMP. See Technical Support Document for 

EPA‟s Rulemaking for the California SIP regarding SCAQMD RECLAIM 

program rules, March 27, 2006, at pp. 5, 6 and Attachment 4. EPA 

approved the revisions to the NOx and SOx emission caps in Rule 

2002 on August 29, 2006 and August 12, 2011 respectively, based 

in part on conclusions that the revisions continue to satisfy 

NOx RACT requirements. See 71 FR 51120 (August 29, 2006) and 76 

FR 50128 (August 12, 2011). Because RECLAIM achieves reductions 

of NOx emissions from covered sources that are equivalent, in 

the aggregate, to the reductions achieved by RACT-level 

controls, we conclude that it requires all RACM for covered 

sources. See 76 FR at 41569, Table 3. 

Comment: CBE asserts that emissions of criteria pollutants, 

toxics, and GHGs could be reduced by requiring the SCAQMD to 

implement the findings of industrial energy use audits performed 

under California‟s AB32 program. Specifically, CBE asserts that 

the SCAQMD could supplement CARB‟s work under AB32 by: (1) 

requiring implementation of potential energy efficiency 

 

14 BARCT is defined as “an emission limitation that is based on the maximum 

degree of reduction achievable taking into account environmental, energy, and 

economic impacts by each class or category of source.” See California Health 

and Safety Code, Section 40406.
35

improvements identified through audits; (2) expanding the audit 

requirements to cover more industrial sources, including certain 

large sources and oil refineries exempted from CARB‟s program; 

and (3) improving the reporting requirements associated with the 

audits. CBE states that industrial energy efficiency 

assessments not only reduce pollution but also reduce energy 

costs and should be required RACM for purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS 

and other standards. CBE contends, therefore, that EPA should 

require the SCAQMD to add such auditing requirements to the 

South Coast 2007 AQMP in strengthened form with emission 

reduction targets.

Response: Although we agree generally that improvements in 

energy efficiency can reduce emissions of criteria and other air 

pollutants, we disagree with CBE‟s assertion that the specific 

measures associated with energy efficiency that it has 

identified are required RACM for purposes of attaining the 1997 

PM2.5 standards in the South Coast. Under the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule at 40 CFR section 51.1010(b), “[p]otential measures that 

are reasonably available considering technical and economic 

feasibility must be adopted as RACM if, considered collectively, 

they would advance the attainment date by one year or more.” 

CBE asserts only generally that the measures it has identified 

are reasonably available for implementation in the South Coast 

considering technical and economic feasibility, and provides no 
36

information to support a conclusion that these additional 

measures would, individually or collectively with other 

reasonable measures, advance attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

standards by at least one year in the South Coast. 

We explained in the preamble to the PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

(72 FR 20586) that although States must conduct a thorough 

analysis of reasonably available measures, States are not 

required to analyze every conceivable measure to satisfy the 

RACM requirement in CAA section 172(c)(1). 72 FR at 20612. As 

long as a State‟s analysis is “sufficiently robust in 

considering potential measures to ensure selection of all 

appropriate RACT and RACM, and the State provides a reasoned 

justification for its analytical approach, we will consider 

approving that State's RACT/RACM strategy.” Id. As discussed 

in our July 14, 2011 amended proposal, CARB, the SCAQMD, and 

SCAG have conducted thorough analyses of all reasonable control 

measures (including RACT15 for stationary sources) that are 

available for implementation in the South Coast and provided 

reasoned justifications for the collection of RACM that the 

State has adopted or committed to adopt, based on these 

analyses. See 76 FR 41562 at 41568, 414572 and TSD at section 

II.D; see also South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix VI. CBE‟s

 

15 EPA has defined RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular 

source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is 

reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. 44 

FR 53762 (September 17, 1979). 
37

comments do not change our conclusion that the State has adopted 

all RACM and RACT necessary to demonstrate attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements, 

as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR section 51.1010.

Comment: CBE asserts that SCAQMD “must implement measures [for 

additional SOx reduction] that were identified in the recent SOx 

RECLAIM regulation, but not adopted.”

Response: This comment does not contain sufficient specificity 

for EPA to respond. 

Comment: CBE asserts that major flaring and smoking episodes 

occur regularly at refineries in the region16 and that the SCAQMD 

must require that every refinery have a flare minimization plan 

(FMP) consistent with rigorous control methods achieved by two 

specific oil refineries in Martinez, California and Flint Hills, 

Texas. CBE asserts that FMPs are reasonably available measures 

that could significantly reduce short-term emissions of 

particulates, SOx, NOx, and VOC, although they probably would 

not significantly affect annual emissions levels. CBE states 

that the SCAQMD‟s flare rule requires implementation of an FMP 

only if emissions exceed certain levels on an annual basis, and 

that the South Coast 2007 AQMP does not adequately account for 

emissions from flaring events, which are episodic. CBE asserts 

that EPA should require the SCAQMD to: (1) model the ambient PM2.5

 

16 CBE references several sources of SCAQMD data as the basis for its 

estimates of criteria pollutant emissions from these flaring episodes.
38

impacts of large flaring events; (2) revise the SCAQMD flare 

regulation to require that every refinery implement an FMP 

consistent with those at Shell‟s refineries in Martinez, 

California and Flint Hills, Texas; and (3) add a provision to 

the SCAQMD flare regulation to prohibit all flaring (with 

certain exceptions) unless it is consistent with an approved 

FMP, as provided in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

(BAAQMD) Regulation 12-12-301 (“Flare Minimization”). CBE 

contends that such measures are technologically and economically 

feasible and therefore required RACM.

Response: The SCAQMD regulates refinery flares through Rule 

1118 (“Control of Emissions from Refinery Flares”), which EPA 

approved into the SIP on August 28, 2007. See 72 FR 49196. 

Although CBE correctly notes that Rule 1118 requires FMPs only 

at refineries that exceed specific annual emissions thresholds 

(see Rule 1118 at subsection (d)(3) (a) and (e)(1)), CBE appears 

to misunderstand several other requirements in the rule that 

apply to all petroleum refineries and that are essentially 

equivalent to the FMP requirements in the BAAQMD‟s Rule 12-12. 

We agree that FMPs are reasonably available measures and note 

that requirements in BAAQMD 12-12 401.1 through 401.3 are 

required of all petroleum refineries under SCAQMD Rule 1118 

sections (c)(2) and (c)(3). For example, BAAQMD 12-12 401.4 

requires a description of prevention measures addressing 
39

specific activities that may cause flaring. SCAQMD‟s Rule 1118 

contains a requirement in section (c)(2)(C) that requires 

refinery owners to submit to the SCAQMD “descriptions of any 

equipment, processes or procedures the owner or operators plans 

to install or implement to eliminate or reduce flaring,” 

including the scheduled year of installation or implementation. 

This requirement is essentially equivalent to the requirement in 

BAAQMD Rule 12-12 401.4. Thus, SCAQMD Rule 1118 contains in 

sections (c)(2) and (c)(3) requirements that, although separate 

from the requirements for “flare minimization plans” under 

section (e) of the rule, essentially require SCAQMD facilities 

to submit plans to reduce flaring events similar to those 

required under BAAQMD Rule 12-12. We disagree, therefore, with 

CBE‟s assertion that the SCAQMD is required to adopt additional 

control requirements for refinery flares and conclude that Rule 

1118 requires all RACM for these emission sources in the South 

Coast.17

We note that SCAQMD's Board Resolution adopting the 

District's most recent revisions to SCAQMD Rule 1118 directs 

 

17 We note that CBE‟s estimates of emissions from flaring episodes during the 

2009-2011 time period are consistent with data provided in SCAQMD staff 

reports submitted to EPA, which show an overall decline in emissions from 

flaring events since 2004. See, e.g., SCAQMD 2005 Staff Report Table IV-2. 

Generally, it is difficult to develop reliable estimates of emissions from 

flaring events given uncertainties about the efficiency of a particular flare 

event. Flares are devices which burn anything in the stream, and the contents 

of the stream may not be completely combusted, causing an unknown composition 

of emissions.
40

District staff to evaluate the feasibility of a daily emissions 

target and to evaluate refinements to the annual emissions 

targets as warranted. See SCAQMD Board Resolution 2005-32 

(November 4, 2005). Consistent with this directive, we 

encourage the District to reevaluate the control and compliance 

requirements in Rule 1118 as new information about feasible 

controls becomes available, and to adopt any additional control 

measures that are reasonably available as expeditiously as 

practicable consistent with CAA requirements.

Comment: CBE asserts that oil refineries, which contribute to 

power plant emissions by using substantial amounts of 

electricity from the grid, should be required to have backup 

power using clean/alternative energy sources. Specifically, CBE 

claims that electrical grid shutdowns cause power outages at oil 

refineries, which in turn cause flaring and significant amounts 

of air pollution near the refineries. CBE asserts that the 

SCAQMD should require oil refineries to use alternative energy 

sources (in place of fossil-fuel electricity generation), such 

as wind and solar energy, and that such measures should be 

required RACM. Based on general information about power plant 

emissions obtained from PG&E, CBE provides its own estimates of 

the SOx and NOx emission reductions that could be achieved if 

oil refineries were to meet some or all of their electricity 

demands with clean alternative energy sources. CBE contends 
41

that the “large air emissions caused by fossil fuel generation 

at Power Plants due to oil refinery electricity demand is worthy 

of phaseout requirements by the AQMD as a measure in the AQMP.” 

Response: Although we generally agree that use of alternative 

(i.e., non-fossil fuel) energy sources to power oil refineries 

and other large industrial operations would reduce emissions of 

air pollutants, we disagree with CBE‟s generalized assertion 

that such measures are required RACM for purposes of attaining 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast. Section 172(c)(1) of the 

CAA requires that States adopt measures that are “reasonably 

available” and that are necessary to demonstrate attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements. 

40 CFR section 51.1010. As explained above, States are required 

to conduct a thorough analysis of reasonably available measures 

but are not required to analyze every conceivable measure to 

satisfy the RACM requirement in CAA section 172(c)(1). 72 FR at 

20612. 

As discussed in our July 14, 2011 amended proposal, CARB, 

the SCAQMD, and SCAG have conducted thorough analyses of all 

reasonable control measures that are available for 

implementation in the South Coast and provided reasoned 

justifications for the collection of RACM that the State has 

adopted or committed to adopt, based on these analyses. See 76 

FR 41562 at 41568-41572 and TSD at section II.D. Electric 
42

generating stations and oil refineries in the South Coast are 

subject to numerous prohibitory rules and other control measures 

that regulate emissions of NOx, SOx, VOC, and PM2.5, among other 

air pollutants, from various emission points within each 

facility. See, e.g., 76 FR at 41570, Table 3 and TSD, Appendix 

B (identifying, e.g., Rule 1105 for fluidized-bed coal 

combustion units (FCCUs) and Rules 1146 and 1146.1 for 

Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam 

Generators, and Process Heaters.) Power plants in the district 

are also subject to RECLAIM. See South Coast Rules 2011 and 

2012. CBE has provided no information to support its general 

assertion that requiring the oil refining industry to obtain 

electricity (backup electricity or otherwise) from alternative 

energy sources instead of from the electrical grid is a 

“reasonably available” control measure within the meaning of CAA 

section 172(c)(1). These comments therefore do not change our 

conclusion that the State has adopted all RACM and RACT 

necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable and to meet any RFP requirements, as required by CAA 

section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR section 51.1010.

Comment: CBE states that the SCAQMD is in the process of 

developing a regulation to control coke drum emissions and that 

EPA should ensure that this rule is included in the District‟s 

RACM/RACT control strategy. CBE also asserts that this rule has 
43

been repeatedly delayed due to pressure from the oil industry, 

and that EPA should ensure that the rulemaking occurs 

expeditiously. CBE asserts that refinery coking operations are 

increasing due to the use of increasingly heavier crude at oil 

refineries. 

Response: EPA does not currently have reliable information 

about the types and amounts of pollutant emissions from refinery 

coke drums in the South Coast, and CBE has not provided such 

information to support its assertions. Consequently we cannot 

conclude at this time that any such controls would represent 

RACT in the South Coast. We note that EPA Region 9 staff 

recently contacted SCAQMD staff to inquire about the status of 

this rule and learned that the District is awaiting information 

from EPA emission studies to inform the District‟s assessment of 

the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of regulating coke drum 

emissions.18 EPA has sent requests for information about 

emissions from coking operations to several facilities in the 

South Coast.19 Given the need for additional emission reductions 

in the South Coast to attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards as well as 

other standards for which the area is designated nonattainment 

(see 40 CFR section 81.305), we encourage the SCAQMD to adopt 

 

18 See record of phone conversation between Nicole Law and Stanley Tong, USEPA 

Region 9 Air Division, and Eugene Teszler, SCAMQD, dated September 14, 2011.

19 See record of phone conversation between Nicole Law, USEPA Region 9 Air 

Division, and Brenda Shine, USEPA OAQPS, dated September 20, 2011.
44

and implement this rule as expeditiously as practicable 

consistent with CAA requirements.

Comment: CBE states that it had proposed “requiring 33% RPS for 

all power plants within the SCAQMD” and asserts that this is 

“clearly achievable” since it has been adopted as State law.

Response: Assuming CBE intended to assert that the SCAQMD should 

require all investor-owned utilities, electric service 

providers, and community choice aggregators within the South 

Coast to procure 33 percent of their power from renewable 

sources by 2020 as currently required by the State under 

California‟s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), and that such a 

measure is a required RACM under CAA section 172(c)(1) for 

purposes of attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast, we 

disagree. As discussed above, section 172(c)(1) of the CAA 

requires that States adopt measures that are “reasonably 

available” and that are necessary to demonstrate attainment of 

the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP 

requirements. 40 CFR section 51.1010. CBE has provided no 

information to support either an assertion that California‟s 33% 

RPS under Senate Bill 2 is such a measure or an assertion that 

some additional RPS to be implemented by the SCAQMD within the 

South Coast would be such a measure. 

Comment: CBE claims that the RACM analysis for locomotive 

emissions in the South Coast 2007 AQMP is deficient because the 
45

SCAQMD failed to evaluate reasonably available technologies that 

could reduce locomotive and other railyard emissions. In support 

of this assertion, CBE references two September 2009 public 

comment letters to CARB and an August 2009 CARB document 

entitled “Technical Options to Achieve Additional Emissions and 

Risk Reductions from California Locomotives and Railyards.” 

Citing Association of American Railroads v. South Coast Air 

Quality Management District, 622 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2010), CBE 

contends that the Ninth Circuit “has indicated that the SCAQMD 

and the State of California have the authority to reduce 

emissions from locomotive sources through its determination that 

[the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995] may 

not preempt some measures included in a federally approved SIP.” 

CBE asserts that EPA should therefore direct California and the 

SCAQMD to cure this defect.

Response: We disagree. SCAQMD‟s RACM Demonstration (see 

Appendix VI to the 2007 South Coast AQMP) does list one type of 

measure with the potential to reduce locomotive and other 

railyard emissions (locomotive anti-idling) as one of the 

measures the District evaluated as a potential RACM/RACT measure 

(see Table 2 on page VI-11 of the 2007 South Coast AQMP, 

Appendix VI). With reference to long duration switch yard 

locomotive idling measures, SCAQMD concluded that “[I]f there 

are any additional SIP emission reductions that could be 
46

accounted for using these innovative technology, they would be 

addressed by CARB during the rule development of their on-road 

and off-road control measures.” 2007 South Coast AQMP, Appendix 

VI, page VI-12. This is a reasonable conclusion in light of the 

legal challenge to the District‟s own locomotive anti-idling 

rules (SCAQMD Rules 3501, 3502, and 3503). Moreover, CARB has 

adopted regulations for mobile cargo handling equipment at ports 

and intermodal rail yards which are designed to use best 

available control technologies to reduce public exposure to NOx 

and PM. CARB‟s mobile cargo handling equipment rules are the 

subject of a current authorization request to EPA. See 76 FR 

5586 (February 1, 2011). 

We note that, while the Ninth Circuit‟s opinion in the 

Association of American Railroads v. South Coast Air Quality 

Management District case opens the door to District regulation 

of locomotive idling under Federal law by signaling the 

potential for harmonization between such District rules and the 

Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) 

if the rules are approved into the SIP, there remains 

uncertainty as to whether the District‟s locomotive anti-idling 

rules would be within the scope of the District‟s state-law 

regulatory authority. The Ninth Circuit did not decide that 

issue. 622 F.3d at 1096. 
47

In addition, the documents and court case cited by CBE in 

support of the idea that a number of locomotive- and railyardrelated measures may be technologically and economically 

feasible, as well as legally enforceable, all post-date the 

development and submittal of the 2007 South Coast AQMP and 2007 

State Strategy. As such, they cannot be used to undermine the 

RACM demonstration for PM2.5 submitted by California for the South 

Coast several years earlier. The cited documents and court case 

may influence the development of control measures for future air 

quality plans for the South Coast, as well as other 

nonattainment areas, but they do not undermine the RACM 

demonstration in the plan that we are approving in relevant part 

today. 

For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, 

these comments do not change our conclusion that the State has 

adopted all RACM and RACT necessary to demonstrate attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements 

for the 1997 PM2.5 standards, as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) 

and 40 CFR section 51.1010. See 72 FR at 20612 (noting that 

although States must conduct thorough analyses of reasonably 

available measures, States are not required to analyze every 

conceivable measure to satisfy the RACM requirement in CAA 

section 172(c)(1)).
48

Comment: NRDC asserts that the South Coast 2007 AQMP does not 

satisfy the RACM requirement in CAA 172(c)(1) because it fails 

to identify and require implementation of certain reasonably 

available transportation control measures (TCMs) as 

expeditiously as practicable. NRDC asserts that “EPA's 

Transportation Conformity Rule requires that TCMs either be 

listed in section 108(f) of the CAA, or reduce transportation 

emissions by lowering vehicle use or improving traffic flow.” 

Specifically, NRDC asserts that in the “illustrative list of 

TCMs in CAA 108(f), the EPA has acknowledged that improvements 

to bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways are RACM” and that the 

South Coast 2007 AQMD contains very few TCMs to implement such 

measures. As an example, NRDC claims that little more than 11 

percent of the 1996 Los Angeles Bicycle Plan‟s proposed bike 

lanes have been implemented since its development. Finally, 

NRDC asserts that planning agencies have used the TCM process to 

“load the SIP with proposed highway expansion projects that will 

purportedly achieve emissions reductions” and that several of 

the plan‟s identified TCMs, such as the SR-47 diesel truck road 

expansion project, should not be included as TCMs because they 

will not actually reduce emissions.

Response: We disagree with NRDC‟s contention that any of the 

TCMs it has identified are required RACM for purposes of 
49

attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the South Coast or that the 

SCAQMD failed to adequately consider reasonably available TCMs 

as part of its RACM analysis. Under 40 CFR section 51.1010(b), 

“[p]otential measures that are reasonably available considering 

technical and economic feasibility must be adopted as RACM if, 

considered collectively, they would advance the attainment date 

by one year or more.” NRDC asserts only generally that the 1996 

Los Angeles Bicycle Plan is reasonably available for 

implementation in the South Coast considering technical and 

economic feasibility, and provides no information to support a 

conclusion that this or any other potential TCM would, 

individually or collectively with other reasonable measures, 

advance attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards by at least one 

year in the South Coast.20 

As discussed in our July 14, 2011 amended proposal, CARB, 

the SCAQMD, and the Southern California Association of 

Governments (SCAG)21 have conducted thorough analyses of all 

 

20 Appendix IV-C to the South Coast 2007 AQMP indicates that implementation 

of all of the TCMs in SCAG‟s Transportation Strategy (including transit and 

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) projects, in addition to bicycle and pedestrian 

projects) is expected to achieve the following total amounts of emission 

reductions: 0.18 tpd of direct PM2.5, 3.48 tpd of NOx, and 1.04 tpd of ROG 

(VOC). See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix IV-C at Table 7. Assuming the 

1996 Los Angeles Bicycle Plan, if fully implemented, would achieve only a 

fraction of these amounts of emission reductions, it is highly unlikely that 

this measure would advance attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standard in the South 

Coast by at least a year. See Table I-1 in the TSD for a summary of the 

emission reductions that would achieve one year‟s worth of RFP (52.8 tpd of 

NOx, 30.8 tpd of VOC, 1.1 tpd of PM2.5 and 2.8 tpd of SOx).

21 SCAG is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) responsible for the 

transportation strategy and transportation control measures in the South 

Coast nonattainment area.
50

reasonable control measures that are available for 

implementation in the South Coast and provided reasoned 

justifications for the collection of RACM that the State has 

adopted or committed to adopt, based on these analyses. See 76 

FR 41562 at 41568-41572 and TSD at section II.D. With respect 

to TCMs in particular, SCAG evaluated potential measures 

identified by public commenters, measures adopted in other 

nonattainment areas, and potential measures identified by EPA. 

Bicycle projects were considered along with many other TCMs as 

part of the RACM analysis to determine if they alone or in 

combination with other measures would advance the attainment 

date. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix IV-C, p. 36-55. 

Attachment A to Appendix IV-C of the South Coast 2007 AQMP 

contains a list of the specific TCMs included as part of the 

South Coast 2007 AQMP. The 1996 LA Bicycle Plan is not a part of 

the approved SIP for the South Coast. When an individual bike 

project has funding for right-of-way or construction in the 

first two years of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), 

it is included in TCM-1, SCAG's overall TCM program.22 NRDC‟s 

comments do not change our conclusion that the State has adopted 

all RACM and RACT necessary to demonstrate attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements 

 

22 See record of conversation between Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, and Jonathan 

Nadler, SCAG, September 19, 2011.
51

for the 1997 PM2.5 standards, as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) 

and 40 CFR section 51.1010. See 72 FR at 20612 (noting that 

although States must conduct thorough analyses of reasonably 

available measures, States are not required to analyze every 

conceivable measure to satisfy the RACM requirement in CAA 

section 172(c)(1)). SCAG included a description of the process 

used to identify the potential RACM measures considered. See 

South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix IV-C.

We also disagree with NRDC‟s characterization of EPA‟s 

transportation conformity regulations and EPA‟s position with 

respect to the TCMs identified in CAA section 108(f). EPA‟s 

transportation conformity regulations in 40 CFR part 93 

establish the criteria and procedures for timely implementation 

of TCMs approved into a SIP, including the specific steps and 

funding sources needed to fully implement each TCM, but do not 

require adoption and implementation of any particular TCM. As to 

CAA section 108(f), we note that following the 1990 CAA 

Amendments EPA revised its previous interpretation of the RACM 

requirement by eliminating the presumption that all TCMs listed 

in CAA section 108(f) are RACM for all areas. See 57 FR 13598 

at 13560 (April 16, 1992) (stating that “[l]ocal circumstances 

relevant to the reasonableness of any potential control measure 

involve practical considerations that cannot be made through a 
52

national presumption” and that States should consider TCMs on an 

area-specific basis and “consider groups of interacting 

measures, rather than individual measures”). Thus, States are 

required to adopt only those TCMs identified in CAA section 

108(f) that are reasonably available for implementation in the 

specific nonattainment area. Id. We note that EPA cannot 

require that any measure be listed in section 108(f) of the CAA, 

as only Congress is authorized to amend the CAA. 

Finally, we agree that SR-47 should not be listed as a TCM. 

We understand from SCAG staff that the SR-47 project (Project ID 

LA0D45) was inadvertently included as a TCM in the 2007 SIP in a 

table labeled “System Management – Railroad Consolidation 

Programs,” on page A-12 of Attachment A of Appendix IV-C of the 

South Coast 2007 AQMP. This error has been corrected and this 

project is no longer listed as a TCM in the 2008 RTIP.23

Comment: NRDC asserts that the RACM/RACT analysis is deficient 

because it fails to provide any discussion of controls for 

condensable PM2.5 emissions. NRDC references 40 CFR section 

51.1002(c) to support its assertion that “[t]he transition 

period allowing agencies to ignore controls on condensable 

emissions expired on January 1, 2011,” and also quotes EPA‟s 

 

23 See electronic mail, Rongsheng Luo, SCAG, to Wienke Tax, US EPA Region 9, 

August 31, 2011.
53

statement in the preamble to the PM2.5 Implementation Rule (72 FR 

at 20652) that “[w]e expect States to address the control of 

direct PM2.5 emissions, including condensables with any new 

actions taken after January 1, 2011.” NRDC states that EPA 

should advise CARB and the District that consideration of 

reasonably available controls on condensable emissions will be 

required in a revised RACM/RACT submittal.

Response: EPA‟s PM2.5 implementation rule states that “[a]fter 

January 1, 2011, for purposes of establishing emissions limits 

under 51.1009 and 51.1010, States must establish such limits 

taking into consideration the condensable fraction of direct PM2.5

emissions.” 40 CFR section 51.1002(c). Prior to this date, the 

rule required that nonattainment area SIPs identify and evaluate 

sources of PM2.5 direct emissions and PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursors as part of the RFP and RACM/RACT demonstrations but 

did not specifically require states to address condensable PM2.5. 

See id.24 Because the attainment, RFP and RACM demonstrations in 

the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy were adopted 

on June 1, 2007 and September 27, 2007, respectively, California 

was not required to address condensable PM in establishing the 

emissions limits contained in these demonstrations as originally 

submitted, or in adopting any other PM emission limits under 40 

 

24 See also Letter dated April 25, 2011, from Lisa P. Jackson, EPA, to Paul 

Cort, EarthJustice, denying Petition for Reconsideration with respect to the 

deferral of the requirement to establish emission limits for CPM until 

January 1, 2011. 
54

CFR sections 51.1009 and 51.1010 prior to January 1, 2011. 

Consistent with these requirements, EPA has evaluated the 

reasonable further progress (RFP) and reasonably available 

control measures (RACM) demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 

AQMP and 2007 State Strategy and concluded that these elements 

of the Plan appropriately address all sources of direct PM2.5

emissions and PM2.5 attainment plan precursors (SO2, NOx, and VOC) 

in the South Coast area. See 76 FR 41562 at 41574.25

The South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy rely on 

several rules regulating direct PM emissions as part of the PM2.5

control strategy (e.g., Wood Burning Fireplaces (Rule 445, 

adopted March 7, 2008), Wood Stoves and Under-Fired Charbroilers 

(Rule 1138, adopted November 14, 1997), and Particulate Matter 

(PM) Control Devices (Rule 1155, adopted December 4, 2009)). 

See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix F, Table 4. EPA has not yet 

acted on any District rule adopted or revised after January 1, 

2011 that regulates direct PM2.5 emissions. As part of our action 

on any such rule, we will evaluate the emission limits in the 

rule to ensure that they appropriately address condensable 

particulate matter (CPM), as required by 40 CFR section 

 

25 In our proposed rule, we noted that the SCAQMD has deferred limits for 

condensable particulate matter (CPM) in its rules but that this limited 

deferral does not affect the South Coast 2007 AQMP‟s RACM/RACT and 

expeditious attainment demonstrations. 76 FR 41562 at 41566, n. 13. We also 

noted that we would evaluate any PM2.5 rule adopted or revised by the 

District after January 1, 2011 to assure that it appropriately addresses CPM. 

See id.
55

51.1002(c). We note that the SIP-approved version of Rule 1138 

requires testing according to the District‟s Protocol, which 

requires measurement of both condensable and filterable PM in 

accordance with SCAQMD Test Method 5.1. See Rule 1138 paragraph 

(c)(1) and (g) and SCAQMD Protocol paragraph 3.1.26 We also note 

that the SIP-approved version of Rule 1155 requires measurement 

of both condensable and filterable PM in accordance with SCAQMD 

Test Methods 5.1, 5.2, or 5.3 as applicable. See SCAQMD Rule 

1155 paragraph (e)(6).27 

Comment. NRDC asserts that the contingency measures in the South 

Coast 2007 AQMP should be included in the RACM/RACT 

demonstration.

Response: We disagree. For many of the same reasons that EPA is 

disapproving the contingency measures identified in the South 

Coast 2007 AQMP, many of these measures would not be approvable 

elements of a RACM/RACT demonstration and in any case are not 

required RACM for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South 

 

26 See SCAQMD Protocol, Determination of Particulate and Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Restaurant Operations, November 14, 1997 (available 

at 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/R9Testmethod.nsf/0/3D4DEB4D21AB4AAF882570AD005DFF6

9/$file/SC%20Rest%20emiss.pdf).

27 See SCAQMD Test Method 5.1, Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions 

from Stationary Sources Using a Wet Impingement Train, March 1989 (available 

at http://aqmd.gov/tao/methods/stm/stm-005-1.pdf); SCAQMD Test Method 5.2, 

Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary Sources Using 

Heated Probe and Filter, March 1989 (available at 

http://aqmd.gov/tao/methods/stm/stm-005-2.pdf); and SCAQMD Test Method 5.3, 

Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary Sources Using 

an in-Stack Filter, October 2005 (available at 

http://aqmd.gov/tao/methods/stm/stm-005-3.pdf).
56

Coast. For example, for CTY-01, “Offsetting the Potential 

Emission Increase Due to the Change in Natural Gas 

Specifications,” the District has provided neither cost 

effectiveness information nor information about the types or 

amounts of pollutant reductions this measure would achieve. 

Therefore, EPA cannot determine at this time whether such a 

measure is reasonably available considering technical or 

economic feasibility or whether it would contribute to advancing 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast. The 

District characterizes the measure as an offsetting measure for 

potential increases in emissions, so it is not clear CTY-01 will 

provide any additional reductions of PM2.5 or PM2.5 plan 

precursors. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix IV-A, page 167. 

The reductions associated with CTY-02, “Clean Air Act Emission 

Fees for Major Stationary Sources,” do not occur until after 

2023, and therefore clearly would not contribute to advancing 

attainment date of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. CTY-03, “Banning PreTier 3 Off-Road Diesel Engines during High Pollution Days,” 

similarly lacks quantification of emissions reductions and costeffectiveness data. As we noted in our July 14, 2011 proposed 

rulemaking, CTY-04, “Accelerated Implementation of CARB‟s Mobile 

Source Control Measures,” would require additional rulemaking at 

the District level and potentially substantial and lengthy 

additional rulemaking at the State level to be implemented. See 
57

76 FR 41562, at 41579. Therefore, we do not believe the 

reductions could occur in time to advance the attainment date 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In summary, we have concluded that the 

contingency measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP are not 

approvable as contingency measures under CAA section 172(c)(9) 

and for many of the same reasons, these measures are not 

required RACM for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Moreover, 

NRDC provides no information to support a claim that any of 

these measures would individually or collectively advance the 

attainment date of the South Coast area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

by at least one year. 40 CFR section 51.1010.

E. Comments on CARB and District Control Measures

Comment: ARTBA requests that EPA designate this rulemaking as 

having nationwide scope or effect pursuant to CAA section 

307(b)(1) based on its belief that certain California statewide 

measures include in-use controls that are inconsistent with 

section 209 of the CAA and that are adoptable by states outside 

not only California but also EPA Region IX. ARTBA notes that the 

D.C. Circuit has never addressed many of the preemption issues 

raised below. Accordingly, ARTBA concludes that the section 

307(b)(1) determination is necessary to ensure nationwide 

uniformity in the interpretation and enforcement of these 

important CAA preemption issues.
58

Response: CAA section 307(b)(1) generally provides that 

judicial review of EPA action in approving a SIP or SIP revision 

may be filed only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit. Thus, final EPA actions on revisions to the 

California SIP, such as the South Coast PM2.5 Plan, are generally 

subject to timely challenges filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit. However, judicial review of an EPA SIP 

action may be filed only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia if such action is based on a determination 

of nationwide scope or effect and if, in taking such action, the 

EPA finds and publishes that such action is based on such a 

determination. 

We do not believe that our action approving the South Coast 

PM2.5 Plan as a revision to the California SIP is based on a 

determination of “nationwide scope or effect.” ARTBA does not 

identify which specific state in-use controls the association is 

referring to, but we assume ARTBA is referring to CARB‟s in-use 

truck rule and drayage truck rule, CARB‟s in-use nonroad 

equipment rule, and CARB‟s rule regarding ships at port, and 

CARB‟s commercial harbor craft rule (which are referred to in 

the plan as “cleaner in-use heavy-duty trucks,”“cleaner in-use 

off-road equipment (> 25 ph)”), “ship auxiliary engine cold 

ironing & clean technology,” and “clean up existing harbor 
59

craft.”). While we recognize that the plan relies on these state 

in-use controls to demonstrate attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the South Coast, the specific in-use controls themselves are not 

the subject of today‟s action. In other words, we are not taking 

action to approve the in-use controls as a part of the action we 

are taking today on the plan, but anticipate final action on the 

in-use controls in other final actions. Moreover, our action 

today relates to only two regions within the state of 

California, and the provisions reviewed are specific to 

California. Today‟s decision does not affect any other State. 

Thus, our approval of the plan under CAA section 110 is not one 

of “nationwide scope or effect.” 

With respect to nonroad vehicles and equipment, to the 

extent section 209(e) is at all relevant, other states are free 

to adopt and enforce California in-use emissions standards and 

other related requirements, but only after EPA has authorized 

the California standards under CAA section 209(e)(2)(A). See CAA 

section 209(e)(2)(B). EPA is not any taking action in this 

document under section 209(e), and thus the potential widespread 

effect that concerns ARTBA will not occur as a consequence of 

this rulemaking. Moreover, such State action would be a separate 

action by a separate State and would be handled separately. 
60

With respect to on-road engines and vehicles, California 

and the other states have the same authority, and are subject to 

the same limitations, in establishing in-use emissions standards 

and other related requirements and thus, even if EPA were to be 

approving California‟s on-road in-use emissions standards in 

this rulemaking, which it is not, the potential for nationwide 

effect would not occur as a consequence of this rulemaking. 

While any action taken by EPA in one rulemaking may have 

some precedential effect on other actions, this does not make 

every action taken by EPA an action of “nationwide scope or 

effect.” This action applies only in California and is relevant 

only to a particular California-specific PM2.5 plan. Therefore, 

we disagree that today‟s action on the South Coast PM2.5 Plan 

would be of “nationwide scope or effect.”

Comment: ARTBA asserts that the lawfulness of the California 

and SCAQMD measures will hinge on litigation between ARTBA and 

EPA currently underway in the Ninth Circuit, No. 11-71897, and 

the D.C. Circuit, No. 11-1256, and ARTBA requests that EPA stay 

action on this proceeding pending the resolution of ARTBA‟s 

litigation. ARTBA further requests that, because ARTBA is 

litigating the nationwide standards under which EPA will decide 

the important preemption issues in this case and because EPA‟s 

decision on California measures would lead to other states‟ 
61

adopting (or being compelled to adopt) California measures as 

RFP for their SIPs, EPA stay consideration of nonroad rules 

pending resolution of the ARTBA litigation.

Response: In settlement of a lawsuit seeking to compel EPA 

action on the 2007 South Coast AQMP and related portions of the 

2007 State Strategy [Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 

No. 2:10-cv-06029 (C.D. Cal.)], which includes the South Coast 

PM2.5 Plan, EPA is subject to a consent decree deadline of 

September 30, 2011 to take final action on the South Coast PM2.5

Plan, and thus, any stay of the rulemaking beyond that date is 

not possible. In any event, other than the general preemption 

issues that ARTBA has raised, and that EPA has addressed in 

various forums, the current lawsuit cited above by ARTBA 

challenges EPA‟s approval of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District‟s (SJVUAPCD‟s) Rule 9510 [“Indirect 

Source Review (ISR”)], which turns on an interpretation of CAA 

section 110(a)(5), which is not germane to EPA‟s action on the 

South Coast PM2.5 Plan.

Comment: ARTBA states that California has adopted a novel 

series of statewide measures that set emission standards and 

other requirements for in-use on-road and nonroad vehicles and 

fleets of those vehicles. In addition to seeking credit for 

these statewide measures, ARTBA notes that SCAQMD also seeks 
62

credit for that district‟s local implementation of the Surplus 

Off-Road Opt-In for NOx (“SOON”) program under which large 

construction fleets must seek “SOON” funding to acquire cleanthan-required equipment, with the cost partially deferred by 

government funds and that the South Coast PM2.5 Plan also 

includes a contingency measure (CTY-03) that would ban pre-Tier 

3 off-road diesel engines on “high pollution advisory” days. 

ARTBA asserts that all of these measures share the 

characteristic of setting fleetwide standards for CAA-required 

vehicles that differ from – and are more stringent than – the 

various standards and other requirements that title II of the 

CAA applies to those vehicles, and concludes that the California 

statewide measures that rely on in-use controls or impose in-use 

fleet measures are preempted. With respect to California‟s inuse controls for construction and other diesel-powered 

equipment, ARTBA believes that preemption applies both for 

equipment above and below the 175–horsepower threshold and that 

the proposed contingency measures (CTY-03) to ban pre-Tier 3 

off-road diesel engines on “high pollution advisory” days is a 

preempted in-use standard – particularly for equipment under 175 

horsepower – for the same reasons. Because these SIP and 

contingency measures are beyond California‟s and SCAQMD‟s 
63

authority, ARTBA believes that CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 

prohibits EPA‟s approving these measures as part of the SIP.

Response: In relevant part, CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires 

SIPs to provide necessary assurances that the State will have 

adequate authority under State law to carry out a SIP and is not 

prohibited by any provision of Federal or State law from 

carrying out such SIP. As a general matter, we agree that States 

must provide such assurances for SIPs and SIP revisions. In the 

CARB Resolution approving the plan, the State of California 

provided the necessary assurances of adequate legal authority to 

implement the South Coast PM2.5 Plan. See CARB Resolution 07-41 

(September 27, 2007). 

To the extent that ARTBA challenges EPA‟s approval of the 

South Coast PM2.5 Plan based on the plan‟s reliance on the 

emission standards and other requirements for in-use on-road 

measures, such as CARB‟s truck rule and drayage truck rule, we 

expect to approve the rules into the SIP prior to the effective 

date of this action, and no comments have been received on our 

proposed approval of the rules [76 FR 40652 (July 11, 2011)] 

that call into question the authority of the State to enforce 

those rules. To the extent that ARTBA challenges EPA‟s approval 

of the plan based on the plan‟s reliance on standards and other 

preempted requirements for in-use nonroad vehicles, we simply 
64

note that EPA authorizations under CAA section 209(e) bestow 

enforceability on the State of California as to the emissions 

standards and other requirements covered by the authorizations.

We anticipate EPA action on CARB‟s authorization requests for 

the in-use nonroad rules upon which the plan relies prior to the 

effective date of today‟s action.28 These rules are needed to 

support emissions reduction credit for certain State measures, 

including “cleaner in-use off-road equipment (> 25 hp),” “ship 

auxiliary engine cold ironing & clean technology,” and “clean up 

existing harbor craft.” See table 5 on page 41571 of the July 

14, 2011 proposed rule. If the authorizations are issued, there 

will be no prohibition under any Federal law that we are aware 

of that would prevent California from enforcing the related 

standards and achieving the associated emissions reductions 

relied upon by the plan. If EPA denies CARB‟s authorization 

requests for the in-use nonroad rules, or if no decision is 

forthcoming, prior to the effective date of today‟s action, we 

will take appropriate remedial action to ensure that our action 

on the plan is fully supportable or to reconsider that action. 

 

28 The notices of opportunity for public hearing and comment on the relevant 

requests for authorizations were published at 73 FR 58585 (October 7, 2008), 

73 FR 67509 (November 14, 2008), and 75 FR 11880 (March 12, 2010) for CARB‟s 

in-use nonroad equipment rule; at 76 FR 38153 (June 29, 2011) for CARB‟s inuse commercial harbor craft rule; and at 76 FR 38155 (June 29, 2011) for 

CARB‟s at-berth rule that is intended to reduce emissions from auxiliary 

diesel engines on ocean-going marine vessels at-berth in California ports. 
65

With respect to SCAQMD‟s SOON program, EPA notes that the 

District implements the SOON program through its Rule 2449 

(“Control of Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions from Off-Road Diesel 

Vehicles”), adopted May 2, 2008. SCAQMD Rule 2449 has been 

submitted to EPA for approval into the SIP (submittal date July 

18, 2008), but EPA has not taken any action on that submittal, 

nor is EPA taking action on Rule 2449 in connection with today‟s 

action on the South Coast PM2.5 Plan. We recognize that the South 

Coast PM2.5 Plan does take emissions reduction credit for the 

SOON program, but EPA has not allowed the credit in taking 

action on the plan, and thus the issue of the enforceability of 

the associated emissions reductions is not germane to our 

approval of the plan.

With respect to the contingency measure referred to as CTY03, which ARTBA opposes, EPA proposed to disapprove the 

contingency measures, including CTY-03, see 76 FR at 41579, and 

is finalizing that proposed disapproval in today‟s document. 

Comment: ARTBA provides a lengthy discussion of the principles 

of Federal preemption in the context of State regulation of 

emissions from mobile sources under the Clean Air Act and its 

various amendments over time. In so doing, ARTBA identifies a 

number of instances where ARTBA‟s interpretation of the CAA and 
66

relevant case history differs from that of EPA and offers a 

number of legal arguments supporting its views.

Response: Except to the extent we have discussed above, ARTBA 

does not tie this discussion of preemption to the SIP action EPA 

is taking today, namely, final partial approval and partial 

disapproval of the South Coast PM2.5 Plan and related portions of 

the 2007 State Strategy. For this reason, and because EPA has 

addressed ARTBA‟s general comments on preemption several times 

in earlier proceedings, we are not addressing those general 

comments here. 

Comment: AAR asserts that CARB‟s control measure known as ARBOFRD-02 anticipates a 90% NOx and PM reduction from the 

uncontrolled baseline and projects a 4.3 tons per day (tpd) of 

NOx emissions reductions in the South Coast by 2014. AAR further 

asserts that, as such, ARB-OFRD-02 is not consistent with the 

timeframe and emission reductions levels contained in EPA‟s 

regulations for achieving emissions reductions from locomotive 

engines and locomotive fuel.

Response: ARB-OFRD-02 is the identifier used in the 2007 South 

Coast AQMP to refer to the State measure known as “Accelerated 

Introduction of Cleaner Locomotives.” The State‟s measure 

anticipates that EPA‟s “tier 4” locomotive standards, proposed 

in 2007 and promulgated in 2008 (73 FR 25098, May 6, 2008), 
67

would likely not provide significant additional emissions 

reductions of NOx and PM from locomotives in the time necessary 

to contribute to attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast 

given an attainment date of 2015. Thus, the control measure 

calls for CARB staff “to work with the railroads to bring the 

cleanest locomotives into California service” (Revised Draft 

State Strategy (April 26, 2007), page 114). As noted by AAR, the 

2007 State Strategy estimates a reduction of NOx of 4.3 tons per 

day (tpd) in 2014 in the South Coast due to this measure. See 

page 61 of Revised Draft State Strategy (April 26, 2007). 

However, the State Strategy indicates that such estimates are 

for informational purposes only. CARB has not committed to 

achieving the 4.3 tpd reduction specifically from this measure 

but has committed to aggregate emissions reductions that would 

be achieved through any combination of measures. 

Since adoption of the 2007 State Strategy, CARB staff have 

been working with neighborhood groups, the railroads, and other 

interested stakeholders to, among other things, develop 

emissions reduction targets at certain rail yards in the South 

Coast to which the railroads would commit (referred to as the 

“2010 Commitments”). See CARB Resolution 10-29 (June 24, 2010). 

Final approvals of the 2010 Commitments are still being 

negotiated, and there are no plans to submit the 2010 
68

Commitments as a part of the SIP; thus, our proposed approval of 

the attainment demonstration for PM2.5 Plan does not rely on any 

emissions reductions from this control measure (see 76 FR 41562, 

July 14, 2011, at 41571, Table 5), nor does today‟s final 

approval. Therefore, the difference in the timing of emissions 

reductions under ARB-OFRD-02 relative to those expected under 

EPA‟s locomotive regulations does not undermine our approval of 

the South Coast PM2.5 Plan. 

F. Comments on Enforceable Commitments

Comment: California Communities Against Toxics, Communities for 

a Better Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council and 

Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles (commenters) 

assert that the South Coast PM2.5 Plan fails to include 

enforceable control measures that meet the requirements of the 

CAA and that EPA cannot rely on “enforceable commitments” as a 

substitute for adopted control measures to “close the shortfall 

in the control strategy.” Commenters claim that EPA‟s action 

“breaks with its long-standing interpretation that an attainment 

SIP must include currently adopted emissions limitations and 

other control measures” that achieve the needed emissions 

reductions. Specifically, commenters state that CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) require SIPs to contain “enforceable 

emission limitations ... as may be necessary or appropriate” to 
69

achieve attainment. Commenters note that CAA section 110(k)(4) 

allows EPA to grant “conditional approval” of a SIP lacking 

certain statutory elements “based on a commitment of the state 

to adopt specific enforceable measures” by a certain date, and 

that this provision provides that the conditional approval 

automatically becomes a disapproval if the State fails to comply 

with the commitment within one year. Commenters state that 

courts have rejected similar attempts to circumvent the 

statute‟s limitations on conditional approvals and cite Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d 296, 298(D.C. Cir. 2004) as overturning 

EPA‟s conditional approval of SIPs based in part on the fact 

that the commitments identified no specific measures the state 

would implement. In further support of their assertions that EPA 

may not allow States to submit “promises to develop unspecified 

future enforceable measures as a substitute for” enforceable 

control measures, the commenters reference CAA sections 107(a), 

110(a)(1), 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(C), the nonattainment plan 

requirements of part D, title I of the Act, EPA regulations in 

40 CFR part 51, and EPA‟s General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments (57 FR 

13498, 13567 (April 16, 1992).

Response: As pertinent to the comment, Sierra Club involved 

EPA‟s conditional approval under section 110(k)(4) of SIPs 
70

lacking in their entirety RACM and ROP demonstrations and 

contingency measures based on letters submitted by states that 

committed to cure these deficiencies. The court rejected EPA‟s 

construction of section 110(k)(4) as contrary to the unambiguous 

statutory language requiring the state to commit to adopt 

specific enforceable measures. Sierra Club at 302. The court 

found that EPA‟s construction turned the section 110(k)(4) 

conditional approval into a means of circumventing SIP 

deadlines. Id. At 303.

EPA does not dispute the holding of Sierra Club. However 

that case is not germane to EPA‟s approval of CARB‟s and the 

District‟s commitments here because the Agency is not approving 

those commitments under section 110(k)(4). The relevant 

precedent is instead BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th 

Cir. 2003) (BCCA). The facts in BCCA were very similar to those 

presented here. In BCCA, EPA approved an enforceable commitment 

in the Houston ozone SIP to adopt and implement unspecified NOx 

controls on a fixed schedule to achieve aggregate emission 

reductions. Petitioners claimed that EPA lacked authority under 

the CAA to approve a SIP containing an enforceable commitment to 

adopt unspecified control measures in the future. The court 

disagreed and found that section 110(k)(4) conditional approvals 
71

do not supplant EPA's practice of fully approving enforceable 

commitments:

Nothing in the CAA speaks directly to enforceable 

commitments. The CAA does, however, provide EPA with 

great flexibility in approving SIPs. A SIP may contain 

"enforceable emission limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques . . . as well as 

schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be 

necessary or appropriate" to meet the CAA's 

requirements.... Thus, according to the plain language 

of the statute, SIPs may contain "means," "techniques" 

and/or "schedules and timetables for compliance" that 

the EPA considers "appropriate" for attainment so long 

as they are "enforceable." See id. section

7410(a)(2)(A). "Schedules and timetables" is broadly 

defined as "a schedule of required measures including 

an enforceable sequence of actions or operations 

leading to compliance with an emission limitation, 

prohibition or standard." 42 U.S.C. section 7602(p). 

The remaining terms are not defined by the Act. 

Because the statute is silent on the issue of whether 

enforceable commitments are appropriate means, 

techniques, or schedules for attainment, EPA's 
72

interpretation allowing limited use of an enforceable 

commitment in the Houston SIP must be upheld if 

reasonable.

BCCA at 839-840. The court upheld EPA‟s approval of the 

commitment, finding that “EPA reasonably concluded that an 

enforceable commitment to adopt additional control measures on a 

fixed schedule was an „appropriate‟ means, technique, or 

schedule or timetable for compliance” under sections 

110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6). Id. at 841. Thus the court 

recognized that sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) provide a 

basis for EPA to approve enforceable commitments as distinct 

from the commitments contemplated by section 110(k)(4) which are 

not in fact enforceable but instead lead to SIP disapproval if 

not honored. See also Environmental Defense v. EPA, 369 F.3d 

193, 209-210 (2nd Cir. 2004) (similarly upholding enforceable 

SIP commitments). As a result, contrary to commenters‟ 

contention, section 110(k)(4) is not a bar to EPA‟s approval of 

CARB‟s and the District‟s enforceable commitments and that 

approval under section 110(k)(3) is permissible as an 

appropriate means, technique or schedule or timetable for 

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

Comment: Commenters state that EPA has not determined whether 

the commitments are in fact enforceable. Commenters state that 
73

courts “may only enforce SIP strategies” and that “[m]ere 

approval of an aspirational goal or non-specific promise into 

the SIP does not convert that goal or promise into an 

enforceable commitment.” In support of these assertions, 

commenters cite Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates v. 

Metropolitan Transp. Comm’n, 366 F.3d 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2004) 

and Citizens for a Better Environment v. Metropolitan Tranp. 

Comm’n, 746 F. Supp. 976, 980 (N.D.Cal. 1990) [known as CBE II]. 

In addition, commenters single out El Comite Para El Bienstar de 

Earlimart v. Warmerdam, 539 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2008), 

stating that in El Comite the court explained that because an 

inventory in a SIP is not a “standard or limitation” as defined 

by the CAA, it was not an independently enforceable aspect of 

the SIP. Thus, the commenters reason, in order to be 

enforceable, not only must a state‟s commitment to adopt 

additional measures to attain emission standards be specific and 

announced in plain language, but any data or rubric that will be 

used to determine when and how the state will adopt those 

measures must be enforceable. Commenters state that the 

commitments in the South Coast SIP are so vague that they cannot 

possibly be enforced against the State and that there is no 

requirement that the State take any specific actions. The 

commenters conclude that the commitments cannot be considered 

enforceable under Ninth Circuit case law, because they are not 
74

strategies based on enforceable emissions standards or 

limitations.

Response: Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), SIPs must include 

enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the 

Act, as well as timetables for compliance. Similarly, section 

172(c)(6) provides that nonattainment area SIPs must include 

enforceable emission limitations and such other control 

measures, means or techniques "as may be necessary or 

appropriate to provide for attainment” of the NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date.

Control measures, including commitments in SIPs, are 

enforced directly by EPA under CAA section 113 and also through 

CAA section 304(a), which provides for citizen suits to be 

brought against any person who is alleged “to be in violation of 

... an emission standard or limitation....” “Emission standard or 

limitation” is defined in subsection (f) of section 304.29 As 

observed in Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. James Busey et 

al., 79 F.3d 1250, 1258 (1st Cir. 1996):

Courts interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction have largely 

focused on whether the particular standard or requirement 

plaintiffs sought to enforce was sufficiently specific. 

 

29 EPA can also enforce SIP commitments pursuant to CAA section 113.
75

Thus, interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction as limited to 

claims "for violations of specific provisions of the act or 

specific provisions of an applicable implementation plan," 

the Second Circuit held that suits can be brought to 

enforce specific measures, strategies, or commitments 

designed to ensure compliance with the NAAQS, but not to 

enforce the NAAQS directly. See, e.g., Wilder, 854 F.2d at 

613-14. Courts have repeatedly applied this test as the 

linchpin of citizen suit jurisdiction. See, e.g., Coalition 

Against Columbus Ctr. v. City of New York, 967 F.2d 764, 

769-71 (2d Cir. 1992); Cate v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe 

Line Corp., 904 F. Supp. 526, 530-32 (W.D. Va. 1995); 

Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 

1448, 1454-59 (N.D. Cal.), modified, 746 F. Supp. 976 

(1990).

Thus courts have found that the citizen suit provision cannot be 

used to enforce the aspirational goal of attaining the NAAQS, 

but can be used to enforce specific strategies to achieve that 

goal including enforceable commitments to develop future 

emissions controls.

We describe CARB‟s and the District‟s commitments in the 

2007 State Strategy (revised in 2009 and 2011) and the 2007 AQMP 

in detail in our proposal and amended proposal (75 FR 71294 and 
76

76 FR 41562). The 2007 State Strategy includes commitments to 

propose defined new measures and an enforceable commitment for 

emissions reductions sufficient, in combination with existing 

measures and the District‟s commitments, to attain the PM2.5

NAAQS in the South Coast by April 5, 2015. For the South Coast, 

the State‟s emissions reductions commitments, as submitted in 

2007 and revised by the 2009 State Strategy Update were to 

achieve 152 tpd NOx, 46 tpd VOC, 9 tpd of direct PM2.5 and 20 tpd 

SOx in the South Coast area by 2014. See 76 FR 41562, at 41572; 

2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 20.30

The SCAQMD‟s commitments as submitted in 2007 (and revised 

in 2011) were to achieve 10.8 tpd NOx, 10.4 tpd VOC, 2.9 tpd 

direct PM2.5 and 2.9 tpd SOx by 2014. See 76 FR 41562, Table 2, at 

41569; see also 2011 Progress Report, Appendix F, Table 1, and 

SCAQMD Board Resolution 11-9, March 4, 2011. As discussed above, 

the 2011 SIP revisions revised the State‟s total emissions 

reduction commitments to 129 tpd of NOx, 44 tpd of VOC, 9 tpd of 

PM2.5, and 41 tpd of SOx, which the State remains obligated to 

achieve through the adoption of enforceable measures by 2014. 

See TSD, Table F-9; see also CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B 

at p. 4. 

 

30 We note that in our proposed rule at 76 FR 41562, p. 41571 we reference 

the 2007 State Strategy, p. 63 and CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B. p.6. 

Page 63 of the 2007 State Strategy was replaced with the information in the 

2009 State Strategy Status Report.
77

Thus, CARB‟s commitments are clearly distinguishable from 

the aspirational goals, i.e., the SIP‟s overall objectives, 

identified by the Bayview court and cited by the commenter. 

CARB‟s commitments here are to adopt and implement measures that 

will achieve specific reductions of NOx, VOC, direct PM2.5 and SOx 

emissions by 2014. These are not mere aspirational goals to 

ultimately achieve the standards. Rather, the State and District 

have committed to adopt enforceable measures no later than 2014 

that will achieve these specific amounts of emission reductions 

prior to the attainment date of April 5, 2015. All of these 

control measures are subject to State and local rulemaking 

procedures and public participation requirements, through which 

EPA and the public may track the State/District‟s progress in 

achieving the requisite emission reductions. EPA and citizens 

may enforce these commitments under CAA sections 113 and 304(a), 

respectively, should the State/District fail to adopt measures 

that achieve the requisite amounts of emission reductions by the 

beginning of 2014. See 40 CFR section 51.1007(b) (requiring 

implementation of all control measures needed for expeditious 

attainment no later than the beginning of the year prior to the 

attainment date). We conclude that these enforceable commitments 

to adopt and implement additional control measures to achieve 

aggregate emission reductions on a fixed schedule are 
78

appropriate means, techniques, or schedules for compliance under 

sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) of the Act.

Commenters cite Bayview as support for their contention 

that the plan‟s commitments are unenforceable aspirational 

goals. Bayview does not, however, provide any such support. 

That case involved a provision of the 1982 Bay Area 1-hour ozone 

SIP, known as TCM 2, which states in pertinent part:

Support post-1983 improvements identified in transit 

operator‟s 5-year plans, after consultation with the 

operators adopt ridership increase target for 1983-1987.

EMISSION REDUCTION ESTIMATES: These emission reduction 

estimates are predicated on a 15% ridership increase. The 

actual target would be determined after consultation with 

the transit operators.

Following a table listing these estimates, TCM 2 provided that 

“[r]idership increases would come from productivity 

improvements....” 

Ultimately the 15% ridership estimate was adopted by the 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the implementing 

agency, as the actual target. Plaintiffs subsequently attempted 

to enforce the 15% ridership increase. The court found that the 

15% ridership increase was an unenforceable estimate or goal. 
79

In reaching that conclusion, the court considered multiple 

factors, including the plain language of TCM 2 (e.g., 

“[a]greeing to establish a ridership „target‟ is simply not the 

same as promising to attain that target,” Bayview at 698); the 

logic of TCM 2, i.e., the drafters of TCM 2 were careful not to 

characterize any given increase as an obligation because the TCM 

was contingent on a number of factors beyond MTC‟s control, id. 

at 699; and the fact that TCM 2 was an extension of TCM 1 that 

had as an enforceable strategy the improvement of transit 

services, specifically through productivity improvements in 

transit operators‟ five-year plans, id. at 701. As a result of 

all of these factors, the Ninth Circuit found that TCM 2 clearly 

designated the productivity improvements as the only enforceable 

strategy. Id. at 703.

The commitments in the 2007 State Strategy (revised in 2009 

and 2011) and South Coast 2007 AQMP are in stark contrast to the 

ridership target that was deemed unenforceable in Bayview. The 

language in CARB‟s and the District‟s commitments, as stated 

multiple times in multiple documents, is specific; the intent of 

the commitments is clear; and the strategy of adopting measures 

to achieve the required reductions is completely within CARB‟s 

and the District‟s control. Furthermore, as stated previously, 

CARB and the District identify specific emission reductions that 
80

they could achieve, how they could be achieved and the time by 

which these reductions will be achieved, i.e., by 2014.

Commenters also cite CBE II at 980 for the proposition that 

courts can only enforce “express” or “specific” strategies. 

However, as discussed below, there is nothing in the CBE cases 

that supports the commenter‟s view that the CARB and District 

commitments are neither express nor specific. In fact, these 

cases support our interpretation of CARB‟s and the District‟s 

commitments.

Citizens for a Better Environment v. Deukmejian, 731 

F.Supp.1448 (N.D. Cal. 1990), known as CBE I, concerned in part 

contingency measures for the transportation sector in the 1982 

Bay Area 1-hour ozone SIP. The provision states: “"If a 

determination is made that RFP is not being met for the 

transportation sector, MTC will adopt additional TCMs within 6 

months of the determination. These TCMs will be designed to 

bring the region back within the RFP line." The court found 

that “[o]n its face, this language is both specific and 

mandatory.” Id. at 1458. In CBE I, CARB and MTC argued that TCM 

2 could not constitute an enforceable strategy because the 

provision fails to specify exactly what TCMs must be adopted. 

The court rejected this argument, finding that “[w]e discern no 

principled basis, consistent with the Clean Air Act, for 
81

disregarding this unequivocal commitment simply because the 

particulars of the contingency measures are not provided. Thus 

we hold that that the basic commitment to adopt and implement 

additional measures, should the identified conditions occur, 

constitutes a specific strategy, fully enforceable in a citizens 

action, although the exact contours of those measures are not 

spelled out.” Id. at 1457.31 In concluding that the 

transportation and stationary source contingency provisions were 

enforceable, the court stated: “Thus, while this Court is not 

empowered to enforce the Plan's overall objectives [footnote 

omitted; attainment of the NAAQS]--or NAAQS--directly, it can 

and indeed, must, enforce specific strategies committed to in 

the Plan.” Id. at 1454.

Commenters‟ reliance on CBE II is misplaced. It also 

involves in part the contingency measures in the 1982 Bay Area 

Plan. In CBE II, defendants argued that RFP and the NAAQS are 

coincident because, had the plan‟s projections been accurate, 

then achieving RFP would have resulted in attainment of the 

NAAQS. The court rejected this argument, stating that:

 

31 In this passage, the court was referring specifically to the stationary 

source contingency measures in the Bay Area plan which contained a commitment 

to adopt such measures if emission targets were not met. The Plan identified 

a number of potential stationary sources but did not commit to any particular 

one. In discussing the transportation contingency measures, the court applied 

this same reasoning. Id. at 1456-1457.
82

the Court would be enforcing the contingency plan, an 

express strategy for attaining NAAQS. Although enforcement 

of this strategy might possibly result in attainment, it is 

distinct from simply ordering that NAAQS be achieved 

without anchoring that order on any specified strategy. 

Plainly, the fact that a specified strategy might be 

successful and lead to attainment does not render that 

strategy unenforceable.

(Emphasis in original). CBE II at 980.

CARB‟s commitments here are analogous to the terms of the 

contingency measures in the CBE cases. CARB and the District 

commit to adopt measures, which are not specifically identified, 

to achieve a specific tonnage of emission reductions. Thus, the 

commitment to a specific tonnage reduction is comparable to a 

commitment to achieve RFP. Similarly, a commitment to achieve a 

specific amount of emission reductions through adoption and 

implementation of unidentified measures is comparable to the 

commitments to adopt unspecified TCMs and stationary source 

measures. The key is that a commitment must be clear in terms 

of what is required, e.g., a specified amount of emission 

reductions or the achievement of a specified amount of progress 

(i.e., RFP). CARB‟s and the District‟s commitments are thus 
83

clearly a specific enforceable strategy rather than an 

unenforceable aspirational goal.

Commenter‟s reliance on El Comite is also misplaced. The 

plaintiffs in the district court attempted to enforce a 

provision of the 1994 California 1-hour ozone SIP known as the 

Pesticide Element. The Pesticide Element relied on an inventory 

of pesticide VOC emissions to provide the basis to determine 

whether additional regulatory measures would be needed to meet 

the SIP‟s pesticides emissions target. To this end, the 

Pesticide Element provided that “CARB will develop a baseline 

inventory of estimated 1990 pesticidal VOC emissions based on 

1991 pesticide use data....” El Comite Para El Bienestar de 

Earlimart v. Helliker, 416 F. Supp. 2d 912, 925 (E.D. Cal. 

2006). CARB subsequently employed a different methodology which 

it deemed more accurate to calculate the baseline inventory. 

The plaintiffs sought to enforce the commitment to use the 

original methodology, claiming that the calculation of the 

baseline inventory constitutes an “emission standard or 

limitation.” The district court disagreed:

By its own terms, the baseline identifies emission sources 

and then quantifies the amount of emissions attributed to 

those sources. As defendants argue, once the sources of 

air pollution are identified, control strategies can then 
84

be formulated to control emissions entering the air from 

those sources. From all the above, I must conclude that 

the baseline is not an emission "standard" or "limitation" 

within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. section 7604 (f)(1)-(4).

Id. at 928. In its opinion, the court distinguished Bayview and 

CBE I, pointing out that in those cases “the measures at issue 

were designed to reduce emissions.” Id.

On appeal, the plaintiffs shifted their argument to claim 

that the baseline inventory and the calculation methodology were 

necessary elements of the overall enforceable commitment to 

reduce emissions in nonattainment areas. The Ninth Circuit 

agreed with the district court‟s conclusion that the baseline 

inventory was not an emission standard or limitation and 

rejected plaintiffs‟ arguments attempting “to transform the 

baseline inventory into an enforceable emission standard or 

limitation by bootstrapping it to the commitment to decide to 

adopt regulations, if necessary.” Id. at 1073.

While commenters cite the Ninth Circuit‟s El Comite

opinion, its utility in analyzing the CARB and District 

commitments here is limited to that court‟s agreement with the 

district court‟s conclusion that neither the baseline nor the 

methodology qualifies as an independently enforceable aspect of 

the SIP. Rather, it is the district court‟s opinion, in 
85

distinguishing the commitments in CBE and Bayview, that provides 

insight into the situation at issue in our action. As the court 

recognized, a baseline inventory or the methodology used to 

calculate it, is not a measure to reduce emissions. It instead 

“identifies emission sources and then quantifies the amount of 

emissions attributed to those sources.” In contrast, as stated 

previously, in the 2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011) 

and 2007 AQMP, CARB and the District commits to adopt and 

implement measures sufficient to achieve specified emission 

reductions by a date certain. As described above, a number of 

courts have found commitments substantially similar to CARB‟s 

here to be enforceable under CAA section 304(a).

Comment: Commenters state that the commitments do not satisfy 

EPA‟s three-part test for enforceable commitments. First, 

commenters state that EPA admits that the State and District 

have no idea at all how they will achieve the remaining 11% of 

the NOx, 3% of VOC and 8% of PM2.5. Commenters state that this is 

hardly a “limited” or minimal portion of the long-overdue 

reductions and cite BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817, 840-

41 (5th Cir. 2003)(commitments for only six percent of the 

overall reductions). Commenters state it is arbitrary and 

capricious for EPA to conclude that 11% is approximately within 

the 10% range that EPA has historically accepted in approving 
86

attainment demonstrations. Commenters believe EPA‟s strategy 

trivializes the task of achieving 70 tpd of reductions over the 

next 3 years and believes it is even more arbitrary given the 

importance of NOx reductions for attainment.

Response: We disagree with the commenters‟ assertion that CARB 

and the District do not know how they will achieve the remaining 

NOx, VOC, and PM2.5 reductions needed for attainment in the South 

Coast. As discussed in our amended proposal, the South Coast 

2007 AQMD relies principally on adopted rules approved into the 

SIP or given a waiver under CAA section 209 to achieve the 

emissions reductions needed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards in 

the South Coast by April 5, 2015, including baseline (pre-2007) 

measures that continue to achieve emission reductions through 

2014. 76 FR at 41576. The balance of the needed reductions is 

currently in the form of enforceable commitments that account 

for 11% of the NOx, 7% of the VOC and 8% of the PM2.5 emission 

reductions needed from 2002 levels to attain.32 See id. These 

SIP-approved or CAA-waived control measures and enforceable 

commitments satisfy the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) 

to include “enforceable emission limitations and other control 

measures, means or techniques . . . as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to 

meet the applicable requirements” of the CAA. See id. at n. 31. 

 

32 See Table 3 of this notice. 
87

Although CARB‟s and the District‟s enforceable commitments to 

additional emission reductions are expressed in aggregate 

tonnages and not tied to specific measures, both CARB and the 

District have provided a list of potential measures that may 

achieve the additional reductions needed to attain the 

standards, together with expeditious rule development, adoption, 

and implementation schedules. See id. at 41576, 41577. 

We also disagree with the commenters‟ assertions that these 

remaining amounts are not “limited” and that it is arbitrary and 

capricious for EPA to conclude that 11% is approximately within 

the 10% range that EPA has historically accepted as appropriate 

for enforceable commitments in approving attainment 

demonstrations. The State of Texas‟ enforceable commitment for 

the Houston/Galveston area, the approval of which was upheld by 

the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in BCCA, represented 6 

percent of the reductions needed for attainment in the area. We 

note that the court in BCCA did not conclude that any amount 

greater than 6 percent of the reductions needed would be 

unreasonable. We believe that the 11% of NOx, 7% of VOC and 8% 

of PM2.5 reductions, as stated in our amended proposal, also fit 

within the parameters of a “limited” amount of the reductions 

needed for attainment and nothing in the BCCA decision 

contravenes that. See also 76 FR 41562 at 41576, n. 34.
88

Finally, we disagree with the commenters‟ assertion that 

EPA‟s strategy “trivializes” the task of achieving 70 tpd of NOx 

reductions over the next three years. As explained in our

amended proposal, CARB has adopted and submitted a 2009 State 

Strategy Status Report and a 2011 Progress Report, which update 

and revise the 2007 State Strategy. These reports show that CARB 

has made significant progress in meeting its enforceable 

commitments for the South Coast and several other nonattainment 

areas in California. Additional ongoing programs that address 

locomotives, recreational boats, and other measures have yet to 

be quantified but are expected to reduce NOx and direct PM2.5

emissions in the South Coast by 2014. See 2011 Progress Report, 

Appendix E, page 2. The District has already exceeded its

commitment for reducing VOC and SOx emissions and is working to 

meet the commitment to reduce NOx and directly-emitted PM2.5. See 

Tables 2 and 3. The District is also continuing to work to

identify and adopt additional measures that will reduce 

emissions. Beyond the rules discussed above, both CARB and the 

District have well-funded incentive grant programs to reduce 

emissions from the on- and offroad engine fleets. Reductions 

from several of these programs have yet to be quantified and/or 

credited in the attainment demonstration. Finally, we note that 

the South Coast has experienced significant improvements in its 

PM2.5 air quality in the past few years.
89

Given the evidence of the State‟s and District‟s efforts to 

date and their continuing efforts to reduce emissions, we 

conclude that the State and District are capable of meeting 

their enforceable commitments to achieve the necessary 

reductions needed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the South 

Coast nonattainment area by April 5, 2015.

Comment: For the second factor, commenters state that the State 

has not shown that they are capable of achieving its reductions 

because they have done little more than assert that they are 

committed to meeting the requirements of federal law – but have 

not included any indication of how they will meet the 

requirements. Commenters assert that given the slow progress to 

date, it seems unlikely that the reductions of the magnitude 

remaining – 70.5 tpd NOx, 11 tpd VOC and 1.3 tpd PM2.5 – can be 

achieved without a plan more focused and robust than the vague 

commitment to somehow get the needed reductions.

Response: We disagree. As explained in our amended proposal, 

the State‟s and District‟s efforts to date and their continuing 

efforts to reduce emissions (discussed above and in our proposed 

rule), indicate they are capable of meeting their specific 

enforceable commitments to achieve the necessary reductions by 

2014. 76 FR 41562 at 41568-41572 and 41575-41577 and July 2011 

TSD at Sections II.D and II.F.
90

Comment: Finally, for the third factor, commenters state that 

it is unclear with the changing landscape of many of the 

measures whether any of these commitments will take place within 

a reasonable and appropriate period of time. Commenters state 

that EPA fails to explain how in the context of an approval in 

late 2011, the state and air district will be able to complete 

even the requisite rulemaking process, much less actually 

achieve the reductions required by 2014.

Response: Commenters assume that the only path open to the State 

to fulfill its commitments is the adoption of new measures. We 

disagree. The list of measures provided by CARB in the 2011 

Progress Report, Appendix B, Table B-1. represents a fraction of 

the rules and programs adopted and implemented by the State. 

See TSD Appendix A. CARB has not provided, nor has it been 

required to provide, an evaluation of the effectiveness of its 

entire control program in reducing emissions in the South Coast 

area. Given that the State has preliminarily demonstrated, 

based on a limited set of measures, that all of the needed SOx 

reductions, and approximately 90 percent or more of the 

reductions of NOx, VOC, and PM2.5 reductions needed for attainment 

of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the South Coast have already been 

achieved, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that the 

balance of the needed reductions will also be achieved by 2014. 
91

See 76 FR 41562, p. 41575, Table 7 and September 2011 TSD, Table 

F-10.

Comment: Commenters assert that although EPA has previously 

allowed conditional approval of SIPs based on “commitments to 

complete the adoption of specific enforceable measures within a 

short period of time,” EPA has never before allowed a five-year 

extension of the statutory deadline for the submission of 

control measures yet to be specified by the State. 

Response: EPA is not granting a five-year extension under 

section 110(k)(4) of the CAA. Rather, EPA is granting 

California‟s request for an attainment date extension to April 

5, 2015 under CAA section 172(a)(2)(A). We are granting this 

extension of the attainment date for the reasons discussed in 

our amended proposal. 76 FR 41562 at 41577.

Comment: NRDC asserts that EPA is allowing the South Coast to 

“adjust” the 2014 baseline emissions inventory to account for 

California‟s recent slowdown in economic growth. NRDC states 

that the Act requires that improvements in air quality are the 

result of permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.

Response: The commenters correctly note that the 2014 baseline 

emissions inventory in the South Coast 2007 AQMP have been 

adjusted to account for California‟s recent slowdown in economic 

growth. As explained in Section II.B (Emission Inventory) of 
92

the TSD, however, CARB‟s revisions to the 2014 baseline 

inventory took into account not only updates to the State‟s 

economic forecasts but also a variety of other factors (out-ofstate VMT estimates, cumulative mileage, equipment populations, 

load factors, and hours of use, etc.) used to calculate 

emissions from trucks, buses, and certain off-road equipment 

categories. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E.

The commenters‟ assertion that the CAA requires 

improvements in air quality to result from permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions appears to be based on an 

incorrect understanding of the statutory basis for EPA‟s action. 

EPA is not determining that emission “reductions” related to the 

economic recession are “enforceable” measures under CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6). Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA 

requires that each implementation plan submitted by a State 

include “enforceable emission limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques... as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to 

meet the applicable requirements of [the CAA].” Section 

172(c)(6) contains substantively identical requirements for all 

nonattainment area plans. Baseline emissions inventories, 

however, are not “enforceable emission limitations and other 

control measures, means, or techniques” or “schedules and 

timetables for compliance” that are necessary or appropriate to 
93

meet CAA requirements. See El Comite Para El Bienestar de 

Earlimart v. Warmerdam, 539 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(concluding that a baseline inventory is not an enforceable 

“standard or limitation” as defined by the CAA and is not, 

therefore, an independently enforceable aspect[] of the SIP”). 

Rather, base year and baseline emissions inventories provide the 

basis for, among other things, the State‟s development of 

progress milestones and control strategies for attaining the 

NAAQS consistent with the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1) 

and 172(c)(2). See General Preamble at 13503-13510 (discussing 

planning inventory requirements for ozone nonattainment areas). 

In short, emissions inventories provide estimates of current and 

future emissions that, in turn, provide the starting point for 

the State‟s attainment demonstration and enforceable control 

strategy. 

Nothing in the CAA precludes a State from revising a 

submitted plan to take into account revised emissions estimates 

and growth projections. All projections of future emissionsgenerating activity, including the projections in the South 

Coast 2007 AQMP as originally submitted, are based on 

projections of population, employment and other growth factors, 

all of which can increase or decrease as economic conditions 

change. However, reliance on projections from reputable sources 

of economic behavior based on established methods of predicting 
94

such behavior is the historic practice for development of 

emissions inventories. CARB‟s revised projections of future 

emissions-generating activity are based on reputable sources, 

represent the most current understanding of expected economic 

conditions through at least 2014, and were subject to extensive 

public review and comment before CARB adopted its 2011 SIP 

revisions containing these updated projections. Given the 

magnitude of the economic recession‟s impact on emissionsgenerating activity in the South Coast and other parts of 

California, and the resulting impact on the State‟s assessment 

of the control strategy necessary to demonstrate attainment of 

the 1997 PM2.5 standards, we conclude that it is appropriate to 

take these updated emissions projections into account as part of 

our action on the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy. 

Other than asserting generally that CARB and EPA should not rely 

on the revised economic data to determine the reductions needed 

for attainment and that future conditions may change, the 

commenters provides no information to undermine the State‟s 

revised economic data or the related changes to the projected 

inventories. 

For these reasons and as explained in our amended proposal 

(76 FR 41562, at 41567), we are concluding that CARB‟s 2011 SIP 

revisions, which updated the State‟s projected (“baseline”) 

emissions inventories based on improved methodologies for 
95

estimating emissions and more recent growth factors, reduced the 

total amount of emission reductions needed for attainment and 

that the control strategy in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 

State Strategy, as revised in 2011, demonstrates expeditious 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast. 

G. Comments on Attainment Demonstration and Modeling 

Comment: NRDC comments that the attainment demonstration cannot 

be approved because of changes in the inventory. NRDC states 

that EPA‟s new proposal to approve the air quality modeling in 

the 2007 PM2.5 Plan based on the supplemental documentation 

provided by CARB does not address the fundamental problem with 

the modeling, which is that the modeling fails to provide an 

accurate picture of whether the region will attain. EPA even 

admits that “Ideally, new attainment demonstration modeling 

would be performed to evaluate the effect of [the diesel rule 

updates]...” 76 Fed. Reg. at 41,573. However, the Clean Air Act 

does not allow EPA to approve inventories it knows to be 

erroneous because new modeling would be too hard. EPA must 

analyze how these errors in the base year inventory actually 

affect the attainment demonstration. EPA attempts to do this by 

looking at sensitivity modeling submitted by CARB, which was 

meant to determine the “relative effectiveness” on design values 

of additional reductions of NOx and PM2.5 emissions in the 
96

attainment year. EPA claims that the results of this sensitivity 

modeling support its conclusion that new attainment 

demonstration modeling would be unnecessary. The obvious flaw in 

EPA‟s reasoning is that it is calculating attainment year design 

value changes, to the hundredth of a percent, from attainment 

year design values that it has already admitted are erroneous. 

EPA cannot justify its failure to require updated attainment 

modeling by back-calculating from the wrong 2014 design values 

to claim that the changes to the inventory would be too small to 

affect the design values. Accordingly, this approach is 

arbitrary and capricious.

Response: While some large emission inventory changes might 

indeed necessitate new modeling, EPA does not agree that the 

inventory changes were large enough to substantially affect the 

modeling conclusions, or to invalidate the attainment 

demonstration. Ideally new modeling would be performed when an 

area‟s emission inventory is changed. However, since the cost in 

time and resources of remodeling and consequent reworking of a 

Plan is not trivial, administrative necessity requires a 

judgement call about when changes are large enough to merit new 

modeling. An important criterion in making this judgement is 

whether the changes would affect the conclusion that the Plan‟s 

emission reductions are adequate for attaining the NAAQS. 
97

Another consideration is the uncertainty inherent in modeling; 

although model results may be reported to several decimal 

places, model performance goals for fractional bias are 

typically in the range of 30%. (EPA Guidance Appendix B) Small 

changes in the emission inventory are likely to have a small 

impact on future year design values. This is not to discount 

the importance of an accurate emission inventory, but rather to 

make the point that relatively small changes in inventory 

estimates do not necessarily invalidate a model application. EPA 

believes that the base year emission decreases due to the 

inventory updates are small enough to leave the overall modeling 

conclusions unchanged. This is a quantitative showing that the 

emission updates are small enough that they do not invalidate 

the attainment demonstration.

EPA does not agree with NRDC that starting from the Plan‟s 

modeled design values, and ending with small design value 

changes, constitute flaws in the procedure for estimating the 

effect of the baseline inventory revisions. EPA believes that 

results derived from model sensitivity tests are a reasonable 

approximation to what would result from new modeling with the 

updated inventory. EPA‟s procedure based on model sensitivity 

does make a number of assumptions: however, the original 

modeling is basically sound in how it portrays South Coast Air 
98

Basin‟s atmospheric chemistry and transport. The emission 

changes are small enough that the model response is linear, 

model sensitivity is similar in the starting and ending years, 

and the spatial and temporal distribution of emissions is little 

changed with the inventory update. EPA believes that these 

assumptions hold well enough that the procedure provides strong 

evidence for the attainment demonstration‟s validity.

For regulatory purposes, administrative necessity requires 

a judgement call about whether such problems are substantial 

enough to compromise regulatory decisions. Years of effort by 

modeling experts from regulatory agencies and academia went into 

developing the SC modeling; it underwent successful diagnostic 

testing; and it performs well. EPA believes that it should not 

be discarded, and that it continues to constitute an adequate 

basis for the attainment demonstration. 

As for the small magnitude of the design value changes 

resulting from the procedure, EPA does not believe this is a 

substantive issue. Any procedure (even new modeling) that starts 

with small emission changes will necessarily result in small 

design value changes: within a small range, over which the 

chemistry does not shift fundamentally, ambient concentrations 

are approximately proportional to emissions. This is not a case 

of an overly precise tiny number being added to a large 
99

erroneous random number, but rather of an adjustment ratio 

applied to a number with a lot of solid work behind it. The 

emission inventory update, involving small NOx changes, would 

also yield relatively small design value changes. Of course, 

this assumes the basic soundness of the original modeling, as 

discussed above. 

Comment: NRDC comments that EPA should not approve the 

attainment demonstration because it fails to identify and 

address elevated PM2.5 concentrations in the near-highway 

environment. In addition, NRDC asserts that SCAQMD's monitoring 

network is deficient because none of the monitoring stations are 

within 300 meters of a major freeway.

Response: The PM2.5 Implementation Rule requires that states 

prepare attainment demonstrations through modeling that is 

“consistent with EPA‟s modeling guidance,” and the modeling 

guidance explains that future air quality should be estimated at 

current monitoring sites. 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007); SCAQMD 

followed EPA's modeling guidance in developing its air quality 

modeling and attainment demonstration.33 

With respect to SCAQMD's monitoring network, EPA has 

approved previous Annual Monitoring Network Plans (2007-2010) 

 

33 “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,” 

prepared by EPA‟s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, at 15 (April 

2007).
100

submitted by the District and determined that the PM2.5 network 

covered under the Annual Monitoring Network Plan meets 

regulatory requirements. EPA's monitoring rules do not require 

placement of PM2.5 monitors in micro or middle scale locations.34

The requirements for the Annual Monitoring Network Plan are 

found in 40 CFR section 58.10. 

H. Comments on the Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration

Comment: CBE commented that the RFP demonstration is 

unapprovable due to shortfalls in SO2 in 2009 and in NOx and PM2.5

in 2012. 

Response: Under the PM2.5 implementation rule, an RFP plan must 

demonstrate that in each applicable milestone year, emissions 

will be at a level consistent with generally linear progress in 

reducing emissions between the base year and the attainment 

year. See 40 CFR section 51.1009(d). The goal of the RFP 

requirements is for areas to achieve generally linear progress 

toward attainment. The RFP requirements were included in the 

Clean Air Act to assure steady progress toward attaining air 

quality standards, as opposed to deferring implementation of all 

measures until the end date by which the standard is to be 

attained. 75 FR 20586, at 20633. 

 

34 71 FR 61236 (October 17, 2006).
101

As we noted in our July 14, 2011 proposed rulemaking,

although the South Coast experienced a shortfall of 9 tpd for 

SOx in 2009, this shortfall is made up by the reductions 

estimated for 2012, and the area meets its 2012 SOx milestone. 

We note that the shortfall in 2012 for NOx is less than 1% of the 

2002 baseline inventory, and the shortfall in PM2.5 reductions in 

2012 is also about 1% of the 2002 baseline inventory, while 2012 

SOx reduction milestones are met and 2012 VOC reduction 

milestones are exceeded by 20 tpd. (TSD, p. 116) In addition, 

we noted that we were not evaluating the provisions of the 

updated South Coast 2007 AQMP that address contingency measures 

for failure to meet the 2009 RFP benchmarks. Information 

available to EPA and the public shows that the South Coast met 

its 2009 RFP benchmarks for 2009 for directly-emitted PM2.5, 

NOx, and VOC. SOx emissions are higher than the linear benchmark 

but achieve the benchmark levels in 2012 due to recently adopted 

rules controlling emissions of SOx. See 2011 Progress Report, 

Table C-2 and section II.H of the TSD. Therefore, contingency 

measures for failure to meet the 2009 RFP benchmark no longer 

have meaning or effect under the CAA and therefore do not 

require any review or action by EPA. 

In addition, as noted above, the purpose of RFP contingency 

measures is to provide continued progress while the SIP is being 
102

revised to meet a missed RFP milestone. Failure to meet the 2009 

benchmark would have required California to revise the South 

Coast 2007 AQMP to assure that the next milestone was met and 

that the plan still provided for attainment. California has, in 

fact, prepared and submitted a revision to the South Coast 2007 

AQMP that provides for RFP in 2012 and for attainment by 2015. 

(TSD, p. 122) For all of these reasons we conclude that the 

South Coast 2007 AQMP provides for generally linear progress 

towards attainment, consistent with the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR section 51.1009. The State has also 

submitted a SIP revision to address the missed 2009 SOx 

milestone which assures that the 2012 SOx milestone will be met 

(the 2011 Progress Report).

I. Comments on Contingency Measures

Comment: In their January 20, 2011 comment letter, the SCAQMD 

agrees that the SIP must contain contingency measures that 

should be implemented if the area fails to meet the NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date. However, the District argues that 

the requirement for these measures to be fully adopted in rule 

form at time of plan submittal is unrealistic.

Response: EPA understands that for some areas the CAA 

requirement for contingency measures is difficult; however, the 

Act is clear on these requirements. Under CAA section 
103

172(c)(9), all PM2.5 attainment plans must include specific 

contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to meet 

RFP (RFP contingency measures) and contingency measures to be 

implemented if an area fails to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date (attainment contingency measures). 

These contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or 

control measures that are ready to be implemented quickly 

without significant additional action by the State. 40 CFR 

section 51.1012 (“contingency measures must take effect without 

significant further action by the State or EPA”); see also 57 FR 

13498, at 13510-11. They must also be measures not relied on in 

the plan to demonstrate RFP or attainment and should provide 

SIP-creditable emissions reductions equivalent to one year of 

RFP. Finally, the SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for the 

contingency measures and specify a schedule for their 

implementation. 72 FR 20586, p. 20642. We noted that the purpose 

of RFP contingency measures is to provide continued progress 

while the SIP is being revised to meet a missed RFP milestone. 

See 76 FR 41562, at 41580. This timely continued progress would 

not be possible if significant additional rulemaking action 

needed to be taken at the District or State level before a 

measure could be fully adopted and implemented. For the reasons 

provided in both of our proposals, we are disapproving the 

proposed contingency measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP, 
104

which include measures that are not yet fully adopted, because 

they do not meet the requirements for contingency measures in 

CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR section 51.1012. See 76 FR 

41562, at 41580.

Comment: In its August 12, 2011 comment letter, the SCAQMD 

recognizes that the SIP must contain contingency measures that 

should be implemented if the area fails to meet the NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date; however, they again state that they 

believe the requirement to have such measures adopted at the 

time of plan submittal is unrealistic. They point out that 

under the California Clean Air Act, the SCAQMD is required to 

evaluate all feasible measures in SIP development to achieve the 

maximum emissions reductions possible. Therefore, they believe 

it is unreasonable to expect that there are additional rules 

that would achieve one year‟s worth of RFP reductions beyond 

what is already adopted. Nevertheless, the SCAQMD outlines a 

three pronged approach to demonstrate that sufficient emissions 

reductions can be identified to meet the requirement for 1-

year‟s worth of RFP reductions for contingency measures. The 

three prongs are (1) PM2.5 air quality improvements have 

significantly exceeded the RFP milestone targets by more than 

one year‟s worth of reductions, (2) relying on continued 

emissions reductions beyond 2014 based on adopted regulations 
105

for the 2007 ozone plan, and (3) quantifying excess emissions 

reductions that were not originally included in the 2007 PM2.5 

SIP. The District provides additional detailed information for 

each of these prongs in an attachment to their comments.

Response: EPA understands the unique air quality challenges in 

the South Coast area and appreciates the District‟s efforts to 

identify additional measures that may serve as contingency 

measures for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. We note, 

however, that contingency measures should consist of available 

control measures beyond those required to attain the standards, 

and may go beyond those measures considered to be RACM for the 

area. See 72 FR 20586 at 20643. We commit to work with the 

State and District to identify new or existing control measures 

and programs not currently included in the South Coast 2007 AQMP 

that may satisfy the CAA section 172(c)(9) requirements for 

contingency measures for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Comment: In both their January 21, 2011 and August 15, 2011 

comment letters, NRDC supports our proposed disapproval of the 

contingency measures. NRDC raises two issues related to the 

contingency measures. First, it asserts that the contingency

measures lack enforceability. Second, they note that the 

District does not describe the criteria regarding how the monies 

in the proposed ozone nonattainment fee contingency measure will 
106

be spent, and does not provide mechanisms for ensuring that 

emissions reductions are enforceable. (We address NRDC‟s third 

comment about contingency measures in relation to RACM in our 

responses to RACM comments above).

Response: In both our 2010 proposal and our 2011 amended 

proposal, we proposed to disapprove the Plan‟s contingency 

measure provisions and we are disapproving those provisions in 

today‟s action. See 75 FR 71294, 71311-71312 and 76 FR 41562, 

41580. In particular, we stated the following: The South Coast 

2007 AQMP includes suggestions for several measures that do not 

meet the CAA‟s minimum requirements (e.g., no additional 

rulemaking, surplus to attainment and RFP needs). The AQMP, 

however, indicates that the measures proposed by the District 

are not adopted, and does not quantify the expected emissions 

reductions in order to gauge whether they provide reductions 

equivalent to one year‟s worth of RFP. For the reasons stated 

above, we are disapproving the District‟s contingency measure 

provisions in the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM2.5. 76 FR 41562, 

at 415780 (July 14, 2011). 

Regarding NRDC‟s second point, we agree that for CTY-02, 

“Clean Air Act Emission Fees for Major Stationary Sources,” the 

District does not describe how the monies for the CAA 

nonattainment fees will be spent, nor does it provide mechanisms 
107

for ensuring that emissions reductions are enforceable. These 

are among the reasons that we provided for disapproving this 

contingency measure in both our November 2010 and July 2011 

proposed rulemakings. We also noted that the 2007 AQMP does not 

identify the quantity of emissions reductions that the District 

intended to use to meet the contingency measure requirement and 

therefore, we are unable to determine if the proposed measures 

are SIP creditable or sufficient to provide in combination with 

other measures the roughly one-year‟s worth of RFP needed. For 

these reasons, we determined that the measures submitted did not 

currently meet the CAA requirements for contingency measures.

III. Approval Status of the Control Strategy Measures and 

Enforceable Emissions Reductions Commitments

A. Approval Status of Control Strategy Measures 

We describe CARB‟s and the District‟s commitments in the 

2007 State Strategy (as revised in 2009 and 2011) and the South 

Coast 2007 AQMP in detail in our amended proposal. See 76 FR 

41562, at 41575-41577. As part of its control strategy for 

attaining the PM2.5 standards in the South Coast, the District 

made specific commitments to adopt or revise nineteen measures

for SIP credit on the schedule identified in the revised 2007 

AQMP. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix F, Tables 2 through 5. 

The District has now completed its adoption actions and EPA has 
108

approved most of the adopted rules. See Table 1 below. The 

rules we have not yet approved we have not credited with 

emissions reductions in the attainment demonstration.

Table 1. Approval and Submittal Status of District Rules in 

the South Coast 2007 AQMP

District Rule Adoption Date Current SIP Approval 

Status

Rule 445 - Woodburning 

fireplaces and wood 

stoves

03/07/08 74 FR 27716, 6/11/09

Rule 461 – Gasoline 

transfer and dispensing

03/07/08 71 FR 18216, 4/11/06

Rule 1110.2 – Liquid and 

gaseous fuels –

stationary ICEs

02/01/08 74 FR 18995, 4/27/09

Rule 1111 - Further NOx 

reductions from space 

heaters

11/06/09 75 FR 46845, 08/04/10

Rule 1127 - Livestock 

Waste

08/06/04 Under EPA review

Rule 1138 – Restaurant 

Operations

2012

Most recent approval: 

66 FR 36170, 7/11/01

Rule 1143 - Consumer 

Paint Thinners and MultiPurpose Solvents12/03/10

Proposed for approval

76 FR 41744, 07/15/11 

Rule 1144 - Vanishing 

oils and rust inhibitors

07/09/10

Proposed for approval

76 FR 41744, 07/15/11

Rule 1145 – Plastic, 

Rubber, Leather and Glass 

Coatings

12/3/04 75 FR 40726, 07/14/10

Rule 1146 – NOx from 

industrial, 

09/05/08 Proposed limited 

approval/limited 
109

institutional, commercial 

boilers, steam gens, and 

process heaters 

disapproval 76 FR 

40303, 7/8/11

Rule 1146.1 - NOx from 

small industrial, 

institutional, commercial 

boilers, steam gens, and 

process heaters

09/05/08

Proposed limited 

approval/limited 

disapproval 76 FR 

40303, 7/8/11

Rule 1147 – NOx 

reductions from 

miscellaneous sources

12/05/08 75 FR 46845, 08/04/10

Rule 1149- Storage Tank 

and Pipeline Cleaning and 

Degassing

05/02/08 74 FR 67821, 12/21/09

Rule 2002- Further SOx 

reductions from RECLAIM

11/4/10 76 FR 50128, 8/12/11

Rule 2301 – Indirect 

Source Review

2012

Refinery Pilot Program

Not yet 

adopted N/A

SOON program Submitted 

Not yet acted on

AB923 Light and medium 

duty vehicle high emitter 

program

No rules 

associated 

with these 

measures

N/A

AB923 Light and medium 

duty vehicle high emitter 

program

No rules 

associated 

with these 

measures

N/A

As part of its control strategy for attaining the PM2.5

standards in the South Coast, CARB committed to propose certain 
110

measures on the schedule identified in the 2007 State Strategy. 

These commitments, which were updated in the 2011 Progress 

Report, and their current approval status, are shown in Table 2. 

Table 2. Revised 2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule 

for Consideration and Current Status

State Measures

Expected 

Action 

Year

Implement

ation 

Date

Current Status

Defined Measures in 2007 State Strategy

Smog Check 

Improvements 2007-2009

2008-

2010; 

2013

Elements approved 75 

FR 38023 (July 1, 

2010)35

Expanded Vehicle 

Retirement (AB 

118)

2007

2009

Adopted by CARB, June 

2009; by BAR, 

September 2010

Modifications to 

Reformulated 

Gasoline Program

2007

2010

Approved 75 FR 26653 

(May 12, 2010)

Cleaner In-use 

Heavy Duty Trucks

2007, 

2008, 

2010 2011-2015

Proposed approval 76 

FR 40562, July 11, 

2011

Auxiliary Ship 

Cold Ironing and 

Other Clean 

Technologies

2007-2008 2010 Adopted December, 2007 

Cleaner Main Ship 

Engines and Fuels

Fuel: 

2008-2011

Engines: 

Fuel: 

2009-2-15

Engines: 

Proposed approval 76 

FR 40562, July 11, 

2011

 

35 California Assembly Bill 2289, passed in 2010, requires the Bureau of 

Automotive Repair to direct older vehicles to high performing auto 

technicians and test stations for inspection and certification effective 

2013. Reductions shown for the SmogCheck program in the 2011 Progress Report 

do not include reductions from AB 2289 improvements. See CARB Progress Report 

Supplement, Attachment 5.
111

Table 2. Revised 2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule 

for Consideration and Current Status

State Measures

Expected 

Action 

Year

Implement

ation 

Date

Current Status

2008 2011

Port Truck 

Modernization 

2007, 

2008, 

2010 2008-2020

Adopted December 2007 

and December 2008

Accelerated 

Introduction of 

Cleaner 

Locomotives

2008

2012

Prop 1B funds awarded 

to upgrade line-haul 

locomotive engines not 

already accounted for 

by enforceable 

agreements with the 

railroads. Those 

cleaner line-hauls 

will begin operation 

by 2012.

Clean Up Existing 

Harbor Craft

2007, 

2010 2009-2018

Adopted November 2007, 

revised June 2010.

Cleaner In-Use 

Off-Road 

Equipment

2007, 

2010

2009 Waiver action pending 

New Emissions 

Standards for 

Recreational 

Boats

2013 tbd

Partially adopted, 

July, 2008; additional 

action expected 2013.

Expanded Off-Road 

Recreational 

Vehicle Emissions 

Standards

2013 tbd

Partially adopted, 

July, 2008; additional

action expected 2013.

Enhanced Vapor 

Recovery for 

Above Ground 

Storage Tanks

2008 2009-2016 Adopted June, 2007
112

Table 2. Revised 2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule 

for Consideration and Current Status

State Measures

Expected 

Action 

Year

Implement

ation 

Date

Current Status

Additional 

Evaporative 

Emissions 

Standards

2009 2010-2012

Partial adoption: 

September, 2008 

(outboard marine 

tanks)

Consumer Products 

Program (I & II)

2008, 

2009, 

2011

2010-2014

Approved, 74 FR57074 

(November 4, 2009), 76 

FR27613 (May 12, 

2011), and proposed 

approval of 2011 rule 

signed September 28, 

2011.

Sources: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 23 (footnotes in original not 

included) and 2011 Progress Report, Appendix B, Table B-1. Additional 

information from www.ca.arb.gov. Only defined measures with PM2.5,VOC, SOx or

NOx reductions in South Coast are shown here.

Generally speaking, EPA will approve a State plan that 

takes emissions reduction credit for control measures only where 

EPA has approved the measures as part of the SIP, or in the case 

of certain on-road and nonroad measures, where EPA has issued 

the related waiver of preemption or authorization under CAA 

section 209(b) or section 209(e). In our July 14, 2011 proposed 

rule, in calculating and proposing to approve the State‟s 

aggregate emissions reductions commitment in connection with our 

proposed approval of the attainment demonstration, we assumed 

that full final approval, waiver, or authorization of a number 

of CARB rules would occur prior to our final action on the South 

Coast PM2.5 Plan. See 76 FR at 41562, 41575 (Table 7). Three 
113

specific CARB rules on which the attainment demonstration relies 

include the Truck Rule, Drayage Truck Rule, and Ocean-Going 

Vessel (OGV) Rule. We proposed approval of all three rules at 76 

FR 40652 (July 11, 2011), but will be unable to take final 

action on the rules until after taking final action on the plan 

because, while CARB has adopted the rules, the rules cannot take 

effect until approved by the California Office of Administrative 

Law (OAL) and such approval will not happen before EPA‟s final 

action must be taken on the plan.

We are nonetheless allowing the plan‟s attainment 

demonstration, and our final approval of it, to rely on the 

emissions reductions from the three CARB rules for the following 

reasons: 

All three rules have been adopted by CARB and submitted to 

EPA as a revision to the California SIP,36 and the adopted 

versions are essentially the same as those for which EPA 

proposed approval;

The comments that we have received on our proposed approval 

of the three CARB rules (truck rule, drayage truck rule, 

and ocean-going vessel rule) contend that the rules are 

costly and may not be economically or technologically 

 

36 The Truck Rule and Drayage Truck Rules were included in a SIP submittal 

dated September 21, 2011, and the OGV Rule was included in a SIP submittal 

also dated September 21, 2011. We have placed both of these SIP submittals in 

the docket for this rulemaking.
114

feasible, but such considerations cannot form the basis for 

EPA disapproval of a rule submitted by a state as part of a 

SIP [see Union Electric Company v. EPA;, 427 U.S. 246, 265 

(1976)]; 

The remaining administrative process, which involves review 

of the final adopted rules by California‟s Office of 

Administrative Law (OAL) is essentially procedural in 

nature, and should be completed over the near-term;37

CARB intends to submit the final, effective rules to EPA as 

soon as OAL completes its review and approves the rules.

Therefore, we are confident that the final action on the rules 

will be completed in the near term and that, as a result, 

continued reliance by the plan, and our final approval of it, on 

the emissions reductions associated with the rules is reasonable 

and appropriate. If, however, California does not submit the 

adopted and fully effective rules to EPA as a SIP revision prior 

to the effective date of today‟s action, we will take 

appropriate remedial action to ensure that our action on the 

plan is fully supportable or to reconsider that action.

 

37 See letters from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated September 21, 2011, 

submitting the Truck and Drayage Truck rules SIP revision and the OGV Rule 

SIP revision to EPA. CARB indicates that the Drayage Truck Rule will be 

submitted to OAL no later than September 23, 2011, and the Truck Rule will be 

submitted to OAL no later than October 29, 2011. CARB has already submitted 

the OGV Rule to OAL. Under California law, OAL must taken action within 30 

working days.
115

B. Enforceable Emissions Reduction Commitments

CARB‟s emissions reductions commitment is to achieve the 

“total emissions reductions necessary to attain Federal 

standards” through “the implementation of control measures; the 

expenditure of local, State, or federal incentive funds; or 

through other enforceable measures.” See CARB Resolution 07-28, 

Attachment B at pp. 3-5 and 2009 State Strategy Status Report, 

pp. 20-21. 

The updates and improvements to the inventories as 

presented in CARB‟s 2011 Progress Report altered the calculation 

of the reductions needed for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

standards in South Coast by revising the total reductions needed 

from District and State control strategy measures to 44 tpd for 

VOC, 129 tpd for NOx, and 41 tpd for SOx (the remaining 

reductions needed for direct PM2.5 remained the same at 9 tpd).

See Table 3 below and July 2011 TSD, Table F-10.

We are approving the South Coast 2007 AQMP for attainment 

of the 1997 PM2.5 standards taking into account CARB‟s revisions 

to the control strategy based on the revisions to its projected 

baseline inventories and its enforceable emissions reductions 

commitment. Specifically, we are interpreting CARB‟s emissions 

reductions commitment, together with the adjustments to the 2014 

baseline inventories provided in CARB‟s 2011 SIP revision and 

the District‟s commitments, as adjusting the State‟s total 
116

emission reduction commitment such that the State is now 

obligated to achieve 129 tpd of NOx, 44 tpd of VOC, 41 tpd of 

SOx, and 9 tpd of PM2.5 reductions and reductions by 2014 through 

enforceable control measures to provide for attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast. See Table 3 below. The 

commitment numbers in this table do not include reductions from 

measures adopted by CARB and the District and approved or waived 

by EPA following submittal of the South Coast AQMP in 2007.

Table 3. 2014 Emissions Reductions Commitments for the 

South Coast PM2.5 Nonattainment Area

(tons per average annual day in 2014)

NOx VOC Direct

PM2.5

SOx

A Adjusted 2014 baseline 

emissions level1 589 518 95 61

B 2014 attainment target level2

460 474 86 20

C Reductions needed from control 

strategy measures (A-B) 129 44 9 41

D District commitments3

10.8 10.4 2.9 2.9

E CARB commitments (C-D)

118.2 33.6 6.1 38.1

1

From TSD, Table F-9.

2

See 76 FR 41562, 41573, fn 27.

3

See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix F, Table 1.

The level of emissions reductions remaining as commitments 

after adjusting the baseline to reflect updates and improvements 

to the inventories and crediting reductions from SIP-approved or 

otherwise SIP-creditable measures is shown in Table 4. We are 

approving the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 

AQMP to address the 1997 PM2.5 standards, based in part on these 

enforceable commitments. See 76 FR 41562, at 41577. 
117

Table 4. Reductions Needed for Attainment Remaining as 

Commitments based on SIP-Creditable Measures

(tons per average annual day in 2014)

NOx VOC

Direct 

PM2.5

SOx

A

Total reductions 

needed from baseline 

and control strategy 

measures and other 

adjustments to the 

baseline to attain

633 370 13 33

B

Reductions from 

baseline measures and 

adjustments to 

baseline

504 326 4 -8

C Total reductions from 

approved measures

59 20 8 41

D

Total reductions 

remaining as 

commitments (A-B-C)

70 25 1 0

E

Percent of total 

reductions needed 

remaining as 

commitments

11% 7% 8% 0%

As shown in Table 4, the majority of the emissions 

reductions that the State projects are needed for attainment of 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast by 2015 come from 

baseline reductions. These baseline reductions reflect numerous 

adopted District and State control measures which generally have 

been approved by EPA either through the SIP process or the CAA 

section 209 waiver process, in addition to the effect of the 
118

recent economic recession on projected future inventories. See 

2011 Progress Report, Appendix E and Appendices A and B of the 

TSD. The remaining reductions needed for attainment are to be 

achieved through the District‟s and CARB‟s commitments to reduce 

emissions in the South Coast. These aggregate commitments are 

shown in Line C of Table 3.38 Since the submittal of the 2007 

AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, the District and CARB have adopted 

additional measures that can be credited toward their aggregate 

emissions reduction commitments. The State‟s remaining 

enforceable commitments are shown in line E of Table 3.

As we noted in our July 14, 2011 proposal, we cannot credit 

District rules that have not been adopted, submitted to EPA, and 

approved (see footnote a to Table 3, 76 FR 41562, at 41570) or 

certain on-road or nonroad measures that have been given a 

waiver under CAA section 209. In our July 14, 2011 proposal, we 

presented a table with the State‟s remaining enforceable 

commitments (see 76 FR 41562, at 41575 (Table 7) of 70 tpd (11%) 

for NOx, 11 tpd (3%) for VOC, 1 tpd (8%) for direct PM2.5, and 0 

tpd (0%) for SOx. Today, we are slightly modifying our estimate 

of the State‟s remaining enforceable commitments for VOC. On 

July 15, 2011, we published a direct final rule to approve South 

Coast Rules 1143 (Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi-Purpose 

 

38Enforceable control measures adopted and submitted by CARB or the District 

and approved or waived by EPA may be credited towards this aggregate 

commitment.
119

Solvents) and 1144 (Metalworking Fluids and Direct-Contact 

Lubricants). See 76 FR 41744. We received adverse comments on 

this action with respect to Rules 1143 and 1144, and thus 

withdrew the direct final rule (see 76 FR 54384, September 1, 

2011). We are responding to comments received on the parallel

proposal but have not yet finalized that action, and therefore 

are adding those reductions to the State‟s remaining enforceable 

commitment for VOC. The effect of this action is to slightly 

increase the State‟s remaining enforceable commitment for VOC 

from 11 tpd to 24.5 tpd, an increase from 4% to 7%, and is 

reflected in Table 4 above. This remaining commitment is still 

within the range of 10% for enforceable commitments that we have 

historically accepted in approving attainment demonstrations. 

IV. Approval of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

We noted in our July 14, 2011 proposal that CARB had posted 

technical revisions to the motor vehicle emissions budgets on 

June 20, 2011 (see 76 FR 41562, at 41581 and 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm) to 

correct data entry errors in the budget calculations and to 

remove the emissions reductions attributable to the Assembly 

Bill (AB) 923 program (South Coast‟s light and medium duty high 

emitter program). In our July 14, 2011 proposal, we proposed to 

approve these revised updated budgets contingent on our 
120

receiving the SIP submittal from CARB with the revised updated 

budgets before our final action on the South Coast 2007 AQMP 

addressing the 1997 PM2.5 standards. These revised updated 

budgets were submitted by CARB as a SIP revision on July 29, 

2011 (see letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to 

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated 

July 29, 2011, with Attachments). We posted these budgets (as 

posted by CARB on June 20, 2011) on our website for adequacy on 

July 14, 2011 for a 30-day comment period which ended on August 

15, 2011 (see 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm). 

We received no comments on our adequacy posting, and have 

completed our adequacy review on these budgets (see the TSD,

Section J). We also discuss the basis for our approval of the 

budgets in the TSD, Section J. We identify the budgets that we 

are approving today in Table 5 below.

EPA is also approving the trading mechanism in the State‟s 

submittal for use in transportation conformity analyses by SCAG

as allowed for under 40 CFR section 93.124. The trading applies 

only to:

Analysis years after the 2014 attainment year.

On-road mobile emission sources.
121

Trades using vehicle NOx emission reductions in excess 

of those needed to meet the NOx budget.

Trades in one direction from NOx to direct PM2.5.

A trading ratio of 10 tpd NOx to 1 tpd PM2.5.

Clear documentation of the calculations used in the trade 

would be included in the conformity analysis. See 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revision, Appendix A, p. A-6. 

Now that the approval of the budgets is finalized, the 

area‟s metropolitan planning organization, the Southern 

California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation are required to use the revised 

budgets in transportation conformity determinations. Due to the 

formatting of the budgets (combining emission changes, recession 

impacts and reductions from control measures), CARB will need to 

provide SCAG with emission reductions associated with the 

control measures incorporated into the budgets for the 

appropriate analysis years in future conformity determinations 

so that they can include these reductions per 40 CFR section

93.122. In addition, for these conformity determinations, the 

motor vehicle emissions from implementation of the 

transportation plan should be projected and compared to the 

budgets at the same level of accuracy as the budgets in the 

plan, for example emissions should be rounded to the nearest ton 

(e.g. 11 tpd).
122

Table 5. Summary of Updated PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursor Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets for the South Coast PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

(tons per annual average day)

2012 2014

VOC NOx

Directly 

emitted

PM2.5

VOC NOx

Directly 

emitted

PM2.5

South Coast 

Air Basin

154 326 37 132 290 35

V. Final Actions and CAA Consequences of the Final Disapproval 

of the Contingency Measure Provisions

A. Final Actions

For the reasons discussed in our July 14, 2011 proposal, 

EPA approves, with the exception of the contingency measure

provisions, California‟s SIP for attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the South Coast nonattainment area, and grants the State‟s 

request for an extension of the attainment date to April 5, 

2015. California‟s PM2.5 attainment SIP for the South Coast 

nonattainment area is composed of the relevant portions of the 

South Coast 2007 AQMP as revised in 2011 and the South Coastspecific portions of CARB‟s 2007 State Strategy as revised in 

2009 and 2011 that address CAA and EPA regulations for 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the South Coast 

nonattainment area. 
123

Specifically, EPA approves under CAA section 110(k)(3) the 

following elements of the South Coast PM2.5 attainment SIP:

1. the 2002 base year emissions inventory as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR section 

51.1008; 

2. the reasonably available control measures/reasonably 

available control technology demonstration as meeting the 

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR section

51.1010; 

3. the reasonable further progress demonstration as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR section 

51.1009;

4. the attainment demonstration and supporting air quality 

modeling as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) 

and(6) and 40 CFR section 51.1007;

5. the 2012 RFP and 2014 attainment year motor vehicle 

emissions budgets, as submitted by CARB on July 29, 2011,

because they are derived from the approvable RFP and attainment 

demonstrations and meet the requirements of CAA section 176(c) 

and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A; and CARB‟s trading mechanism to 

be used in transportation conformity analyses as allowed under 

40 CFR section 93.124;
124

6. SCAQMD‟s commitments to the adoption and implementation 

schedule for specific control measures and to achieve specific 

aggregate emissions reductions of direct PM2.5, NOx, VOC, and SOx

listed in Tables 1 through 5 in Appendix F of the 2011 Progress 

Report to the extent that these commitments have not yet been 

fulfilled,; and

7. CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, 

as listed in Table B-1 on page 1 of Appendix B of the 2011 

Progress Report to the extent that these commitments have not 

yet been fulfilled and to achieve aggregate emission reductions 

of NOx, VOC, direct PM2.5 and SOx by 2014 sufficient to provide 

for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as described in CARB 

Resolution 07-28, Attachment B at p. 3-5, the 2009 State 

Strategy Status Report, p. 21, and in Table 3 above.

In addition, EPA concurs with the State‟s determination 

under 40 CFR section 51.1002(c) that NOx, SOx, and VOC are 

attainment plan precursors and that ammonia is not an attainment 

plan precursor for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

South Coast nonattainment area.

EPA also grants, pursuant to CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) and 

40 CFR section 51.1004(a), California‟s request to extend the 

attainment date for the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area to 

April 5, 2015.
125

Finally, EPA disapproves under CAA section 110(k)(3) the 

contingency measure provisions in the South Coast 2007 AQMP as

failing to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 

CFR section 51.1012. We also reject the assignment of 10 tpd of 

NOx to the federal government.

B. CAA Consequences of the Final Disapproval of the 

Contingency Measure Provisions

EPA is committed to working with the District, CARB and 

SCAG to resolve the remaining issues with the SIP that make the 

current PM2.5 attainment SIP for the South Coast nonattainment 

area not fully approvable under the CAA and the PM2.5 

implementation rule. However, because we are finalizing the 

disapproval of the contingency measure provisions in the South 

Coast 2007 AQMP, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) 

will apply in the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area 18 months 

after the effective date of today‟s final disapproval. The 

highway funding sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) will apply in 

the area six months after the offset sanction is imposed. 

Neither sanction will be imposed under the CAA if California 

submits and we approve prior to the implementation of sanctions, 

SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies identified in our 

proposed action. In addition to the sanctions, CAA section 

110(c)(1) provides that EPA must promulgate a federal 
126

implementation plan addressing the deficient elements in the 

PM2.5 SIP for the South Coast nonattainment area two years after 

[FEDERAL REGISTER OFFICE: INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the effective date of this rule, if we 

have not approved a SIP revision correcting the deficiencies 

within the two years.

Because we are approving the RFP and attainment 

demonstrations and the motor vehicle emission budgets, we are 

issuing a protective finding under 40 CFR section 93.120(a)(3) 

to the disapproval of the contingency measures. Without a 

protective finding, final disapproval would result in a 

conformity freeze under which only projects in the first four 

years of the most recent conforming RTP and TIP can proceed. 

During a freeze, no new RTPs, TIPs or RTP/TIP amendments can be 

found to conform. See 40 CFR section 93.120(a)(2). Under a 

protective finding, however, final disapproval of the 

contingency measures will not result in a transportation 

conformity freeze in the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review 
127

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 

regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled 

“Regulatory Planning and Review.”

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an 

agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals and 

partial approvals/partial disapprovals under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is 

already imposing. Therefore, because this partial approval/ 

partial disapproval action does not create any new requirements, 
128

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State 

relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA 

to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union 

Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 

1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany 

any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 

million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory 

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small governments that may be 

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
129

EPA has determined that the partial approval/partial 

disapproval action promulgated does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 

more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action 

approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and 

imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs 

to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private 

sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and 

replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 

13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 

“meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is 

defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have 

“substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that 
130

imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the 

funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by 

State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and 

local officials early in the process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 

federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 

Agency consults with State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed regulation.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

among the various levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities 

established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable 
131

process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 

tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will 

not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal government and Indian 

tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 

23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that

concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, because it approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions 

Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
132

Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to 

evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use 

“voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and 

applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. 

Today‟s action does not require the public to perform activities 

conducive to the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Population

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 
133

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in 

the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA‟s 

role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the 

criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely

approves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP

under CAA section 110 and subchapter I, part D and disapproves 

others, and will not in-and-of itself create any new 

requirements. Accordingly, it does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive 

Order 12898.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., 

as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take

effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule 

report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the 
134

Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. 

EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 

A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major 

rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). This rule will be 

effective on [FEDERAL REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from 

date of publication of this document in the Federal Register].

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [FEDERAL 

REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date of publication of 

this document in the Federal Register]. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 

judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the 

effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see 

section 307(b)(2)).
135

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation 

by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds.

__September 30, 2011_ ________/s/_____________________

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator, Region 9
136

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52 [AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as 

follows:

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

Subpart F – California 

2. Section 52.220, is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(xxx), 

(c)(xxx), (c)(xxx), (c)(xxx), and (c)(xxx).

§52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(xxx) A plan was submitted on November 16, 2007 by the

Governor‟s designee.

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) Additional Material.

(A) State of California Air Resources Board.

(1) Proposed State Strategy for California‟s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan, adopted on September 27, 2007.
137

(2) CARB Resolution No. 07-28 with Attachments A and B, 

September 27, 2007. Commitment to achieve the total emissions 

reductions necessary to attain the Federal standards in the 

South Coast air basin, which represent 6.1 tons per day (tpd) of 

direct PM2.5, 38.1 tpd of SOx, 33.6 tpd of VOC and 118.2 tpd of 

nitrogen oxides by 2014 for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, as 

described in Resolution No. 07-28 at Attachment B, pp. 3-5, and

modified by CARB Resolution No. 09-34 (April 24, 2009) adopting 

the “Status Report on the State Strategy for California‟s 2007 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revision to the SIP 

reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy,” and by

CARB Resolution 11-24 (April 28, 2011) adopting the “Progress 

Report on Implementation of PM2.5 State Implementation Plans 

(SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and 

Proposed SIP Revisions.”.

(3) Executive Order S-07-002, Relating to Approval of the State 

Strategy for California‟s State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

the Federal 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 Standards, November 16, 2007.

(xxx) A plan was submitted on November 28, 2007 by the

Governor‟s designee.

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) Additional Material.

(A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.

(1) Final South Coast 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, adopted 

on June 1, 2007.

(2) SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 07-9, “A Resolution of the 

Governing Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management 

District certifying the final Program Environmental Impact 

Report for the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, adopting the 

Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), to be referred to 

after adoption as the Final 2007 AQMP, and to fulfill USEPA 

Requirements for the use of emissions reductions form the Carl 

Moyer Program in the State Implementation Plan,” June 1, 2007.

Commitments to achieve emissions reductions (including emissions 

reductions of 2.9 tons per day (tpd) of direct PM2.5, 2.9 tpd of 

SOx, 10.4 tpd of VOC and 10.8 tpd of nitrogen oxides by 2014) as 

described by SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution No. 07-9, p. 10,
138

June 1, 2007, and modified by SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 

11-9, p. 3, March 4, 2011, and commitments to adopt and submit 

control measures as described in Table 4-2A of the Final 2007 

AQMP, as amended March 4, 2011.

(B) State of California Air Resources Board.

(1) CARB Resolution No. 07-41, September 27, 2007.

(xxx) An amended plan was submitted on May 18, 2011 by the

Governor‟s designee.

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) Additional Material.

(A) State of California Air Resources Board.

(1) Progress Report on Implementation of PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions, Appendices B and 

C. Release Date: March 29, 2011.

(2) CARB Resolution No. 11-24, April 28, 2011.

(3) Executive Order S-11-010, “Approval of Revisions to the Fine 

Particulate Matter State Implementation Plans for the South 

Coast Air Quality Management Plans for the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District and the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District,” May 18, 2011.

(xxx) A plan was submitted on May 19, 2011 by the Governor‟s 

designee.

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) Additional Material.

(A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.

(1) Revisions to the 2007 PM2.5 and Ozone State Implementation 

Plan for South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley (SIP 

Revisions), adopted on March 4, 2011.
139

(2) SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 11-9, “A Resolution of the 

South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board 

(AQMD) certifying the Addendum to Final Program Environmental 

Impact Report (PEIR) for the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, 

(AQMP), for a revision to the Final 2007 AQMP, to be referred to 

after adoption as the Revision to the Final 2007 AQMP,” March 4, 

2011.

(B) State of California Air Resources Board.

(1) CARB Resolution No. 11-24, April 28, 2011. Commitment to 

propose measures as described in Appendix B of the “Progress 

Report on the Implementation of the PM2.5 State Implementation 

Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air 

Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions.”

(xxx) An amended plan was submitted on July 29, 2011 by the

Governor‟s designee.

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) Additional Material.

(A) State of California Air Resources Board.

(1) 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and 

Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan 

Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basins, Appendix A, page A-5 (dated June 20, 

2011), adopted July 21, 2011.

(2) CARB Resolution No. 11-22, July 21, 2011.

(3) Executive Order S-11-016, “Approval of Revisions to the 8-

Hour Ozone State Implementation Plans and Technical Revisions to 

the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity 

Budgets for the South Coast San Joaquin Valley Air Basin,” July 

21, 2011.