Adequacy Status of 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 Motor Vehicle

Emissions Budgets in 2007 South Coast State Impleme ntation

Plan

We have found adequate for transportation conformi ty purposes certain 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 2007 South Coast State Implementation Plan (2007 South Coast SIP), as amen ded on April 30, 2008. As a result of our adequacy finding s, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCA G) and the U.S. Department of Transportation must use the adequate budgets in future transportation conformity determi nations once the findings become effective.

By letter dated November 28, 2007, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted the 2007 South Coa st SIP to EPA as revisions to the California State Impleme ntation Plan. On February 1, 2008, CARB submitted supplemen tal

technical information related to RFP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On February 12, 2008, we announced receipt o f the plans on the Internet and requested public comment by March 13, 2008. We received one set of public comments fr om Coalition for Clean Air, Earthjustice, and Natural Resources Defense Council. Our responses to these c omments are contained in an attachment to this letter.

On March 25, 2008, CARB proposed revisions to the 8

- hour ozone and PM 2.5 motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 2007 South Coast SIP and posted these revised budge ts on its website. In its March 26, 2008 letter to EPA, C ARB indicated that the proposed motor vehicle emissions budgets would replace the motor vehicle emissions budgets i n the 2007 South Coast SIP and requested that EPA paralle l process its adequacy review of the revised motor ve hicle emissions budgets. On March 27, 2008, we announced our adequacy review of the revised budgets and requeste d public comment by April 28, 2008. CARB adopted the budgets as proposed, and submitted them to EPA on April 30, 20 08. We received one set of comments during the second comm ent period from Robert E. Yuhnke, Adrian Martinez, and Michael Replogle (representing the Coalition for Clean Air, Coalition for a Safe Environment, Endangered Habita ts League, Environmental Defense Fund, East Yard Commu nities for Environmental Justice, and the Natural Resource s2

Defense Council). Our responses to these comments a re contained in the enclosure.

Through its April 30, 2008 submittal, CARB has replaced the original set of motor vehicle emission s budgets in the 2007 South Coast SIP with two sets o f motor vehicle emissions budgets, referred to as “SIP-base d” budgets and “baseline” budgets. CARB states that th e “SIPbased” budgets are consistent with the 8-hour ozone and

PM 2.5 attainment and reasonable further progress demonstrations submitted to EPA on November 28, 200 7, but are not identical to the original motor vehicle emi ssions budgets in the 2007 South Coast SIP. The “SIP-based ” motor vehicle emissions budgets differ from the original budgets in two ways. First, emissions reductions attributab le to the State’s strategy have been removed from the 200 8 8-hour SIP’s ozone motor vehicle emissions budgets and the 2009

PM 2.5 SIP’s motor vehicle emissions budgets. Second, the budgets, originally calculated using the South Coas t Air Quality Management District’s CEPA emission factor model, were re-calculated using EMFAC2007. EPA approved th e EMFAC2007 model for SIP and conformity purposes on January 18, 2008 (73 FR 3464); EPA has not approved CEPA fo r SIP development or transportation conformity analyses.

The “baseline” motor vehicle emissions budgets refl ect emissions reductions from rules that were adopted a s of October 2006 but, in contrast to the “SIP-based” bu dgets,

do not include new emissions reductions from the St ate’s strategy as reflected in the 2007 South Coast SIP. The “baseline” motor vehicle emissions budgets are also based

on EMFAC2007.

The State requests that EPA gives primary consideration to the “SIP-based” budgets in its ade quacy review, and only find the “baseline” budgets to be adequate if EPA cannot find the “SIP-based” budgets adequate in their entirety. Both sets of motor vehicle emission s budgets, as submitted on April 30, 2008, are shown in the following tables:

“Baseline” 8

- hour Ozone Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

8-hour ozone – summer average tons per day (tpd) Budget Year

ROG NOx3

“Baseline” 8

- hour Ozone Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

2008 215 427

2011 176 354

2014 150 287

2017 131 232

2020 116 190

“Baseline” PM

2.5 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

PM 2.5 – annual average tons per day (tpd) Budget Year

ROG NOx PM 2.5

2009 196 413 38

2012 163 337 38

“SIP

- based” 8

- hour Ozone Motor V ehicle Emissions Budgets

8-hour ozone – summer average tons per day (tpd) Budget Year

ROG NOx

2008 215 427

2011 162 320

2014 125 196

2017 111 167

2020 101 145

2023 93 128

“SIP

- based” PM

2.5 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

PM 2.5 – annual average tons per day (tpd) Budget Year

ROG NOx PM 2.5

2009 196 413 38

2012 139 276 37

2014 122 201 33

2023 89 131 37

2030 75 121 394

This transmits our decision that the 8-hour ozone and

PM 2.5 reasonable further progress “baseline” motor vehic le emissions budgets in the 2007 South Coast SIP, as a mended on April 30, 2008, are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. These “baseline” budgets are consistent with the State’s reasonable further prog ress demonstrations for 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 , and these budgets are based adopted control measures that have alread y been implemented. The budgets also meet the other adequa cy criteria, including being precisely quantified and clearly related to the overall SIP. Therefore, these budget s meet the transportation conformity adequacy criteria fou nd in 40

CFR 93.118(e)(4).

This also transmits our finding that the 8-hour ozo ne and PM 2.5 “SIP-based” motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 2007 South Coast SIP are inadequate for transportat ion conformity purposes. The “SIP-based” budgets includ e estimated emission reductions associated with a num ber of commitments for future rule adoption that lack spec ificity. As such, SCAG will not be able to accurately quanti fy

future emission reductions associated with the comm itments. Without additional specificity, it is also unclear how the “SIP-based” budgets are precisely quantified or rel ated to the overall emissions inventory and other measures. Therefore, these “SIP-based” budgets do not meet th e adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).

We have detailed our findings in additional enclosu re. A copy of the transmittal letter, this, and the tra nsmittal letter’s other enclosures will soon be posted on th e

Internet at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/ad equacy.h tm. We will also announce the findings of adequacy and inadequacy in the Federal Register . The findings will become effective 15 days after the Federal Register announcement pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f).1Enclosure 1Transportation Conformity Adequacy Review2007 South Coast SIP [Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and Attainment Demonstrations for8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5]Adopted September 27, 2007 (2007 South Coast SIP),November 15, 2007 (original motor vehicle budgets),April 24, 2008(revised motor vehicle budgets); Submitted November28, 2007 (2007 South Coast SIP, including originalbudgets),February 1, 2008 (supplemental material related toeight-hour ozone RFP), April 30, 2008 (revised motor vehiclebudgets).Adequacy Review Criteria(40 CFR part 93)IsCriterionSatisfied?Reference in SIP document/commentsSec.93.118(e)(4)(i)The plan wasendorsed by theGovernor (ordesignee) and wassubject to a publichearing by theState.Y The November 28, 2007 transmittal letter submitting the 2007 South Coast SIP with theoriginal budgets was sent by CARB’s Executive Officer, James Goldstene, the governor’sdesignee. CARB held a public hearing on September 27, 2007 on the plans and on November15, 2007 on the original motor vehicle emissions budgets. The April 30, 2008 transmittal lettersubmitting the revised motor vehicle emissions budgets was sent by CARB’s ExecutiveOfficer, James Goldstene, the governor’s designee.CARB held a public hearing on April 24,2008 on the revised motor vehicle emissions budgets.Sec.93.118(e)(4)(ii)The plan wasdeveloped throughconsultation withfederal, state andlocal agencies; fullimplementationplandocumentation wasprovided to EPAandEPA’s statedY Documentation accompanying the plan describes a public and agency outreach effort. See,e.g., the SCAQMD’s Response to Comments on the Draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan(February 2007), submitted by CARB on November 28,2007 as enclosure I-E, describing nineregional workshops held from October 24 through December 6, 2006 to discuss the draft 2007Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) released on October 10, 2006. The sequence of publicmeetings held to discuss the elements of the draftState Strategy for California’s 2007 SIP(State Strategy) is described in the CARB staff report developed for the CARB Board’sconsideration prior to adoption of the State Strategy. The State Strategy, adopted by CARB onSeptember 27, 2007, and submitted to EPA on November 28, 2007, is relied upon by the 2007South Coast SIP. EPA received a copy of the draft 2007 AQMP and draft State Strategy, andEPA’s comments were addressed. The revised motor vehicle emissions budgets adopted by2concerns, if any,were addressed.CARB on April 24, 2008, and submitted to EPA on April 30, 2008, included an interagencyconsultation process, in which EPA’s comments on the draft revised motor vehicle emissionsbudgets were addressed.Sec.93.118(e)(4)(iii)The motor vehicleemission budgetsare clearlyidentified andpreciselyquantified.Y/N Both the “SIP-based” and “baseline” budgets areclearly identified. The budgets are found atthe following website:http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm, and are located half waydown the page at the section titled “2007 South Coast and Coachella Valley 8-hour Ozone andPM2.5Plans” (Attachments 1 and 2). The “SIP-based” budgets are not precisely quantifiedbecause the new emission reductions do not result from adequately specified control measures.In contrast, the “baseline” budgets reflect controlmeasures that are already implemented anddo not include new emission reductions attributed to general commitments; therefore, thesebudgets are precisely quantified.Sec.93.118(e)(4)(iv)The motor vehicleemissions budgets,when consideredtogether with allother emissionsources, areconsistent withapplicablerequirements forreasonable furtherprogress,attainment, ormaintenance(whichever isrelevant to thegiven plan).Y/N EPA has preliminarily concluded that the “baseline” budgets, when considered together withall other emission sources, are consistent with therequirement to demonstrate reasonablefurther progress for eight-hour ozone (years 2008,2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020) and PM2.5(years 2009 and 2012). With respect to ozone, thisfinding is based on review of the plan’sozone RFP demonstration, as supplemented on February 1, 2008, that reasonably demonstratesthe required 3% annual rate of progress (averaged over each three year period) called for inEPA’s eight-hour ozone implementation rule. With respect to PM2.5, this finding is based onreview of the State’s RFP modeled demonstration that reasonably identifies PM2.5precursorattainment targets and thus establishes approximatelevels of emissions reductions necessary toachieve generally linear progress for the 2009 and2012 PM2.5RFP milestones, as required byEPA’s PM2.5Implementation Rule.EPA cannot determine that the “SIP-based” motor vehicleemissions budgets are consistent with the requirement to demonstrate attainment. The “SIPbased” motor vehicle emissions budgets incorporatenew emission reductions that do not resultfrom specified control measures that have been drafted or adopted in regulatory form (or havebeen adequately supported as a voluntary measure).Sec.93.118(e)(4)(v)The plan shows aclear relationshipbetween theemissions budgets,Y/N The emission inventories for all point, area, and mobile sources for 2002, 2014, 2020, and2023 are contained in Chapter 3 of SCAQMD’s Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan(AQMP). The control strategy that is relied upon for the “SIP-based” budgets is set out inChapter 4 of SCAQMD’s Final 2007 AQMP and AppendixIV-A, and in CARB’s Staff report3control measuresand the totalemissionsinventory.(http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/southcoast/scstaffreport.pdf) and appendices.The tables on pages ES-3 and ES-4 of the CARB StaffReport provides the on-road mobilesource emission reductions for PM2.5and 8-hour ozone, respectively. On February 1, 2008,CARB submitted supplemental information concerning8-hour ozone RFP. The plan, assupplemented on February 1, 2008, shows a clear relationship between the “baseline” budgetsand the emissions inventory, but does not show a clear relationship between the “SIP-based”emissions budgets, control measures, and the totalemissions inventory. The submittal datedApril 30, 2008 made changes to the budgets to reflect the use of EMFAC2007, but the changes(relative to those calculated using SCAQMD’s CEPA model) are minor and the emissionsestimates remain consistent with the RFP demonstrations for 8-hour ozone or PM2.5in the2007 South Coast SIP, as supplemented for 8-hour ozone RFP on February 1, 2008. The “offmodel” adjustments to the baseline inventory, as referenced in the footnote to the motorvehicle emissions budgets, for the motor vehicle emission budgets, are available on pages 73(NOx), 76 (ROG) and 79 (PM2.5) of Appendix A, the Emission Inventory Output Tables, ofthe May 7, 2007 update to the Revised Statewide Strategy for California's 2007 SIP. A link tothe document can be found at:http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htmThe document is available at:http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/apr07draft/revdrftappa.pdf. The reductions areassociated with the following rules adopted throughDecember 31, 2006: Reflash, PublicFleets, Idling, AB1493, and the Carl Moyer Program.The emissions reductions associatedwith the Carl Moyer Program have been adjusted by 47% to reflect only the on-roadreductions from Moyer programs. As stated elsewhere, the “SIP-based” motor vehicleemissions budgets incorporate new emission reductions from the State’s strategy that do notresult from specified control measures that have been drafted oradopted in regulatory form (orhave been adequately supported as a voluntary measure).Sec.93.118(e)(4)(vi)Revisions topreviouslysubmittedcontrol strategy ormaintenance plansexplain andY The budgets found adequate in this action constitute a revision to budgets previously submittedon November 28, 2007. The revision, submitted on April 30, 2008, explains and documents allchanges to previously submitted budgets.4document anychanges to anyprevious submittedbudgets and controlmeasures; impactson point and areasource emissions;any changes toestablished safetymargins (see 93.101for definition), andreasons for thechanges (includingthe basis for anychanges to emissionfactors or estimatesof vehicle milestraveled).Sec.93.118(e)(5)EPA has reviewedthe State’scompilation ofpublic commentsand response tocomments that arerequired to besubmitted with anyimplementationplan.Y SCAQMD compiled public comments submitted duringthe June 1, 2007 public hearing andduring the public comment periods. These comments and the responses are included in theFebruary 2007 “Response to Comments”(http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/modified/Response_to_Comments.pdf). ARB compiledpublic comments submitted during the September 27,2007, November 15, 2007, and the April24, 2008 public hearings and during the public comment periods. These comments and theresponses are included in adoption hearing transcripts(http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/meetings.htm). We havereviewed the compilation of commentsand responses and find SCAQMD’s and CARB’s responses to be acceptable. No issues thatmight have affected our adequacy findings remain unanswered.Reviewer: Rebecca Rosen Date of Review: May 6, 20081 Enclosure 2

Response to Comments

Response to Comments from Coalition for Clean Air, Earth Justice, and Natural Resources Defense Council (Rec eived: March

13, 2008)

Comment 1: The commenter requests that EPA deny approval of t he budgets on the basis that the emissions budgets are built on the foundation of an unapprovable SIP. The commenter fu rther notes that their comments on the deficiencies in the budg ets also highlight several areas where California’s 2007 Sta te Implementation Plan (SIP) does not comply with the minimum requirements of the Clean Air Act.

Response 1: EPA appreciates the above comments and will conside r all comments relevant to SIP approvability at the t ime of its comprehensive review of the SIP. EPA has considered all issues in the SIP that are relevant to its budget adequacy decision, and has determined the “SIP-based” budgets (except for the 2008

8-hour ozone and the 2009 PM 2.5 budgets) to be inadequate pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(e). In contrast, the “ba seline” budgets are consistent with the State’s reasonable further progress demonstrations for 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 , and these budgets are based on adopted control measures that have already been implemented. The budgets also meet the other a dequacy criteria, including being precisely quantified and clearly related to the overall SIP. Therefore, these budget s meet the transportation conformity adequacy criteria found i n 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).

Comment 2: The commenter asserts that the budgets must be adjusted to exclude benefits of the federal motor v ehicle control program. The commenter notes that the revis ed reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration submitted by t he SCAQMD purports to include some credit for the federal pro gram, but that the budgets have not been, and must be, revise d to reflect these changes to the RFP demonstration.

Response 2: EPA understands this comment to pertain only to 8- hour ozone Reasonable Further Progress. Additional information provided by the state demonstrates that RFP for Sou th Coast is met after adjusting for the non-creditable emission reductions from the pre-1990 California Motor Vehicle Control Program (MVCP) as required under section 182(b)(2)(D). The MVCP benefits are deducted from the total baseline emiss ion inventory2

and not the conformity budgets themselves. The addi tional information was provided to EPA by the State on Feb ruary 1, 2008 and made available to the public through EPA’s adeq uacy posting on March 27, 2008. EPA has made a preliminary revi ew of this information to support its adequacy finding today. Further details regarding the specifics of the RFP demonstr ation are outside the scope of the adequacy process, and woul d be considered during EPA’s SIP review.

Comment 3 : The commenter asserts that the budgets should be adjusted to reflect the unenforceability of marine vessel controls given that the Pacific Merchant Shipping A ssociation succeeded in PMSA v. Goldstene, No. 07-16695 (9th C ir. 2008) challenging CARB’s Auxiliary Engine Rule and thereb y undermining

the basis for the associated SOx emissions reductio ns included in the emissions budgets for the South Coast. The commenter also

has concerns about certain emissions reductions cla imed in the plan, including the 10 tpd of NOx emissions reducti ons in 2014

from EPA controls on locomotives. If the Federal em issions reductions are uncertain, then the commenter believ es that the budgets cannot assume them.

Response 3: The first part of the comment is outside the scope of EPA’s adequacy review. The State did not establi sh SO 2 motor vehicle emissions budgets in its PM 2.5 SIP, since on-road SO 2 emissions are not a significant source of emissions for the PM 2.5 attainment demonstration. Therefore, the comment re lated to the

9 th Circuit court decision on marine vessel control me asures is not relevant to EPA’s adequacy review. EPA will co nsider this comment, as appropriate, during its review of the S tate’s PM 2.5 attainment demonstration.

Second, EPA is finding the 2014 PM 2.5 motor vehicle emissions budget inadequate for transportation conformity pur poses, in part because CARB relies on additional locomotive N Ox reductions

from federal rules to demonstrate PM 2.5 attainment in 2014. On March 13, 2008, the EPA adopted standards to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter and NOx from locomotives and marine diesel engines. Although EPA’s 2008 final rule esta blishes new

emissions standards for locomotives and marine dies el emissions that will require aftertreatment devices for marine vessels, the final rule does not require that the implementation of these controls occur in the timeframe necessary to meet t he 10 tpd of NOx emissions reductions assumed by CARB in the Sou th Coast PM 2.5 attainment demonstration for the year 2014.3

Comment 4: The commenter is also concerned about the inclusio n of emissions reductions for the Refinery Pilot Prog ram.

Response 4: This comment is outside the scope of EPA’s adequacy review. We appreciate the comments relating to the pilot program and we will examine, when we take rulemakin g action on the plan, issues relating to the assignment of emis sion reductions to this measure. However, we believe tha t neither the RFP provisions nor the motor vehicle emissions budg ets that we are finding adequate depend upon emissions reductio ns from the pilot program.

Comment 5: The commenter asserts that California’s proposed u se of “black box” measures in the 2007 SIP fails to me et the requirements and intent of the Clean Air Act. The c ommenter identifies three fundamental problems with the way California is using this allowance in the Clean Air Act: the magn itude of the black box (approximately 280 tons per day or 55% of the

reductions needed from measures that still need to be adopted to attain federal air quality standards), the misuse o f the “black box” to delay implementation of necessary and avail able measures needed from vehicle retirement, and the vagueness o f the black box measures. In addition, the commenter believes that EPA should take into account the expected failure to at tain the 1- hour ozone standard by applicable attainment date o f 2010 and the purported lack of success by the State with res pect to “black box” measures in previously-approved 1-hour ozone plans in reviewing the “black box” commitments in the cur rent plan submittal. In sum, the commenter believes that EPA must direct

CARB to extract from the black box needed reduction s they know will not come from future technologies, reduce the overall size of the black box to a reasonable level, and better define where the remaining black box reductions are expected to come from.

Response 5: This comment is outside the scope of EPA’s adequacy

review. EPA will consider these comments and the is sues they raise when we take rulemaking action on the 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration for 2023. The question of whether the "black box" portion of the plan is approvable affec ts only the adequacy of the attainment year budgets, since the plan does not rely on "black box" measure reductions for RFP. As discussed elsewhere, we are determining that the 8-hour ozone attainment year budgets in the “SIP-based” budgets are inadequ ate for reasons documented elsewhere in EPA’s adequacy find ing. Please refer to other parts of today’s finding for further information.4

Comment 6: The commenter asserts that the control measures in the plan fail to satisfy the minimum CAA requiremen ts. Commenter asserts that many of the control measures in Califo rnia’s SIP submittal must, but fail to, include the following elements, which commenter has compiled citing various EPA doc uments:

(1) evidence of adoption of the measures in legall y enforceable form or a binding schedule for adoption ; (2) a description of each measure with “detail and clarity,” identifying which entity is responsible f or implementation and what “actions are to be taken;” (3) a “thorough demonstrate[ion] that the measures are capable of achieving the estimated emission reducti on benefits; ”

(4) an emission reduction estimate for each measur e; (5) provisions for monitoring and reporting on implementation and effectiveness; and (6) an “identification of and commitment to the fi nancial and manpower resources necessary to carry out the plan.”

Response 6: EPA has found the motor vehicle emissions budgets that include new emissions reductions from the gene ral

commitments submitted in the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 SIP to be inadequate for transportation conformity purposes. EPA has determined that these budgets are inadequate becaus e these motor vehicle emissions budgets do not meet the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv) and (v), as describe d elsewhere in today’s finding. EPA will consider the comments on the

control measures at the time that we review the SIP ’s attainment

demonstration for PM 2.5 nonattainment areas and 8-hour ozone

extreme areas.

Comment 7: The commenter states that EPA must require CARB and the SCAQMD to include new measures and strengthen e xisting

measures to achieve additional reductions. The comm enter asserts that the 2007 SIP does not include all feasible mea sures, and that several of the measures in the plan must be st rengthened to achieve additional emissions reductions. Moreover, the commenter asserts that CARB continues to rely on more polluti ng diesel technologies rather than requiring the use of clean er technologies and fuels to reach attainment sooner.

The commenter lists and describes nine new or revis ed measures that EPA should require CARB to pursue, including: (1) cleaner in-use off-road equipment; (2) cleaner in-use heavy duty truck rule;5

(3) smog check improvements, particularly related t o accurate SIP accounting for the failure rates for vehicles s hortly after being repaired for emissions problems and/or passing smog check, accelerating the use of remote monitoring of OBD systems to ensure that vehicle ow ners fix faulty emissions systems, and expanding the tes ting program to include PM; (4) commitment to developing an in-use monitoring e missions standard for PM for heavy-duty vehicles; (5) expanded proposal related to passenger vehicle retirement above and beyond natural fleet turnover; (6) improved measure related to consumer products i n relation to magnitude, specificity, and apparent reliance on a relative reactivity approach; (7) expanded commitment to create emission standard s for

recreational boats to include lower limits for ROG and NOx, a tighter implementation schedule, and inclusi on of evaporative emission limits; (8) better use of the SIP development and approval process to achieve synergies with State programs related to climate, lower carbon fuels, and advanced clean veh icles to achieve the greatest pollution reductions; and (9) improved commitment for off-road mobile agricul tural equipment to address enforceability concerns.

With respect to the South Coast AQMD, the commenter lists and describes five new or revised measures, including:

(1) certification and emission reductions from use of consumer products at institutional and commercial facilities, including such elements as tracking lar gevolume use of VOC emitting consumer products, devel oping and publicizing an inventory of the least VOC-formi ng cleaning products available in the market, and grea tly accelerating the evaluation and certification of lo w- and non-polluting alternatives; (2) extended exchange program, including specific p rovisions as they relate to recreational boats within the SOR E exchange program. (3) backstop measure for indirect source of emissions f rom ports and port-related facilities;

(4) strengthened AB 923 light- and medium-duty vehicle highemitter identification programs to include heavier vehicles, address particulate emissions, prioritize assistance to lower income participants, and increa se public disclosure of the programs performance; and (5) tighter, and better defined, timeline for to ac hieve

further SOx reductions for RECLAIM.6

Response 7 : EPA appreciates the commenters’ thorough comments on specific control measures included in the SIP by CA RB and SCAQMD, and will further consider these comments du ring its SIP

review. EPA has considered whether the SIP demonstr ates attainment for PM 2.5 or 8-hour ozone for purposes of its adequacy review of the SIP-based budgets. In taking action o n the plan, EPA will consider whether any additional commitment s would expedite attainment for these pollutants as well as other details related to the new commitments in the SIP ( other than on-road mobile commitments). The budgets that we ar e finding adequate at this time are only those associated wit h the baseline emissions for RFP milestones, and neither the RFP provisions nor these motor vehicle emissions budget s depend upon new emissions reductions from the stationary, non-r oad, or area

source commitments described in the above comment.

EPA will further consider the above comments when w e act on the

8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 SIPs. As noted elsewhere, EPA's adequacy review process is separate from EPA's completeness review or any future SIP approvability actions.

EPA's adequacy process involves a cursory review of the SIP's motor vehicle emissions budgets according to the ad equacy criteria at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). As described elsew here in today's finding, EPA believes that the State's "bas eline" budgets meet this adequacy criteria, including that budgets are precisely quantified and consistent with and clearl y related to control measures (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii) and (v)) . EPA has determined for its adequacy review that the Smog Ch eck reductions in the "baseline" budgets are consistent with the Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) reductions include d in the EMFAC2007 emissions factor model, which EPA approve d this model for SIP development purposes on January 18, 2008 (7 3 FR 3464).

The technical support documents to EMFAC2007 reflec t the most

current information used to assess the effectivenes s of the Smog Check program.

EPA notes that CARB uses the EMFAC motor vehicle em issions model to estimate emission reductions for the Smog Check program. The EMFAC model uses emission regimes to define the emi ssion level for each vehicle. Vehicles that fail Smog Check and then get repaired are redistributed among the emission regim es according to an after-repair move matrix. The after-repair mo ve matrices used in EMFAC are based on data collected by ARB du ring in-use vehicle studies. As part of the 2004 Smog Check Pro gram7

evaluation, Sierra Research analyzed data collected from roadside testing of vehicles. EPA will consider an y results

from this and other documentation in its future SIP action on

the South Coast SIP.

Further, the commenters do not provide any quantifi cation of the impact of these issues on the motor vehicle emissio ns budgets, nor do we have any other information regarding the magnitude of any potential miscalculation. Without this evidence , we are unable to consider the comment in our adequacy find ing.

Comment 8: The commenter asserts that EPA should require CARB to achieve greater emissions reductions from the use o f retrofits, especially tailpipe (after treatment) retrofits as has been mentioned in the International Sustainable Systems Research Center’s report, and from requirements to use clean er alternative fuels in the heavy-duty or light-duty v ehicle

sector.

Response 8: This comment is outside the scope of EPA’s adequacy

review. We appreciate the comments relating to retrofits an d

the use of cleaner alternative fuels and we will ex amine, when we take rulemaking action on the plan, whether the SIP sufficiently demonstrates attainment for PM 2.5 or 8-hour ozone. In this future rulemaking action, we will consider whether any

additional measures will be needed to meet attainme nt for these pollutants. As documented elsewhere in this letter , EPA has

found the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 attainment budgets to be inadequate for transportation conformity purposes.

Comment 9: The commenter asserts that EPA cannot allow the SCAQMD to assume a 100% rule effectiveness rate for its control measures and cites various EPA documents for suppor t for this

assertion.

Response 9: The comment primarily addresses SCAQMD's calculati on of stationary and area source emissions, rather tha n the State's estimation of motor vehicle emissions. As such, thi s comment is not relevant to EPA’s adequacy review of the motor vehicle emissions budgets. We intend to examine the issue r aised by the commenters regarding the compliance rate assumption s in the plan as we undertake our rulemaking action on the SIP.

Comment 10: The commenter concludes that the contingency measures in the plan are based on an erroneous inte rpretation of the law, and asserts that EPA must require that Cal ifornia include legally adequate contingency measures.8

Response 10: This issue is outside the scope of EPA’s adequacy review of the budgets, which is separate from EPA’s completeness and approval reviews. We will review the approvabi lity of the contingency provisions when we undertake rulemaking on the plan.

Comment 11: Citing EPA’s failure to adopt and implement necessary pollution reduction measures as an ongoin g problem with the SIP process, the commenter states that EPA must contribute more pollution reductions and include th ose reductions in California’s SIP. The commenter obser ves that EPA has authority to regulate certain sources of pollut ion that

neither CARB nor the Air Districts have and that at tainment of the NAAQS, EPA must exercise the authority it has o r must delegate more authority to air quality agencies in California.

Response 11: This comment is outside the scope of today’s decisions regarding the adequacy of the submitted m otor vehicle emissions budgets. However, EPA notes the commenter ’s concerns regarding EPA’s responsibility and authority to reg ulate certain sources of pollution. EPA has adopted several natio nal regulations that will result in significant emissio ns reductions benefits in the South Coast Air Basin, including th e Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (69 FR 38957, June 29, 2004) an d the Heavy Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diese l Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66 FR 5002, Jan. 18, 2001). M ost recently, on March 13, 2008, the EPA adopted standards to red uce emissions of diesel particulate matter and NOx from locomotiv es and marine diesel engines.

Comment 12: The commenter concludes that EPA cannot reasonably deem the emissions budgets adequate at this time, i n light of the specific defects in the emissions budgets, as w ell as the many defects in the currently-submitted SIP, that h ave been identified by the commenter, and must therefore fin d the submitted budgets inadequate.

Response 12: As stated above, EPA has found the motor vehicle emissions budgets that include new emissions reduct ions from general commitments submitted in the 8-hour ozone a nd PM 2.5 SIP to be inadequate for transportation conformity purp oses. EPA has determined that these budgets are inadequate becaus e they do not meet the transportation conformity adequacy criteri a found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv) and (v). The budgets th at we are finding adequate at this time are only those associ ated with the

baseline emissions for RFP milestones and control m easures that are already being implemented (“baseline” budgets).9

Response to Comments from Coalition for Clean Air, Coalition for a Safe Environment, Endangered Habitats League, Env ironmental Defense Fund, East Yard Communities for Environment al Justice, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (Received : April 28,

2008)

Comment 1: The commenter objects to the submitted interim budgets for PM 2.5 based on two broad concerns. First, the

commenter finds that the attainment demonstration f ails to identify the elevated concentrations of PM 2.5 in the near-highway environment, to estimate the emissions reductions n eeded to attain the NAAQS in the near-highway environment, a nd to include a control strategy designed to reduce these elevate d nearhighway concentrations to the level of the NAAQS. S econd, the commenter objects to the plan’s reliance on measure s that may not be implemented in the relevant horizon year (or at all), for the purposes of demonstrating attainment and RFP, c iting several source categories for which assumed emissions reduc tions may not occur due to legal challenges, outlying implementat ion dates, or reliance upon voluntary compliance.

Response 1: EPA believes that these comments are outside of the scope of its adequacy action on the motor vehicle e missions budgets. EPA will consider these comments on the PM 2.5 attainment demonstration and near-roadway particulate matter e missions when it takes rulemaking action on the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 2007

South Coast SIP.

Although EPA believes that these comments are outsi de of the scope of its adequacy action on the motor vehicle e missions budgets, EPA is concerned about the particulate mat ter exposure that is described by the commenters. EPA Region 9, CARB, and SCAQMD are currently undertaking both area-specific and more general monitoring and analytical projects to impro ve our understanding of the location, amount, and causes o f elevated near-roadway ambient concentrations. For example, t he SCAQMD has initiated a monitoring study to measure air polluta nts generated by the freeway traffic and to determine the impacts on adjacent residential communities along the I-710 corridor. T he study will compare pollutant levels measured at monitors locat ed adjacent to the freeway to pollutant levels at distances rep resentative of community exposure located further downwind (100 -300 meters).

First, EPA is only taking action on the 2009 and 20 12 PM 2.5 RFP budgets, which do not rely on the new emission redu ctions about which commenters expressed concern. These “baseline ” budgets are consistent with the State’s reasonable further prog ress10

demonstrations for 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 as well as adopted control measures that have already been implemented . Today, we have also concluded for purposes of motor vehicle e missions budget adequacy that the budgets, when considered t ogether with all other emissions sources, are consistent with th e requirement to achieve reasonable further progress pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv). This finding is based EPA’s curso ry review of

the State’s RFP modeled demonstration that reasonab ly identifies

PM 2.5 precursor attainment targets for the South Coast A ir Basin. Thus, this demonstration establishes approximate le vels of emissions reductions necessary to achieve generally linear progress for the 2009 and 2012 PM 2.5 Reasonable Further Progress milestones, as required by EPA's PM 2.5 Implementation Rule. The “baseline” budgets also meet the other adequacy cri teria, including being precisely quantified and clearly re lated to the overall SIP, as described elsewhere in today’s find ing.

In addition, we are not finding adequate the motor vehicle emissions budgets associated with the attainment ye ar because of our conclusion that new emissions reductions upon w hich the PM 2.5 attainment demonstration rests do not comply with t he transportation conformity adequacy criteria in 40 C FR 93.118(e)(4) that relate to having specified contro l measures.

EPA will consider these concerns when we take actio n on the PM 2.5 SIP's modeled attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress demonstration, and control strategies.

Finally, EPA believes that the commenters’ request to conduct additional procedures for adequacy review is outsid e the scope of today’s adequacy review on the South Coast SIP b udgets. In its July 1, 2004 final “Transportation Conformity R ule

Amendments for the New 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions f or Existing Areas” (69 FR 40041), EPA held that adequacy findin gs do not need to be made through APA notice and comment rule making. Today’s action followed the EPA’s established adequ acy process under 40 CFR 93.118(f), providing a 30-day public c omment period and the findings will be published in the Federal R egister before becoming effective. EPA has sent its respons e to comments received on the adequacy of the submitted SIP budge ts to the State along with its adequacy finding letter. EPA w ill also send our letter, response to comments, and Federal Regis ter notice to individuals who request a copy of these documents. EPA will also post its adequacy finding and FR notice on its adeq uacy website, as required by the transportation conformity rule. Please see the preamble to the July 2004 final rule for furthe r information regarding EPA’s adequacy process (40 CFR 40038-4004 7).