The EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld signed the following rule on March 15, 2016 and EPA 

is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version of this rule, it is not the official version. Please refer to the official version in a 

forthcoming FR publication appearing on the Government Printing Office website, https://www.gpo.gov/ , 

and on www.regulations.gov in Docket Number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204.

6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204; FRL- ]

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality 

State Implementation Plans; California; South Coast;

Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 

approving in part and disapproving in part State 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by California 

to address moderate area Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements 

for the 2006 fine particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the Los Angeles – South Coast 

air basin (South Coast) PM2.5 nonattainment area. These SIP 

revisions are the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, submitted February 13, 

2013, and the 2015 Supplement, submitted March 4, 2015. We 

are disapproving the Reasonably Available Control Measure, 

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACM/RACT), and 

Reasonable Further Progress elements of the SIP revisions 

because of new information indicating that the 2010 RECLAIM 

program does not meet the RACM/RACT requirement for certain 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

2

sources of emissions. The EPA is prepared to work with the 

State to correct this deficiency. We are not finalizing our 

proposed action on the District's ports-related commitment 

at this time.

DATES. This rule is effective on [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-

OAR-2015-0204 for this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 

IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-

3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), 

and some may not be available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during 

normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, 

(415) 947-4192, tax.wienke@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Throughout this document, “we,” 

“us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Background Information

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

III. Final Action

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background Information

On October 20, 2015, we proposed to approve state 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by California 

to address Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements for the 

2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Los AngelesSouth Coast air basin (South Coast) Moderate PM2.5 

nonattainment area. See 80 FR 63640 (October 20, 2015). The 

SIP revisions that we proposed to approve are those 

portions of the “Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan 

(AQMP)” that address attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

(2012 PM2.5 Plan), submitted February 13, 2013, and the 

“Supplement to the 24-Hour PM2.5 State Implementation Plan 

for the South Coast Air Basin” (2015 Supplement), submitted

March 4, 2015. We refer to these submissions collectively 

herein as “the Plan.” The EPA proposed to approve the 

following elements of the Plan as satisfying applicable CAA 

requirements: (1) the 2008 base year emissions inventories; 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

4

(2) the reasonably available control measures/reasonably 

available control technology demonstration; (3) the 

reasonable further progress demonstration; (4) the 

demonstration that attainment by the Moderate area 

attainment date of December 31, 2015 is impracticable; (5) 

the District’s commitments to adopt and implement specific 

rules and measures on a specific schedule; and (6) the 

general conformity budgets for NOx and VOC for years 2013-

2030 in the Plan.1

The EPA also proposed to reclassify the South Coast

area, including Indian country within it, as a Serious 

nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, based on the

EPA’s determination that the area could not practicably 

attain this standard by the applicable Moderate area 

attainment date of December 31, 2015. 

On December 22, 2015, we finalized our proposal to 

reclassify the South Coast area from Moderate to Serious 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.2 As a result of that action, 

California is required to submit, by August 14, 2017,

additional SIP revisions to satisfy the statutory 

requirements that apply to Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas, 

including the requirements of subpart 4 of part D, title I 

 

1 80 FR 63640 (October 20, 2015) at 63660.

2 81 FR 1514 (January 13, 2016). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

5

of the Act. The Serious area plan must provide for 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 

31, 2019, in accordance with the requirements of part D of 

title I of the Act.

In our December 22, 2015 final action to reclassify 

the South Coast area as a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area, 

we summarized and responded to public comments pertaining 

to the reclassification and its consequences and stated 

that we would, in a separate rulemaking, respond to 

comments pertaining to our proposed action on the submitted 

plan.3 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

The EPA provided a 30-day period for public comment on 

our proposed rule. During this comment period, which ended 

on November 19, 2015, we received ten sets of public 

comments on our proposal. Comment letters were submitted by 

Earthjustice on behalf of the Center for Biological 

Diversity, Coalition for Clean Air, Communities for a 

Better Environment, East Yard Communities for Environmental 

Justice, and the Sierra Club (“Earthjustice”); the San 

Pedro Bay Ports (Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, or 

 

3 Id. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

6

“the Ports”); Maersk Agency USA; NAIOP, the Commercial Real 

Estate Development Association; the Los Angeles Area 

Chamber of Commerce; Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union 

Pacific Railroads; the Pacific Merchant Shipping 

Association; the California Trucking Association; BizFed, 

the Los Angeles County Business Federation; and the Public 

Solar Power Coalition.4 Copies of these comment letters can 

be found in the docket. 

Many of these comment letters address only our 

proposal to approve the South Coast Air Quality Management 

District’s (SCAQMD or District) commitment to adopt a 

backstop measure related to ports and port-related 

facilities in 2015, as part of our action on the 2012 PM2.5 

Plan and 2015 Supplement.5 Specifically, the comments from 

the following entities focus entirely on this ports-related 

commitment: the San Pedro Bay Ports (Ports of Los Angeles 

and Long Beach, or “the Ports”); Maersk Agency USA; NAIOP, 

the Commercial Real Estate Development Association; the Los 

Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce; Burlington Northern Santa 

 

4 All comment letters are in the docket for today’s action at 

www.regulations.gov, docket ID EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204.

5 See 80 FR at 63651 (October 20, 2015) (discussing District commitment 

to “adopt backstop measures related to ports and port-related 

facilities in 2015,” also referred to as control measure IND-01, 

“Backstop Measures for Indirect Sources of Emissions from Ports and 

Port-related Facilities”).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

7

Fe and Union Pacific Railroads; the Pacific Merchant 

Shipping Association; the California Trucking Association; 

and BizFed, the Los Angeles County Business Federation.

Given the volume of these comments on the District’s portsrelated commitment, and the need for the EPA to further 

evaluate the issues these comments raise, we are not 

finalizing our proposed action on the commitment at this 

time and will respond to all comments pertaining to this 

commitment in a separate rulemaking.6 We summarize and 

respond below to all other comments pertaining to our 

proposed action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and the 2015 

Supplement.

Comments Regarding RACM/RACT

Comment 1. Earthjustice asserts that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

fails to meet minimum requirements for Reasonably Available 

Control Measures (RACM) because some sources covered under 

South Coast’s NOx Regional Clean Air Incentives Market 

(RECLAIM) program have not installed control technologies 

that are economically feasible and readily available. 

Citing recent rulemaking documents from the District’s 

 

6 The District’s ports-related commitment is not a component of the 

February 13, 2013 plan submission that is the subject of a consent 

decree in Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, No. 2:15-cv-3798-ODW (ASx) (C.D. 

CA.). See letter dated February 13, 2013, from James N. Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9, with attachments, and CARB Resolution 15-2, February 19, 

2015; see also 80 FR 79338 (December 21, 2015).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

8

December 4, 2015 amendments to the RECLAIM program,7

Earthjustice argues that the District itself has found that 

the current cap on NOx RECLAIM emissions is far above the 

level of emissions that would be generated if costeffective and readily available technologies were 

implemented in the South Coast air basin. Earthjustice also 

argues that the 2 ton per day (tpd) reduction in the NOx

RECLAIM cap (referred to as the NOx “shave”) included in the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan falls short of what is actually feasible for 

certain sectors, where “readily available technologies 

simply have not been installed because of too many credits 

in the NOx RECLAIM program.” For example, Earthjustice 

quotes the District’s statements in the “Draft Final 

Socioeconomic Report For Proposed Amendments to Regulation 

XX – Regional Clean Air Incentive Market (RECLAIM) NOx

RECLAIM” (hereafter “RECLAIM Socioeconomic Report”) 

indicating that the NOx RECLAIM program, as amended in 2005, 

has allowed numerous refineries to delay installation of 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) controls that the 

 

7 On December 4, 2015, the SCAQMD adopted amendments to the RECLAIM 

program to implement BARCT for NOx emissions from various equipment by 

establishing RTC reduction targets and RTC adjustment factors for year 

2016 and beyond (See SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 15-25, December 

4, 2015).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

9

District had identified as best available retrofit control 

technology (BARCT).8

Earthjustice acknowledges the EPA’s policies allowing 

for cap and trade programs to satisfy RACT by ensuring 

emission reductions equal, in the aggregate, to the 

reductions expected from direct application of RACT on 

individual affected sources but asserts that, in this case, 

“EPA cannot simply conclude that a 2 tpd shave to the NOx

RECLAIM program satisfies RACT because ‘RECLAIM [must] 

achieve[] reductions of NOx emissions from covered sources 

that are equivalent in the aggregate, to the reductions 

achieved by RACT-level controls.’” At a minimum, according 

to Earthjustice, “RACM requires an assessment of the NOx

RECLAIM program in light of new information that the NOx

RECLAIM program is woefully far from achieving reductions 

commensurate with ‘RACT-level controls.’” Earthjustice 

concludes that the District can either amend its NOx RECLAIM 

program to make it equivalent to RACT-level controls or 

adopt direct controls to ensure that readily available and 

cost-effective pollution control equipment is installed on 

many sources that have not installed these controls.

 

8 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.” California Health & Safety Code Section 40406.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

10

Response 1: The EPA has reevaluated the RACM/RACT

demonstration in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan in light of the 

commenter’s arguments and agrees that the Plan does not 

adequately address RACM/RACT for certain NOx emission 

sources covered by the RECLAIM program.

The SCAQMD adopted the RECLAIM program in 1993 to 

reduce emissions from the largest stationary sources of NOx

and SOx emissions through a market-based trading program 

that establishes annually declining NOx and SOx allocations 

(also called “facility caps”) and allows covered facilities 

to comply with their facility caps by installing pollution 

control equipment, changing operations, or purchasing 

“RECLAIM trading credits” (RTCs) from the RECLAIM market.9

Section 40440 of the California Health and Safety Code 

requires the District to monitor advances in BARCT and 

periodically to reassess the overall facility caps to 

ensure that the facility caps are equivalent, in the 

aggregate, to BARCT emission levels imposed on affected 

sources. Facilities electing to enter RECLAIM are exempted 

from a number of SCAQMD prohibitory rules that otherwise 

 

9 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix IV-A (“Stationary Source Control Measures”) 

at p. IV-A-13 (discussing CMB-01: Further NOx Reductions from RECLAIM –

Phase I [NOx]). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

11

apply to sources of NOx and SOx emissions in the South 

Coast.10

Under longstanding EPA interpretation of the CAA, a 

market-based cap and trade program may satisfy RACT 

requirements 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 all 

affected sources within the nonattainment area.11 The EPA 

approved the RECLAIM program into the California SIP in 

June 1998 based in part on a conclusion that the NOx

emission caps in the program satisfied the RACT 

requirements of CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f) for covered 

NOx emission sources in the aggregate.12 In 2005 and 2010, 

the District adopted revisions to the NOx RECLAIM program, 

which the EPA approved on August 29, 2006 and August 12, 

2011, respectively, based in part on conclusions that the 

revisions continued to satisfy NOx RACT requirements.13 We 

refer to the NOx RECLAIM program as approved into the SIP as 

the “2010 RECLAIM program.”

 

10 SCAQMD Rule 2001, as amended May 6, 2005, at section (j) (“Rule 

Applicability”).

11 59 FR 16690 (April 7, 1994) and U.S. EPA, “Improving Air Quality with 

Economic Incentive Programs,” EPA–452/R–01– 001 (January 2001), at 

Section 16.7.

12 61 FR 57834 (November 8, 1996) and 63 FR 32621 (June 15, 1998).

13 71 FR 51120 (August 29, 2006) and 76 FR 50128 (August 12, 2011).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

12

The recent SCAQMD rulemaking documents that 

Earthjustice cites call into question the efficacy of the 

2010 RECLAIM program in ensuring NOx emission reductions 

equivalent to RACT-level controls on all affected sources. 

Specifically, according to a November 4, 2015 draft staff 

report by the SCAQMD entitled “Proposed Amendments to 

Regulation XX, Regional Clean Air Incentives Market 

(RECLAIM), NOx RECLAIM” (hereafter “Draft RECLAIM Staff 

Report”), between 2009 and 2013, the RECLAIM market 

contained 5-8 tons per day (tpd) of “surplus” RTCs that 

created a dampening effect on RTC prices, bringing average 

RTC prices down to a range of $1,162 - $5,491 per ton 

compared to the average cost-effectiveness of control 

range, which is $8,300 - $13,000 per ton.14 As a result, 

according to the District, RECLAIM facilities opted to 

purchase these low cost “surplus” RTCs to reconcile their 

emissions at the end of the compliance year instead of 

installing controls to reduce pollution.15 For example, 

refineries did not install any SCR control technologies in 

response to the 2005 NOx RECLAIM amendment even though 

SCAQMD staff had estimated about 51 SCRs would be installed 

 

14 South Coast Air Quality Management District, “Proposed Amendments to 

Regulation XX, Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM), NOx

RECLAIM” (“Draft RECLAIM Staff Report”), November 4, 2015, at pp. 262-

264.

15 Id. at 264.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

13

by 2011.16 The Draft RECLAIM Staff Report indicates that SCR 

has been used successfully to control NOx emissions from 

various refinery operations and is considered a mature, 

commercially available, and cost-effective control 

technique for this source category.17 The District concluded 

in the Draft RECLAIM Staff Report that “[r]emoving surplus 

RTCs is therefore critically important to ensure the 

effectiveness of the RECLAIM program and meet state law 

requirements to require the use of BARCT for existing 

sources.” Likewise, in the RECLAIM Socioeconomic Report, 

the District stated that many of these unused “excess” RTCs 

were sold to operating RECLAIM facilities as a result of 

facility shutdowns and that “[t]hese excess RTCs have been 

artificially depressing RTC prices and have induced RECLAIM 

facilities to delay the installation of cost-effective 

controls.”18

 

16 Id. The RECLAIM Socioeconomic Report further states that despite a 

7.7 tpd NOx RTC shave implemented during 2007-2011 through the 

District’s 2005 amendments to RECLAIM, only 4 tpd of actual NOx emission 

reductions resulted from this shave, most of which were due to facility 

shut-downs and not measures taken to reduce actual emissions by 

facilities in the program. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 

“Draft Final Socioeconomic Report For Proposed Amendments to Regulation 

XX – Regional Clean Air Incentive Market (RECLAIM) NOx RECLAIM” 

(“RECLAIM Socioeconomic Report”), December 4, 2015, at pp. 1-2.

17 See, e.g., Draft RECLAIM Staff Report at Appendix A, Appendix B, and 

Appendix C (discussing technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness 

estimates for SCR and other NOx control techniques at refinery fluid 

catalytic cracking units, refinery boilers and process heaters, and 

refinery gas turbines).

18 RECLAIM Socioeconomic Report at pp. 1-2. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

14

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan cites the 2010 RECLAIM program as 

the basis for the District’s RACM/RACT determination for 

several NOx emission source categories, including cement 

kilns, boilers and process heaters at petroleum refineries, 

and other stationary combustion installations (e.g., steam 

generators and natural gas and/or oil-fired 

industrial/commercial/institutional boilers).19 The Plan 

also indicates that, for several source categories for 

which the District identified more stringent NOx controls 

implemented in other nonattainment areas,20 the District 

intended to reduce NOx emissions or conduct further study 

through “Control Measure CMB-01 – Further NOx Reductions 

from RECLAIM,”21 a measure that commits the District to 

achieve an additional 2 tpd of NOx emission reductions 

through a 2 tpd “shave” to the RECLAIM NOx emission caps in 

2015 if the South Coast area fails to attain the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS by then.22 The 2012 PM2.5 Plan does not explain how 

 

19 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix VI (“Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(RACM) Demonstration”) at pp. VI-13 to VI-17 and Table VI-5.

20 For example, with respect to boilers and process heaters at 

refineries, the 2012 PM2.5 Plan indicates that NOx control measures 

implemented in the San Francisco Bay Area are more stringent than 

regulations implemented in the South Coast area. 2012 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix VI (“Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) 

Demonstration”) at pp. VI-13.

21 Id.

22 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix IV-A (“Stationary Source Control Measures”) 

at pp. IV-A-13 to IV-A-16 (discussing CMB-01: Further NOx Reductions 

from RECLAIM – Phase I [NOx]), as amended by 2015 Supplement at Table F1.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

15

either the 2010 RECLAIM program or the additional 2 tpd 

reduction (“shave”) to the NOx emission cap described in 

Control Measure CMB-01 ensures that the level of NOx

emission reductions resulting from implementation of the 

RECLAIM program is equal, in the aggregate, to those NOx

emission reductions expected from the direct application of 

RACT on covered sources within the South Coast 

nonattainment area. The Plan does, however, state that 

there are approximately 8 tpd of “excess” NOx RTCs in the 

RECLAIM market, consistent with the District’s findings in 

the Draft RECLAIM Staff Report and RECLAIM Socioeconomic 

Report.23

Given the information in the Plan about “excess” NOx

RTCs in the 2010 RECLAIM program and the new information 

submitted by the commenters indicating that these excess 

RTCs have artificially depressed NOx RTC prices during the 

2009-2013 period covered by the Plan, thus allowing RECLAIM 

facilities to avoid installing technically feasible and 

cost-effective NOx pollution control equipment during this 

period, and given the absence of a demonstration in the 

Plan to support a conclusion that the 2010 RECLAIM program 

ensures, in the aggregate, NOx emission reductions 

 

23 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix IV-A (“Stationary Source Control Measures”) 

at p. IV-A-14.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

16

equivalent to RACT-level controls for these sources, we are 

disapproving the RACM/RACT demonstration in the Plan. 

Our proposal to find that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2015 

Supplement satisfy the requirement for RFP in CAA section 

172(c)(2) was based primarily on a conclusion that the Plan 

“demonstrates that all RACM/RACT are being implemented as 

expeditiously as practicable and identifies projected 

emission levels for 2014 that reflect full implementation 

of the State’s and District’s RACM/RACT control strategy 

for the area.”24 Our evaluation of whether the RACM/RACT 

measures would result in emissions reductions consistent 

with meeting the RFP requirement of the statute was thus 

dependent upon the approval of the Plan with respect to the 

RACM/RACT requirement. Because we are now disapproving the 

RACM/RACT demonstration in the Plan, we must also find that 

the Plan does not satisfy the statutory requirement for RFP 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As a result of our December 22, 2015 final action 

reclassifying the South Coast area as Serious nonattainment 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, California is required to submit 

by August 14, 2017 a Serious Area plan for the South Coast 

area, including provisions to assure that the best 

 

24 80 FR at 63654 (October 20, 2015).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

17

available control measures (BACM) and best available 

control technology (BACT) for the control of direct PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors shall be implemented no later than 4 

years after the area is reclassified.25 We note that, to the 

extent the State and District intend to rely on the NOx

RECLAIM program as part of the BACM demonstration in this 

new plan, the plan must include documentation sufficient to 

demonstrate that the NOx RECLAIM program ensures, in the 

aggregate, NOx emission reductions equivalent to BACT-level 

controls for covered facilities. If the State and District

intend to the correct the deficiency in advance of the BACM 

submission due August 14, 2017, they may do so by 

submitting revisions to the NOx RECLAIM program together 

with documentation sufficient to demonstrate that the 

revised program ensures, in the aggregate, NOx emission 

reductions equivalent to RACT-level controls for covered 

facilities. Either type of SIP submission would, upon EPA 

approval, cure the deficiency in the Plan’s RACM/RACT

demonstration for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

The Serious area plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

South Coast area that California is required to submit by 

August 14, 2017 must also include plan provisions that 

 

25 81 FR 1514 (January 13, 2016).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

18

provide for RFP consistent with the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(2). A Serious area plan that satisfies the 

statutory RFP requirement for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

South Coast would, upon EPA approval, cure the deficiency 

in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan’s RFP provisions.

Comment 2. Earthjustice argues that the RACM demonstration 

in the Plan impermissibly relies on mobile source measures 

that are not approved into the SIP and that the EPA 

continues to attempt to “illegally credit” waiver measures 

even though these measures had not been proposed for SIP 

approval by the time of the EPA’s proposed rule on the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan. Earthjustice further asserts that these waiver 

measures have never been reviewed for compliance with SIPrelated requirements, and that the public has no ability to 

review and offer comment on the EPA’s assessment of how 

these mobile source measures satisfy the CAA’s RACM 

requirements. Citing Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 

786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (hereafter “CBA”), 

Earthjustice argues that the EPA’s prior approvals of PM2.5

plans for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment areas were remanded for failure to include 

the mobile source control measures upon which the plans 

relied and that it is, therefore, premature to conclude 

that the RACM requirement has been satisfied.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

19

Response 2. As we explained in our proposed rule, in 

response to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in CBA, CARB 

adopted the necessary waiver measures as revisions to the 

California SIP and submitted them to the EPA on August 14, 

2015.26 Our proposed rule for this action stated that the 

EPA intended to propose action on these waiver measures in 

a separate rulemaking and that, “[o]nce approved as part of 

the SIP, the measures will be enforceable by the EPA or 

private citizens under the CAA.”27 Our proposed rule also 

stated that the EPA was “proposing to approve certain 

elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2015 Supplement in part 

based on our expectation that these waiver measures will 

soon become federally enforceable as a result of our 

approval of the measures as part of the SIP.”28

On November 12, 2015, the EPA proposed to approve the 

submitted waiver measures into the California SIP and 

provided a 30-day period for public comment on its 

proposal.29 As part of this proposed rule, the EPA evaluated 

the necessary waiver measures for compliance with SIPrelated requirements and proposed to find that they fulfill 

 

26 80 FR 63640 at 63652, n. 48 (citing letter dated August 14, 2015, 

from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, California Air Resources 

Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9).

27 80 FR at 63652.

28 Id.

29 80 FR 69915 (November 12, 2015).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

20

all applicable CAA requirements. The EPA expects to 

finalize this action in the near term, at which point the 

waiver measures will become federally enforceable under the 

CAA.

In the meantime, we agree with Earthjustice that the 

RACM/RACT demonstration in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan remains 

deficient pending the EPA’s final action to approve the 

waiver measures on which it relies. Because we are 

disapproving the RACM/RACT demonstration in the 2012 PM2.5

Plan on other grounds, however (see Response 1), this 

conclusion does not alter our action.

Comments Regarding Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

Comment 3. Earthjustice asserts that the EPA’s decision to 

not act on the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) in 

the 2012 PM2.5 plan is arbitrary and capricious. According to 

Earthjustice, the revised budgets in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

(2015 MVEBs) are significantly strengthened compared to the 

MVEBs for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS that the EPA approved in 2011 

(2011 MVEBs), which are “outdated and less protective.” For 

example, Earthjustice asserts that the 2015 MVEBs reflect 

more accurate emissions data as they are based on EMFAC2011 

and transportation activity data from the Southern 

California Association of Governments’ (SCAG’s) adopted 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

21

2012 Regional Transportation Plan, whereas the 2011 MVEBs 

relied on EMFAC2007, the prior transportation plan, and 

other outdated information. Additionally, Earthjustice 

claims that the 2011 MVEBs were “not sufficiently stringent 

because evidence shows the South Coast air basin has not 

attained the 1997 PM2.5 standard” and “certainly are not 

sufficiently strong to meet the 2006 PM2.5 standard and 

interim milestones to ensure attainment of this standard.” 

Earthjustice contends that it is arbitrary to allow 

the 2011 MVEBs to remain in place for the next 

transportation plan when revised budgets are available, 

especially in the South Coast where transportation 

emissions account for such a large amount of the PM2.5 and 

ozone pollution problems. Earthjustice further argues that 

it is critically important to have these revised budgets in 

place given the imminent 2016 transportation plan being 

prepared by SCAG.

Response 3. We disagree with these comments.

As we explained in our proposed rule, the 2015 

Supplement, which CARB submitted in March 2015, revised the 

attainment demonstration in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to identify 

December 31, 2015 as the applicable attainment date and 

included revised motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

22

2015 for direct PM2.5, NOx, and VOC.30 In July 2015, however, 

the District submitted preliminary air quality monitoring 

data that indicated that attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

by the Moderate area attainment date (December 31, 2015) 

was impracticable.31 Based on these air quality data, the 

District requested that the EPA treat the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 

2015 Supplement as a demonstration that attainment by the 

Moderate area attainment date is impracticable and that the 

EPA reclassify the South Coast air basin as a Serious 

nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.32 We therefore 

evaluated the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2015 Supplement as a 

demonstration of impracticability under CAA section 

189(a)(1)(B)(ii) and proposed to approve it based on a 

conclusion that it satisfies the statutory requirements for 

such demonstrations.

Section 93.118(e)(4) of the conformity rule states 

that “EPA will not find a motor vehicle emissions budget in 

a submitted control strategy implementation plan revision 

or maintenance plan to be adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes” unless specific criteria are 

satisfied, including the requirement in subsection (iv) 

 

30 80 FR 63640 at 63655 (October 20, 2015) (citing 2015 Supplement, 

Attachment C at Table C-1).

31 Id. at 63645 and 63652-53.

32 Id.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

23

that “the motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when 

considered together with all other emissions sources, is 

consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable 

further progress, attainment, or maintenance (whichever is 

relevant to the given implementation plan submission).” The 

2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2015 Supplement contain MVEBs only for 

the 2015 attainment year.33 The Plan does not demonstrate 

timely attainment and does not contain an approvable RFP 

demonstration or any RFP budgets. Because the Plan does not 

contain a control strategy that satisfies the requirements 

for RFP, attainment, or maintenance, the EPA cannot find 

that the MVEBs included with this plan meet the specific 

requirement in 40 CFR section 93.118(e)(4)(iv) that “the 

motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered together 

with all other emissions sources, is consistent with 

applicable requirements for reasonable further progress, 

attainment, or maintenance.” Therefore, we cannot find 

these MVEBs adequate for conformity purposes or approve 

them. 

Under 40 CFR 93.109(c)(2), in a nonattainment area 

that has no SIP-approved or adequate MVEBs but does have 

approved or adequate MVEBs in an approved SIP or SIP 

 

33 2015 Supplement, Attachment C, at Table C-1.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

24

submission for another NAAQS of the same pollutant, 

conformity determinations must satisfy the budget test as 

required by section 93.118 using the approved or adequate 

MVEBs for that other NAAQS. The South Coast air basin has 

no SIP-approved or adequate MVEBs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

but does have approved MVEBs in an approved SIP for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, which is another NAAQS of the same 

pollutant (PM2.5). Therefore, until the EPA finds that a 

MVEB in a submitted control strategy SIP for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS is adequate for transportation conformity purposes, 

conformity determinations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

South Coast area must satisfy the budget test as required 

by section 93.118 using the approved MVEBs for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Upon the effective date of the EPA’s finding 

that a MVEB in a submitted control strategy SIP for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes, or upon the publication date of the EPA’s

approval of such a budget in the Federal Register, 

conformity determinations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

South Coast area will have to satisfy the budget test in 

section 93.118 using such approved MVEBs for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS.34

 

34 40 CFR 93.109(c)(1).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

25

In sum, because the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2015 Supplement 

do not contain a control strategy that satisfies the 

requirements for RFP, attainment, or maintenance, the EPA 

cannot find that the MVEBs included in the Plan are 

adequate for conformity purposes and cannot approve these 

budgets. Accordingly, we are taking no action on the 2015 

MVEBs included in the Plan. Because the South Coast air 

basin has no SIP-approved or adequate MVEBs for the 2006

PM2.5 NAAQS but does have approved MVEBs in an approved SIP 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, conformity determinations for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area must satisfy the 

budget test as required by section 93.118 using the 

approved MVEBs for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, until the EPA finds 

that a MVEB in a submitted control strategy SIP for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes in the South Coast air basin.

The EPA recently approved an updated version of the 

California EMFAC model (EMFAC2014) for use in SIP 

development and transportation conformity in California.35

Upon conclusion of the two-year grace period on December 

14, 2017, EMFAC2014 will become the only approved motor 

vehicle emissions model for all new PM2.5 regional and hot-

 

35 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

26

spot transportation conformity analyses across California.36

Although CARB has until August 14, 2017 to submit a Serious 

area plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area,37

we encourage the State to submit this plan and revised 

MVEBs using EMFAC2014 before that date to ensure that 

conformity analyses for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South 

Coast air basin use the latest emission estimation model 

available consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 

93.111.

Other Comments

Comment 4. We received three comments from Harvey Eder on 

behalf of the Public Solar Power Coalition (PSPC). The 

commenter states his intent to incorporate by reference 

material submitted to the EPA on behalf of PSPC in several 

prior EPA rulemaking actions, EPA and presidential 

statements concerning solar power, and several unspecified 

magazine and newspaper articles, but does not identify the 

purpose for which he intends to incorporate these materials 

by reference. The commenter suggests that EPA Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) and Alternative Control 

Techniques documents (ACTs) “do not exist” and that these 

would need to be developed “before[] solar can be used as 

 

36 Id. at 77339.

37 81 FR 1514 at 1520 (January 13, 2016).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

27

RACT/RACM.” The commenter asserts that NOx is a precursor to 

both PM10 and PM2.5 as well as fine and ultra-fine 

particulates.

Additionally, the commenter asserts that it is 

reasonable to include solar power as a NOx control measure, 

and that the South Coast area needs a “100% ITSC Immediate 

Total Solar Conversion Plan by 2020-2023.”

Response 4: These comments fail to identify any specific 

issue that is germane to the EPA’s proposed action on the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2015 Supplement. To the extent the 

commenter intended to encourage additional evaluation of 

potential solar power installations that may reduce 

pollution in the South Coast area, the EPA encourages the 

commenter to participate in the regulatory processes 

carried out by the SCAQMD, CARB, and other State/local 

agencies involved in the development of air quality 

management plans in the South Coast. The EPA finds no basis 

in these comments to change its proposed action on the 

Plan. 

With respect to the commenter’s request to incorporate 

material by reference, the EPA generally will not consider 

comments or comment contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file-sharing 

system). For the full EPA public comment policy, and 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

28

general guidance on making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. 

III. Final Action

The EPA is taking final action to approve and 

disapprove SIP revisions submitted by the State of 

California to address attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area. These SIP revisions 

are the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, submitted February 13, 2013, and the 

2015 Supplement, submitted March 4, 2015. 

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is approving the 

following elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and 2015

Supplement:

1. the 2008 base year emissions inventories as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3);

2. the demonstration that attainment by the Moderate area 

attainment date of December 31, 2015 is impracticable as 

meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii);

3. SCAQMD's commitments to adopt and implement specific 

rules and measures in accordance with the schedule provided 

in Chapter 4 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan as modified by Table F-1 

in Attachment F to the 2015 Supplement, to achieve the 

emissions reductions shown therein, and to submit these 

rules and measures to CARB within 30 days of adoption for 

transmittal to the EPA as a revision to the SIP, as stated 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

29

on pp. 7-8 of SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 12-19 and 

modified by SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 15-3, 

excluding all commitments pertaining to control measure 

IND-01 (Backstop Measures for Indirect Sources of Emissions 

from Ports and Port-Related Facilities); and

4. the general conformity budgets for years 2013-2030 

listed in Appendix III, p. III-2-53 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan 

as meeting the requirements of the CAA and the general 

conformity rule. 

Simultaneously, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA 

is disapproving the following elements of the 2012 PM2.5

Plan and 2015 Supplement:

1. the reasonably available control measures/reasonably 

available control technology (RACM/RACT) demonstration for 

failure to meet the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1)

and 189(a)(1)(C); and

2. the reasonable further progress demonstration for 

failure to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2).

As a result of this disapproval, 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 

this action and the highway funding sanctions in CAA 

section 179(b)(1) will apply in the area 6 months after the 

offset sanction is imposed. Neither sanction will apply if 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

30

California submits and the EPA approves, prior to the 

implementation of the sanctions, SIP revisions that correct 

the deficiencies identified in this final action. 

Additionally, this disapproval action triggers an 

obligation on the EPA to promulgate a federal 

implementation plan unless California corrects the 

deficiencies, and the EPA approves the related plan 

revisions, within two years of this final action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and 

Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 

and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant regulatory action and 

was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose an information collection 

burden under the PRA because this action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

31

I certify that this action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements 

on small entities beyond those imposed by state law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as 

described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not 

significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This 

action does not impose additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private 

sector, will result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism implications. It 

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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not 

approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

32

demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying 

only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental 

health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe

may disproportionately affect children, per the definition 

of “covered regulatory action” in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

because it is not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use 

voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law 

or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

33

is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

NTTAA because application of those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address 

environmental justice in this rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will 

submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to 

the Comptroller General of the United States. This action 

is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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 [insert date 60 days after the date of 

publication 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 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

34

action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

_________________________ ________________________

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator,

EPA Region 9
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

35

Part 52, Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows:

Part 52 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.

1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as 

follows:

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

Subpart F — California 

2. Section 52.220 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(439) 

and adding paragraph (c)(471) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(439) * * * 

(ii) * * *

(B) * * *

(5) The following portions of the Final 2012 Air Quality 

Management Plan (December 2012): PM2.5-related portions of 

chapter 4 (“Control Strategy and Implementation”); Appendix 

III (“Base and Future Year Emissions Inventory”); Appendix 

IV-A (“District’s Stationary Source Control Measures”); and 

Appendix V (“Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations”).

SCAQMD's commitments to adopt and implement specific rules 

and measures in accordance with the schedule provided in 

Chapter 4 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan as modified by Table F-1 in 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

36

Attachment F to the 2015 Supplement, to achieve the 

emissions reductions shown therein, and to submit these 

rules and measures to CARB within 30 days of adoption for 

transmittal to EPA as a revision to the SIP, as stated on 

pp. 7-8 of SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 12-19 and 

modified by SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 15-3, 

excluding all commitments pertaining to control measure 

IND-01 (Backstop Measures for Indirect Sources of Emissions 

from Ports and Port-Related Facilities).

* * * * *

(471) The following plan was submitted on March 4, 2015, by 

the Governor's Designee.

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) Additional material.

(A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.

(1) “2015 Supplement to the 24-Hour PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air Basin” 

(February 2015), excluding Attachment C (“New 

Transportation Conformity Budgets for 2015”). SCAQMD's 

commitments to adopt and implement specific rules and 

measures in accordance with the schedule provided in 

Chapter 4 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan as modified by Table F-1 in 

Attachment F to the 2015 Supplement, to achieve the 

emissions reductions shown therein, and to submit these 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on 

March 15, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official 

version. 

37

rules and measures to CARB within 30 days of adoption for 

transmittal to EPA as a revision to the SIP, as stated on 

pp. 7-8 of SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 12-19 and 

modified by SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 15-3, 

excluding all commitments pertaining to control measure 

IND-01 (Backstop Measures for Indirect Sources of Emissions 

from Ports and Port-Related Facilities).

(2) SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution No. 15-3, dated

February 6, 2015.

(B) State of California Air Resources Board.

(1) CARB Resolution 15-2, dated February 19, 2015, “Minor 

Revision to the South Coast Air Basin 2012 PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plan.”

* * * * * 

3. Section 52.237 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(7) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.237 Part D disapproval.

(a) * * * 

(7) The PM2.5-related portions of Appendix VI (“Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACM) Demonstration”) of the 

Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (December 2012), and 

Attachment D (“Updated RACM/RACT Analysis”) to the 2015 

Supplement to the 24-Hour PM2.5 State Implementation Plan 

for the South Coast Air Basin (January 2015).