Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0185-0210
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; South Coast 1-Hour and 8-Hour Ozone
Posted Date: 2014-09-03T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52525-52538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20790]

[[Page 52525]]

Vol. 79

Wednesday,

No. 170

September 3, 2014

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 52

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; South 
Coast 1-Hour and 8-Hour Ozone and Approval of Air Quality 
Implementation Plan Revisions; State of California; South Coast VMT 
Emissions Offset Demonstrations; Final Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 52526]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0185; FRL-9915-86-Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; 
South Coast 1-Hour and 8-Hour Ozone

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the 
portions of a State implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of California on February 13, 2013 that relate to attainment of 
the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards 
in the Los Angeles-South Coast area. Specifically, the EPA is approving 
the portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Final 
2012 Air Quality Management Plan that update the approved control 
strategy for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and that provide a 
demonstration of attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by December 
31, 2022. In approving this SIP revision, the EPA finds that an 
attainment date of December 31, 2022 is appropriate in light of the 
severity of the 1-hour ozone problem in the Los Angeles-South Coast 
area and the limited emissions remaining that can be regulated given 
the extent to which emissions sources in the South Coast have already 
been controlled. As part of this action, the EPA is approving new 
commitments adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District 
to develop, adopt, submit and implement certain near-term measures to 
achieve certain aggregate emission reduction targets, updated new 
technology provisions, and a new commitment by the California Air 
Resources Board to submit contingency measures in 2019 as necessary to 
meet the emission reduction targets for 2022 from implementation of new 
technology measures.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may inspect the supporting information for this action, 
identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0185, by one of the 
following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking portal, http://www.regulations.gov, please 
follow the online instructions; or,
    2. Visit our regional office at, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically on the www.regulations.gov Web site and in hard copy at 
EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. 
While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some 
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location 
(e.g., voluminous records, large maps, copyrighted material), and some 
may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., Confidential 
Business Information). To inspect the hard copy materials, please 
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4192, 
tax.wienke@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On February 13, 2013, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 
submitted the Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (``2012 AQMP'') to 
EPA as a revision to the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (``South 
Coast'') portion of the California State Implementation Plan 
(SIP).1 2 The South Coast Air Quality Management District 
(SCAQMD or District) and CARB prepared the 2012 AQMP in response to 
EPA's ``SIP call'' under section 110(k)(5) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 
``Act'') for a new attainment demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 
standard for South Coast and to meet other CAA requirements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under California law, CARB is the state agency that is 
responsible for submitting SIPs and SIP revisions to EPA. CARB is 
also responsible for the regulation of mobile sources in California. 
Regional air quality management districts, such as the South Coast 
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or ``District''), are 
responsible for developing and adopting regional air quality plans 
and for regulating stationary sources. Once adopted, the plans 
developed by the regional air quality management districts are 
submitted to CARB for adoption as part of the California SIP and 
then submitted to EPA for approval or disapproval under section 110 
of the CAA.
    \2\ The South Coast includes Orange County, the southwestern 
two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino 
County, and western Riverside County (see 40 CFR 81.305).
    \3\ Ground-level ozone is an oxidant that is formed from 
photochemical reactions in the atmosphere between volatile organic 
compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 
(collectively referred to as the ozone precursors). The one-hour 
ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or ``standard'') 
is 0.12 parts per million (ppm). While the 1-hour ozone standard was 
revoked in 2005, certain SIP requirements, such as having an 
attainment demonstration, continue to apply in areas, such as the 
South Coast, that were designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone standards under EPA's ``anti-backsliding'' regulations 
governing the transition from the 1-hour ozone to the 1997 8-hour 
ozone standards. See 40 CFR 51.905.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the 2012 AQMP, CARB's February 13, 2013 SIP revision 
submittal includes the relevant CARB and SCAQMD board resolutions and 
other supporting material. The 2012 AQMP updates the approved 1997 8-
hour ozone control strategy,\4\ includes attainment demonstrations for 
the 1-hour ozone standard and the 2006 PM2.5 standard, and 
includes demonstrations intended to address the vehicle-miles-traveled 
emissions offset requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 1-
hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards. With respect to the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard, in adopting the 2012 AQMP, the SCAQMD indicated 
that, while the 2012 AQMP updates the approved 1997 8-hour ozone 
control strategy with new measures designed to reduce reliance on CAA 
section 182(e)(5) long-term (i.e., advanced technologies) measures for 
VOC and NOX reductions, it is not intended as an update to 
other elements of the approved 8-hour ozone control plan.\5\ The 2012 
AQMP contains a number of SIP elements for a number of pollutants, but 
we are taking action today only on the portions of the 2012 AQMP that 
update the approved 1997 8-hour ozone control strategy from the 2007 
AQMP and that provide an attainment demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 
standard. Specifically, the relevant elements of the 2012 AQMP covered 
by our action include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In 1997, EPA established an 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm 
(``1997 8-hour ozone standard'') to replace the existing 1-hour 
ozone standard. SCAQMD and CARB prepared the 2007 AQMP and 2007 
State Strategy (``2007 AQMP''), in part, to demonstrate attainment 
of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the ozone control strategy 
sets for the measures and provisions that the agencies intend to 
fulfill to meet the standard by the applicable attainment date. EPA 
approved the 2007 AQMP at 77 FR 12674 (March 1, 2012).
    \5\ See SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution No. 12-19 (December 7, 
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CARB's resolution of adoption (Resolution 13-3);
     SCAQMD's resolution of adoption (Resolution 12-19);
     The ozone-related portions of chapter 4 of the 2012 AQMP 
(``Control Strategy and Implementation'');
     Appendices IV-A (``District's Stationary Source Control 
Measures''),

[[Page 52527]]

IV-B (``Proposed Section 182(e)(5) Implementation Measures''), and IV-C 
(``Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures''); and
     Appendix VII (``South Coast 2012 1-hour ozone attainment 
demonstration''), which includes 4 attachments, one of which includes a 
demonstration of reasonably available control measures (RACM).
    In addition, EPA requested clarification of the commitments made by 
SCAQMD and CARB in connection with the 1-hour ozone attainment 
demonstration in the 2012 AQMP, and the two agencies responded with the 
following letters clarifying their respective commitments:
     Letter from Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env, SCAQMD Executive 
Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, 
May 1, 2014 (``Wallerstein Letter''); and
     Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to 
Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, May 2, 2014 
(``Corey Letter'').
    For simplicity, in referring to the elements on which we are 
acting, we are using the term ``2012 AQMP'' even though we recognize 
that the 2012 AQMP includes other elements in addition to those covered 
in this final action.
    On May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29712), the EPA proposed approval of the 
updated control strategy for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the 1-
hour ozone attainment demonstration, including the related emissions 
inventories, control strategy, and photochemical modeling. In proposing 
approval of the 2012 AQMP, we agreed with the State that an attainment 
date of December 31, 2022 for the 1-hour ozone standard in the South 
Coast is appropriate in light of the severity of nonattainment and the 
extent to which emissions sources have already been controlled in the 
South Coast. References herein to ``the proposed rule'' or ``our 
proposed rule'' refer to our proposal published on May 23, 2014.
    In connection with future baseline emissions in the South Coast as 
presented in the 2012 AQMP, we noted in our proposed rule that the 
baseline reflects regulations adopted by SCAQMD as of June 2012 and 
regulations adopted by CARB by August 2011.\6\ As we noted in our 
proposed rule, as a general matter, EPA will approve a State plan that 
takes emissions reduction credit for a control measure only where EPA 
has approved the measure as part of the SIP, or in the case of certain 
on-road and nonroad (or ``off-road'') measures, where EPA has issued 
the related waiver of preemption or authorization under CAA section 
209(b) or section 209(e). We also noted that, with certain exceptions, 
the relevant SCAQMD and CARB rules had been approved into the SIP, and 
with respect to the exceptions (recent amendments to SCAQMD Rules 1146, 
1146.1, and 1147 and CARB's Consumer Products Regulation), we 
anticipated taking final action prior to taking final action on the 
revised 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration.\7\ As anticipated, EPA 
has taken action on CARB's amended Consumer Product Rule and SCAQMD's 
amended Rules 1146 and 1146.1.\8\ As such, the future baseline in the 
2012 AQMP reflects, CARB and SCAQMD rules for which EPA has issued 
approvals, waivers, or authorizations and that are therefore 
enforceable for the purposes of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 2012 AQMP, appendix III, page III-1-1.
    \7\ With respect to SCAQMD Rule 1147, we determined that the 
future baseline emissions in the 2012 AQMP reflect emissions 
reductions associated with the version of the rule approved by EPA 
at 75 FR 46845 (August 4, 2010) rather than the 2011 amended 
version, and thus, approval of the revised South Coast 1-hour ozone 
attainment demonstration in the 2012 AQMP does not depend upon EPA 
approval of the more recent amendments to that rule.
    \8\ The EPA Region IX Regional Administrator signed direct final 
and proposed rules for the amended Consumer Product Rule, and the 
amended Rules 1146 and 1146.1, on August 5, 2014 and July 25, 2014, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The control strategy for the 1-hour ozone standard includes adopted 
measures (i.e., baseline measures that are reflected in the future 
baseline emissions inventories), committal measures, and new technology 
measures.\9\ The overall control strategy and emissions reductions from 
the various components are presented in table 4 of our proposed rule, 
which we reprint here for ease of reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``New technology'' measures is the terms used herein to 
refer to the provisions of the 2012 AQMP that update the 
corresponding provisions in the 2007 AQMP that anticipate 
development of new control techniques or improvement of existing 
control technologies. See section 182(e)(5) of the Act.

   Table 4 (From Proposed Rule)--Summary of South Coast's 1-Hour Ozone
  Attainment Demonstration Control Strategy (Summer Planning Inventory
                                 (tpd))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Emissions Scenario                      VOC      NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2008 Base Year \a\...............................      593      754
    Emission Reductions from Baseline Measures........      153      419
Year 2022 Baseline....................................      440      335
    SCAQMD's New Aggregate Emissions Reduction                6       11
     Commitment.......................................
    CARB's Existing Aggregate Emissions Reduction             7       24
     Commitment.......................................
        New Technology Provisions.....................       17      150
Year 2022 With Fulfillment of Commitments.............      410      150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The modeling runs that were used to demonstrate attainment of the 1-
  hour ozone standard in the 2012 AQMP were based on the base year
  (2008) summer planning inventories (see table 1 from our proposed
  rule) with adjustments made for weekly and daily temperature
  variations. See 2012 AQMP, appendix VII, page VII-51.

    With respect to the ozone control strategy, we proposed that the 
2012 AQMP provides for implementation of all RACM and that the 
committal measures and new technology measures relied upon to achieve 
necessary emissions reductions were approvable. Specifically, we 
proposed to approve the new commitments by the SCAQMD to develop, 
adopt, submit and implement 15 new measures as expeditiously as 
possible to achieve, in the aggregate, emissions reductions of 6 tons 
per day (tpd) of VOC and 11 tpd of NOX by January 1, 2022, 
and to substitute any other measures as necessary to make up any 
emission reduction shortfall.\10\ The 15 new SCAQMD measures are 
summarized in table 5 of our proposed rule, which we reprint here for 
ease of reference. For a

[[Page 52528]]

detailed description of the measures to which the SCAQMD has committed, 
please see appendix VI-A of the 2012 AQMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In our proposed rule, we erroneously described the SCAQMD's 
aggregate emissions reductions commitment as 5.8 tpd of VOC and 10.7 
tpd of NOX. However, as corrected, the commitment is for 
6 tpd of VOC and 11 tpd of NOX. See pages 7 and 8 of 
SCAQMD Resolution No. 12-19, table 4-11 of the 2012 AQMP, and the 
Wallerstein Letter.

   Table 5 (From Proposed Rule)--District Control Measures in 2012 AQMP 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Reduction  (tons per day
                                                                                            (tpd))  by 2023
           Number and title                   Adoption         Implementation period ---------------------------
                                                                                           VOC           NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTS-01--Further VOC Reductions from    2015-2016.............  2018-2020............           2-4  ............
 Architectural Coatings (Rule 1113).
CTS-02--Further Emission Reduction     2013-2016.............  2015-2018............           1-2  ............
 from Miscellaneous Coatings,
 Adhesives, Solvents and Lubricants.
CTS-03--Further VOC Reductions from    2014..................  2016.................         0.8-2  ............
 Mold Release Products.
CMB-01--Further NOX Reductions from    2015..................  2020.................  ............           3-5
 RECLAIM.
CMB-02--NOX Reductions from Biogas     2015..................  Beginning 2017.......  ............           (1)
 Flares.
CMB-03--Reductions from Commercial     Phase I--2014 (Tech     Beginning 2018.......  ............          0.18
 Space Heating.                         Assessment), Phase
                                        II--2016.
FUG-01--VOC Reductions from Vacuum     2014..................  2016.................             1  ............
 Trucks.
FUG-02--Emission Reduction from LPG    2015..................  2017.................           1-2  ............
 Transfer and Dispensing--Phase II.
FUG-03--Further Reductions from        2015-2016.............  2017-2018............           1-2  ............
 Fugitive VOC Emissions.
MCS-01--Application of All Feasible    Ongoing...............  Ongoing..............           (1)           (1)
 Measures.
MCS-02--Further Emission Reductions    2015..................  2016.................             1  ............
 from Green waste Processing
 (Chipping and Grinding Operations
 not associated with composting).
MCS-03--Improved Start-up, Shutdown    Phase I--2012 (Tech     Phase I--2013 (Tech             (1)           (1)
 and Turnaround Procedures.             Assessment), Phase      Assessment), Phase
                                        II--TBD.                II--TBD.
INC-01--Economic Incentive Programs    2014..................  Within 12 months       ............           (1)
 to Adopt Zero and Near-Zero                                    after funding
 Technologies.                                                  availability.
INC-02--Expedited Permitting and CEQA  2014-2015.............  Beginning 2015.......           (2)           (2)
 Preparation Facilitating the
 Manufacturing of Zero and Near-Zero
 Technologies.
EDU-01--Further Criteria Pollutant     Ongoing...............  Ongoing..............           (2)           (2)
 Reductions from Education, Outreach
 and Incentives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2012 AQMP, table 4-4. Note: TBD = to be determined once the specific inventory and control approach for
  the measure are identified. N/A = not applicable given nature of the measure.
\1\ TBD.
\2\ N/A.

    We noted in our proposed rule that CARB did not make a new 
aggregate emissions reduction commitment for the purposes of 
demonstrating attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by December 31, 
2022 in the South Coast, but instead relies on the EPA-approved 
aggregate emissions reduction commitment under the 2007 AQMP, which 
will provide 7 tpd of VOC and 24 tpd of NOX reductions by 
January 1, 2022. Considered together, the SCAQMD's new aggregate 
emissions reductions commitment and CARB's existing aggregate emissions 
reductions commitment under the 2007 AQMP amount to 13 tpd of VOC and 
35 tpd of NOX for the purposes of 1-hour attainment in the 
South Coast by December 31, 2022.
    We also proposed to approve, as authorized under section 182(e)(5) 
of the CAA, provisions that anticipate development of new control 
techniques or improvement of existing control technologies. The 2012 
AQMP relies on such provisions to achieve emissions reductions of 17 
tpd of VOC and 150 tpd of NOX by January 1, 2022 for 1-hour 
ozone attainment demonstration purposes. Consistent with the 
requirements for CAA section 182(e)(5), we proposed to approve a 
related commitment by CARB to develop, adopt, and submit contingency 
measures by January 1, 2019 to be implemented if the anticipated 
technologies do not achieve the planned reductions.\11\ The 2012 AQMP 
frames the section 182(e)(5) provisions in terms of specific measures 
referred to herein as ``new technology measures.'' These measures are 
summarized in table 6 of our proposed rule, which we reprint here for 
ease of reference. See 2012 AQMP, appendix IV-B for a detailed 
description of the measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ We interpret CARB's contingency measure commitment to be 
for January 1, 2019 based on the requirement in section 182(e)(5) 
that such measures must be submitted ``no later than 3 years before 
proposed implementation of the [advanced control technologies 
measures].''

[[Page 52529]]

               Table 6 (From Proposed Rule)--SCAQMD and CARB New Technology Measures in 2012 AQMP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  2012 AQMP  Measure
      identifier                     Title                                     Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ONRD-01...............  Accelerated Penetration of       This measure continues implementation of CARB's Clean
                         Partial Zero-Emission and Zero   Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) through 2023 with a
                         Emission Vehicles.               minimum number of 1,000 vehicles per year to be
                                                          incentivized through the CVRP, which provides
                                                          individual vehicle incentives of up to certain amounts
                                                          (e.g., $2,500 for full zero-emission vehicles) for
                                                          clean vehicles.
ONRD-02...............  Accelerated Retirement of Older  This measure calls for retirement of, at a minimum,
                         Light-Duty and Medium Duty       2,000 light and medium-duty vehicles per year to 2023,
                         Vehicles.                        and gives first priority to pre-1992 model year
                                                          vehicles identified as high emitter and that are off-
                                                          cycle to California's Smog Check Program. Incentives
                                                          are up to $2,500 per vehicle which could include a
                                                          replacement voucher under CARB's Enhanced Fleet
                                                          Modernization Program.
ONRD-03...............  Accelerated Penetration of       This measure seeks additional emissions reductions
                         Partial Zero-Emission and Zero   through the early introduction of electric hybrid
                         Emission Light-Heavy- and        vehicles and continues the state hybrid truck and bus
                         Medium-Heavy-Duty Vehicles.      voucher incentive project (HVIP). Incentives of up to
                                                          $25,000 per vehicle are part of this measure. The
                                                          measure's goal is to fund 1,000 hybrid and zero-
                                                          emission vehicles each year to 2023.
ONRD-04...............  Accelerated Retirement of Older  This measure seeks additional emissions reductions from
                         On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles.     older, pre-2010 heavy-duty vehicles beyond the
                                                          emission reductions targeted in CARB's Truck and Bus
                                                          Regulation. A significant number of heavy-duty trucks
                                                          have been replaced through Proposition 1B Goods
                                                          Movement Emission Reduction Program funding, the Carl
                                                          Moyer Program, and other local incentives programs.
                                                          This measure continues these programs through 2023.
ONRD-05...............  Further Emission Reductions      This measure calls for CARB to adopt a regulation or
                         from Heavy-Duty Vehicles         other enforceable mechanism to further reduce
                         Serving Near-Dock Railyards.     emissions from near-dock railyard drayage trucks. The
                                                          regulation or other enforcement mechanism would
                                                          require, by 2020, all containers transported between
                                                          the marine ports and the near-dock railyards to use
                                                          zero-emission technologies.
OFFRD-01..............  Extension of the SOON Provision  This measure seeks to reduce emissions from older, high-
                         for Construction/Industrial      emitting off-road diesel engines. Under this measure,
                         Equipment.                       incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and
                                                          the SOON Provision of CARB's Off-Road rule, would
                                                          continue to be used to fund equipment replacement and
                                                          engine repower projects. This measure would extend the
                                                          current SOON program beyond 2014 to 2023.
OFFRD-02..............  Further Emission Reductions      This measure carries forward the freight locomotive new
                         from Freight Locomotives.        technology measures from the 2007 AQMP and calls for
                                                          replacing existing locomotive engines with Tier 4
                                                          engines beginning in 2015 such that by 2023, there
                                                          will be at least 95% Tier 4 locomotives operating the
                                                          South Coast.
OFFRD-03..............  Further Emission Reductions      Metrolink's Board has adopted a locomotive replacement
                         from Passenger Locomotives.      plan which includes the procurement of Tier 4
                                                          locomotive engines to replace its 30 Tier 0
                                                          locomotives over a three-year period. In addition, the
                                                          replacement plans call for repowering the existing
                                                          Tier 2 locomotives to Tier 4 emission levels,
                                                          resulting in 100% Tier 4 locomotives by 2023.
OFFRD-04..............  Further Emission Reductions      This measure focuses on ocean-going vessels not subject
                         from Ocean-Going Marine          to CARB's shorepower regulation and seeks to deploy
                         Vessels While at Berth.          shorepower technologies for an additional 25 percent
                                                          of the calls not subject to CARB's shorepower
                                                          regulation.
OFFRD-05..............  Emission Reductions from Ocean-  This measure calls for incentives to be used to
                         Going Marine Vessels.            maximize the early introduction and preferential
                                                          deployment of vessels to the San Pedro Bay Ports with
                                                          cleaner/new engines meeting the new Tier 2 and Tier 3
                                                          IMO NOX standards.
ADV-01................  Actions for the Deployment of    This measure includes two sets of actions. The first
                         Zero and Near-Zero Emission On-  set involves the establishment of an optional NOX
                         Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles.        exhaust emission standard that is at least 95 percent
                                                          lower than the current 2010 on-road exhaust emissions
                                                          standard. The second set is to develop zero-emission
                                                          technologies for heavy-duty vehicles that can be
                                                          deployed in the 2015 to 2035 timeframe.
ADV-02................  Actions for the Deployment of    This measure describes actions needed to commercialize
                         Zero-Emission and Near-Zero      advanced zero-emission and near-zero emission
                         Locomotives.                     technologies for locomotives that could be deployed in
                                                          the 2020 to 2030 timeframe.
ADV-03................  Actions for the Deployment of    This measure describes actions to demonstrate and
                         Zero-Emission and Near-Zero      commercialize advanced zero-emission and near-zero
                         Cargo Handling Equipment.        emission technologies for cargo handling equipment
                                                          operated at marine ports, intermodal freight
                                                          facilities, and warehouse distribution centers that
                                                          could be deployed in the 2020 to 2030 timeframe.
ADV-04................  Actions for the Deployment of    This measure describes actions needed to commercialize
                         Cleaner Commercial Harbor        advanced engine control technologies and hybrid
                         Craft.                           systems for commercial harbor craft that could be
                                                          deployed in the 2020 to 2030 timeframe.
ADV-05................  Actions for Deployment of        This measure describes the actions needed to deploy
                         Cleaner Ocean-Going Marine       retrofit technologies on existing Category 3 marine
                         Vessels.                         engines to achieve Tier 3 marine engine emissions
                                                          standards.
ADV-06................  Actions for the Deployment of    This measure describes the actions needed to
                         Cleaner Off-Road Equipment.      commercialize advanced zero-emission and near-zero
                                                          emission technologies of off-road equipment that could
                                                          be deployed in the 2020 to 2030 timeframe.

[[Page 52530]]

 
ADV-07................  Actions for the Deployment of    This measure describes the actions needed to develop,
                         Cleaner Aircraft Engines.        demonstrate, and commercialize advanced technologies,
                                                          procedures, and sustainable alternative jet fuels that
                                                          could be deployed in the 2020 to 2030 timeframe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A more detailed discussion of the ozone NAAQS, ozone SIP plans for 
the South Coast, EPA's SIP call for a new 1-hour ozone attainment 
demonstration as well as the 2012 AQMP and our evaluation of how it 
meets the requirements of the CAA can be found in our proposed rule. 
The EPA is approving the 2012 AQMP based on our determination that it 
complies with applicable CAA requirements and provides for expeditious 
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the South Coast.

II. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses

    Our proposed rule provided a 30-day comment period. During this 
period, we received a comment letter from Earthjustice on behalf of a 
number of community and environmental groups, including Communities for 
a Better Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for 
Social Responsibility--Los Angeles, and Sierra Club (herein, referred 
to collectively as ``Earthjustice''); and a number of emails and 
attachments from a member of the public representing the Public Solar 
Power Coalition (``PSPC'' herein). The attachments from PSPC included a 
copy of the clerk's transcript of case documents from the Superior 
Court, Los Angeles County, to the Second District Court of Appeal upon 
appeal of Eder v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SC 
119641).\12\ We provide our responses to the comments in the paragraphs 
below. We have organized the comments and responses under the related 
major topics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In its emails to EPA, PSPC did not specify how the 500+ 
pages of clerk's transcript, included as attachments to their 
emails, are relevant to our May 23, 2014 proposed rule. PSPC's 
emails also include links to several Web sites and the emails 
indicate that the documents and studies available through these web 
links are to be included in the record. Again, however, PSPC did not 
specify how these materials relate to our proposed rule. Therefore, 
other than acknowledging receipt of the attachments and web links, 
EPA has no further response to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One-Hour Ozone Attainment Date

    Comment 1: Earthjustice asserts that EPA erred in relying on CAA 
sections 110(k)(5) and 172(a)(2) to set the South Coast's attainment 
deadline for the 1-hour standard and was required instead to use 
section 179(d)(3). Earthjustice further asserts that, if EPA had acted 
correctly, the attainment date would be no later than 2021 rather than 
2022.
    Response 1: This comment is not timely and is not relevant to the 
current rulemaking. The EPA established the new attainment date for the 
1-hour ozone standard in the South Coast in our final SIP call rule, 
which was issued on January 7, 2013. See 78 FR 889 (``The SIP must 
provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the South Coast 
nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 
five years from the effective date of today's rule, unless the State 
can demonstrate that it needs up to an additional five years to attain 
in light of the severity of the nonattainment problem and the 
availability and feasibility of control measures.'')
    The 2012 AQMP provides a demonstration of attainment by December 
31, 2022 and our proposed rule finds that an attainment date of 
December 31, 2022 is appropriate in light of the severity of the 1-hour 
ozone problem in the South Coast and the extent to which emission 
sources in the South Coast have already been controlled. See 79 FR 
29712, at 29724 (May 23, 2014).

CAA Section 182(e)(5)

    Comment 2: Earthjustice asserts that the plain language of the CAA 
does not allow for reliance on section 182(e)(5) after the attainment 
date. The Act requires states that plan to rely on CAA section 
182(e)(5) measures to implement contingency measures ``adequate to 
produce emissions reductions sufficient, in conjunction with other 
approved plan provisions, to achieve . . . attainment by the applicable 
dates'' and that the applicable attainment date for ``extreme'' areas 
is November 15, 2010 pursuant to section 181(a)(1). With respect to the 
South Coast, Earthjustice argues that the contingency measures are de 
facto insufficient to achieve attainment by the applicable dates 
because the attainment date of November 15, 2010 has expired, and 
because it has expired, it is no longer possible to satisfy the 
requirements of section 182(e)(5). Thus, Earthjustice concludes that 
the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration in the 2012 AQMP cannot rely 
on section 182(e)(5) measures.
    Response 2: We disagree with the contention that the plain language 
of the CAA does not allow for reliance on section 182(e)(5) when a 
state fails to meet its initial attainment date and a new attainment 
date must be established. Section 182(e) expressly provides EPA with 
the authority to approve an attainment demonstration for ``extreme'' 
ozone areas that anticipates ``development of new control techniques or 
improvement of existing control technologies,'' referred to herein as 
``new technology'' measures, if certain conditions are met. Nothing in 
this provision limits its application only to the initial designations 
and classification that occurred immediately following enactment of the 
CAA Amendments of 1990. The commenter does not explain why it is ``no 
longer possible'' to meet the conditions of section 182(e)(5), and we 
explain in the proposed rule why the State has met those requirements. 
See 79 FR at 29722-29724 (May 23, 2014).
    Comment 3: Earthjustice argues that an area that fails to attain by 
its applicable attainment date should not be allowed to include CAA 
section 182(e)(5) measures because it gives states no incentive to 
close the ``black box'' within the attainment time frames of the Act. 
Earthjustice believes that allowing areas to rely on section 182(e)(5) 
provisions after the attainment time frames of the Act creates an 
incentive to continually roll ``black'' box reductions past the 
attainment date.
    Response 3: We disagree that approving a revised 1-hour ozone 
attainment demonstration that relies on new technology measures under 
CAA section 182(e)(5) (and referred to as the ``black box'' by 
Earthjustice) removes the incentive for states to follow through on the 
related emissions reductions within the timeframes of the Act. First, 
if the new technology measures in the 2012 AQMP do not achieve the 
emissions reductions upon which the 1-hour ozone attainment 
demonstration relies (i.e., 17 tpd of VOC and 150 tpd

[[Page 52531]]

of NOX), then CARB must submit contingency measures to make 
up for the shortfall. CARB has made a commitment to develop and submit 
such contingency measures by January 1, 2019.
    Given the extent to which emissions sources in the South Coast are 
already controlled, development of section 182(e)(5) contingency 
measures will present a significant regulatory challenge to CARB that 
can only be avoided or reduced if the new technology measures achieve a 
significant portion, if not all, of the emissions reductions expected 
from them in the 2012 AQMP. Further, upon the effective date of today's 
action, the commitment submitted by CARB to submit such contingency 
measures will be part of the California SIP and thus enforceable by EPA 
or private citizens.
    Comment 4: Earthjustice asserts that allowing the 1-hour ozone 
attainment demonstration in the 2012 AQMP to rely on section 182(e)(5) 
measures conflicts with the purpose of section 182(e)(5) because 
section 182(e)(5)(A) specifically precludes reliance on new technology 
measures to comply with emissions reductions necessary in the first ten 
years after enactment of the 1990 Amendments to the Act and thereby 
indicates Congress's intention that a 10-year period is too short to 
allow reliance on ``black box'' measures to comply with CAA 
requirements; because, as a practical matter, the shortened planning 
horizon for attainment in the 2012 AQMP does not provide the time 
necessary to develop and implement new technology measures; and because 
section 182(e)(5)(B) requires contingency measures to be submitted at 
least three years in advance of implementation of the measures if the 
anticipated technologies do not achieve the anticipated emissions 
reductions.
    Earthjustice contends that emissions reductions must be in place by 
January 1, 2020 to provide the three years of clean data prior to an 
attainment date of December 31, 2022, which means that the contingency 
measures under CAA section 182(e)(5)(B) must be submitted by January 1, 
2017, less than three years from the present. Given the contrast 
between the planning horizon for the 1-hour ozone standard in the 2012 
AQMP and the longer (20-year) planning horizon for the initial South 
Coast AQMP established under the CAA Amendments of 1990, Earthjustice 
concludes that section 182(e)(5) measures cannot be relied upon for the 
1-hour ozone attainment demonstration in the 2012 AQMP.
    Response 4: First, the language of section 182(e)(5)(A) does not 
preclude reliance on new technology provisions in the new 1-hour ozone 
attainment demonstration. Section 182(e)(5)(A) is the first condition 
necessary to support reliance on new technology provisions, and to meet 
this condition, the EPA must find that such provisions ``are not 
necessary to achieve the incremental emission reductions required 
during the first ten years after November 15, 1990.'' Since the 10-year 
attainment period for the area runs from 2013 until January 1, 2022, by 
definition the State has met this condition. Given the plain language 
of the Act in this regard, there is no ambiguity to resolve and for 
which Congressional intent might be taken into consideration.
    Second, with respect to the practical consideration of whether 
sufficient time is available to develop new technology measures to 
provide emissions reductions by January 1, 2022 to provide for 
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by December 31, 2022, we note 
that the processes used by the relevant air agencies to develop and 
implement the new technology measures are not new to the 2012 AQMP, but 
represent a continuation of the effort initiated in the wake of 
development of the 2007 AQMP for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS and that is unfolding over a longer planning period, similar to 
that for the 1-hour ozone plan developed pursuant to the CAA Amendments 
of 1990. Third, with respect to the timeline for emissions reductions 
and submittal of contingency measures under the 2012 AQMP, we note that 
the deadline for emissions reductions necessary for attainment of the 
1-hour ozone standard by December 31, 2022 is January 1, 2022, not 
January 1, 2020 as asserted by Earthjustice. We explain the basis for 
this timeframe in our response to comment 13. Given that all 
emission reductions necessary for attainment of the standard must be 
achieved by January 1, 2022, the contingency measures under CAA section 
182(e)(5)(B) are due to EPA no later than January 1, 2019, not January 
1, 2017.
    Thus, CARB had about six years from adoption of the 2012 AQMP, and 
has about four years remaining from the date of this final action, to 
determine whether it will be able to achieve 17 tpd of VOC and 150 tpd 
of NOX reductions in the South Coast for 1-hour ozone 
attainment demonstration purposes through the new technology measures 
or whether it will need to adopt alternative ``contingency'' measures 
to cover some or all of the necessary emissions reductions. This 
timeframe does not render application of section 182(e)(5) absurd; to 
the contrary, we believe that it is both practicable and reasonable.
    Comment 5: Earthjustice asserts that CAA section 179 governs what 
happens when a region fails to meet an ozone standard, and that section 
179 does not permit the use of section 182(e)(5) measures. 
Specifically, Earthjustice notes that section 179(d)(2) states that the 
new plan required under section 179 shall comply with sections 110 and 
172 of the CAA and makes no reference to allowing for reliance on 
section 182(e)(5).
    Response 5: This comment appears to take issue with EPA's previous 
final action determining that the South Coast had failed to attain the 
1-hour ozone standard by the November 15, 2010 applicable attainment 
date. See 76 FR 82133, at 82145 (December 30, 2011). In that action, we 
were clear that the basis for our action was CAA sections 301(a) and 
181(b)(2) and not section 179(c). Thus the new 1-hour ozone attainment 
demonstration is not governed by the requirements under section 
179(d)(2). Regardless, we note that while section 179(d)(2) requires 
that the new SIP meet the requirements of CAA sections 110 and 172, it 
does not speak to nor preclude reliance on section 182(e)(5). We do not 
believe, and the commenter does not suggest, how a SIP for an ozone 
area classified as extreme would be inconsistent with the requirements 
of sections 110 and 172.
    Comment 6: Even if reliance on CAA section 182(e)(5) were allowed, 
EPA's approval is arbitrary and capricious, contends Earthjustice, 
because EPA has not determined whether the section 182(e)(5) new 
technology measures will produce sufficient emission reductions to 
allow the South Coast to meet the attainment deadline. Earthjustice 
contends that over half of the proposed section 182(e)(5) measures in 
the 2012 AQMP have not been evaluated for their potential to reduce 
emissions. Additionally, Earthjustice asserts that, to rely on section 
182(e)(5) measures to demonstrate attainment, the SIP must contain 
enforceable commitments from agencies responsible for developing and 
implementing the measures and that it is unclear from EPA's proposed 
rule whether such commitments have been made.
    Response 6: We disagree that to approve the new technology 
provisions in the 2012 AQMP, we must determine that the identified new 
technology measures will in fact achieve the reductions necessary to 
attain the standard. Section 182(e)(5) contemplates that States will 
rely on measures not yet fully evolved and for that reason it is 
difficult to attribute a

[[Page 52532]]

specific tonnage reduction to such measures. The new technology 
provisions in the 2012 AQMP reflect greater specificity than the 
corresponding provisions from the 2007 AQMP, but do not provide 
evidence that they will produce sufficient emissions reductions to 
allow the South Coast to meet the attainment deadline for the 1-hour 
ozone standard. For many of the individual new technology measures, 
emissions reductions were not estimated because they depend upon 
funding levels, which are uncertain at this time.
    The fact that the specific emissions reduction estimates for the 
individual new technology measures in the 2012 AQMP are not available, 
however, is immaterial. Section 182(e)(5) requires, as relevant here, 
that the State submit ``enforceable commitments to develop and adopt 
contingency measures'' to be implemented if the new technologies do not 
achieve the planned reductions. In this case, the 2012 AQMP is relying 
on 17 tpd of VOC and 150 tpd of NOX reductions from the new 
technology provisions for 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration 
purposes. Such contingency measures must be ``adequate to produce 
emissions reductions sufficient, in conjunction with other approved 
plan provisions, to achieve the periodic emission reductions . . . and 
attainment by the applicable dates.'' CARB has submitted the necessary 
commitment to develop, adopt and submit such contingency measures by 
January 1, 2019. See CARB Resolution 13-3 and Corey Letter dated May 2, 
2014.
    Although section 182(e)(5) does not require an enforceable 
commitment with respect to the new technology measures, we note that 
the State has identified the specific agencies that will be responsible 
for developing and implementing the controls or techniques anticipated 
under the individual new technology measures, and for the 2012 AQMP, 
the SCAQMD has identified such agencies for each of the new technology 
measures. In addition, as noted in connection with the 2007 AQMP, EPA, 
CARB, the SCAQMD and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 
Control District (SJVUACPD) have signed a memorandum of agreement 
committing the agencies to coordinate efforts to develop and test new 
sustainable technologies to accelerate progress in meeting air quality 
goals. See 76 FR 57872, at 57882 (September 16, 2011).

RACM

    Comment 7: Earthjustice asserts that EPA's interpretation of RACM 
does not comport with the Clean Air Act's mandate for nonattainment 
area plans to provide for attainment of the NAAQS as ``expeditiously as 
practicable'' but no later than the applicable attainment date. 
Earthjustice bases this assertion on what it perceives to be the 
inconsistency between the ``expeditiously as practicable'' mandate and 
EPA guidance, which provides that, to address the requirement to adopt 
all RACM, states should consider all potentially reasonable control 
measures in the nonattainment area to determine whether they are 
reasonably available for implementation in that area and whether they 
would, if implemented individually or collectively, advance the area's 
attainment date by one year or more. Earthjustice contends that the 
one-year condition is arbitrary and that it allows the states to avoid 
implementation of otherwise feasible and cost-effective control 
measures if implementation of those measures would not advance 
attainment by at least one year. Earthjustice also contends that it is 
arbitrary and capricious for EPA to rely on a guidance document that 
limits RACM to measures that advance attainment by one year as opposed 
to measure that may advance attainment by 9 months, 6 months, 3 months 
or even 1 month.
    The one-year condition on the RACM requirement, Earthjustice 
asserts, is exacerbated by EPA taking this position for extreme ozone 
nonattainment areas that may rely on new technology measures under CAA 
section 182(e)(5), as well as areas that have missed their attainment 
dates ``because the region has not even identified enough control 
measures to attain in the first place.'' Earthjustice claims that the 
availability of CAA section 182(e)(5) in extreme areas means that 
measures can be rejected arbitrarily as not meeting RACM.
    Lastly, Earthjustice suggests that EPA should instead change its 
interpretation of RACM in extreme nonattainment areas that rely on new 
technology measures to require a demonstration that all feasible 
control measures have been adopted, regardless of whether those control 
measures can be demonstrated to advance attainment by a year. It also 
requests clarification that RACM represents the minimum level of 
control states are required to demonstrate in nonattainment plans and 
that other measures are also required, as necessary or appropriate, to 
attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, regardless of whether 
the measures are considered RACM.
    Response 7: EPA has consistently interpreted RACM as a collection 
of measures that would advance the attainment date by at least one 
year, and the courts have determined that the statutory RACM 
requirement is ambiguous and deferred to EPA's interpretation of the 
requirement. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 744-745 (5th Cir. 
2002); see also Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d, 155, 162 (D.C. Cir. 
2002). See also 57 FR 13498, 13560 (April 16, 1992); 44 FR 20372, 20374 
(April 4, 1979).\13\ In considering whether a collection of measures 
would advance the attainment date of an area, EPA has previously 
interpreted the phrase ``advance the attainment date'' as meaning that 
the attainment date would be advanced by at least one year. See e.g., 
66 FR 57160, 57182 (November 14, 2001) (approval of Houston 1-hour 
ozone SIP); 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001) (approval of DC area 1-hour 
ozone SIP); 76 FR 57872, 57877 (September 16, 2011)(proposed approval 
of South Coast 8-hour ozone SIP--finalized at 77 FR 12674 (March 1, 
2012); and 77 FR 12652, 12659-12660 (March 1, 2012)(approval of San 
Joaquin Valley 8-hour ozone SIP). EPA's use of a one-year increment in 
determining whether a collection of measures would advance the 
attainment date is reasonable and consistent with the fact that 
determinations of attainment, or failure to attain, the 1-hour ozone 
standard are based on data compiled on a calendar-year basis (see 40 
CFR 50.9 and appendix H to 40 CFR part 50). Furthermore, sections 
172(a)(2)(C) and 181(a)(5) use one year as the increment by which 
attainment date extensions can be granted. Thus, requiring evaluation 
of whether control measures would advance attainment by an increment of 
one year is a reasonable approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Additional relevant EPA guidance includes EPA memorandum 
titled ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures 
(RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for 
Ozone Nonattainment Areas,'' November 30, 1999, and EPA memorandum 
titled ``Additional Submission on RACM from States with Severe One-
Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs,'' December 14, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we disagree that the one-year condition for consideration 
of RACM in areas that rely on CAA section 182(e)(5) new technology 
measures to demonstrate attainment (and thus have not identified the 
specific measures needed to attain the standard) allows for arbitrary 
rejection of measures as not meeting RACM. So long as attainment plans 
developed for such areas identify base year emissions, an attainment 
date, and attainment-year emission targets, the emissions reductions 
associated with advancement of the attainment

[[Page 52533]]

date by one year can be calculated. Such an estimate can be used to 
judge whether a collection of reasonably available measures would 
advance attainment by one year notwithstanding the reliance on new 
technology measures. Thus, EPA's long-standing interpretation of RACM 
in terms of a collection of measures that would advance the attainment 
date of an area is not arbitrary as applied to areas that rely on 
section 182(e)(5) new technology measures.
    In the case of the 1-hour ozone standard and the 2012 AQMP, the 
emissions reductions associated with advancement of the attainment date 
by one year are roughly 14 tpd of VOC and 46 tpd of NOX 
based on 2008 base year emissions and the emissions targets for 
attainment by December 31, 2022. As described in appendix VI 
(``Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Demonstration'') of the 
2012 AQMP, the SCAQMD updated previous RACM demonstrations for purposes 
of evaluating all feasible control measure concepts for inclusion in 
the 2012 AQMP. Ultimately, SCAQMD adopted 15 new committal measures 
(see table 5 of our proposed rule) to ensure implementation of RACM. 
The collection of measures that were rejected as RACM were rejected 
because the hypothetical reductions were deemed non-quantifiable and 
thus they would not collectively advance the attainment date. See pages 
VI-18 and VI-19 of appendix VI of the 2012 AQMP.
    Also, we disagree with the contention that EPA's one-year condition 
for consideration of RACM is absurd as applied to areas that have 
failed to attain the standard ``because the region has not even 
identified enough control measures to attain in the first place.'' RACM 
demonstrations and the attainment demonstrations upon which they rely 
are prepared, submitted and approved years before the applicable 
attainment date and are based on the best information available at the 
time. Notwithstanding approval of well-conceived and well-grounded RACM 
and attainment demonstrations that meet all CAA requirements, the area 
to which the demonstrations apply may still fail to attain the standard 
by the applicable attainment date for any number of reasons, such as 
assumptions regarding atmospheric chemistry or population forecasts 
that ultimately prove to be inaccurate when viewed in retrospect. Thus, 
the failure of an area to attain the standard by the applicable 
attainment date sheds no light on the appropriateness of the state's 
RACM demonstration or EPA approval of it years before but sets the 
stage for a new attainment date, and the type of RACM reevaluation and 
new attainment demonstration that is included in the 2012 AQMP.
    Lastly, the EPA confirms that implementation of RACM as 
expeditiously as practicable represents the minimum level of control 
states are required to demonstrate in nonattainment plans. See CAA 
section 172(c)(1). We clarify that, in such plans, other measures are 
also required, as may be necessary or appropriate, to provide for 
attainment of the NAAQS ``by the applicable attainment date specified 
in this part.'' See CAA section 172(c)(6).
    Comment 8: Even if EPA's interpretation of RACM is adequate, SCAQMD 
did not perform a proper RACM analysis because SCAQMD did not evaluate 
Indirect Source Rule Fees for RACM, which was a RACM commitment in the 
San Joaquin Valley.
    Response 8: We disagree with the contention that SCAQMD's RACM 
demonstration for the 2012 AQMP was insufficient because it did not 
evaluate Indirect Source Rule (ISR) Fees. We recognize that the San 
Joaquin Valley air district has adopted, and EPA has approved, an ISR 
rule, Rule 9510 (``Indirect Source Review''), which includes an off-
site fee element. However, in doing so, the air district and EPA acted 
under CAA section 110(a)(5). See 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011). Under that 
section of the CAA, EPA is prohibited from requiring states to include 
ISR programs in SIPs. Specifically, CAA section 110(a)(5)(A)(i) states 
in relevant part: ``Any State may include in a State implementation 
plan, but the Administrator may not require as a condition of approval 
of such plan under this section, any indirect source review program. 
The Administrator may approve and enforce, as part of an applicable 
implementation plan, an indirect source review program which the State 
chooses to adopt and submit as part of its plan.'' [Emphasis added.] An 
ISR Fee rule would constitute an ISR program, and thus, EPA may not 
require SCAQMD to consider such a rule as a RACM.
    Comment 9: Earthjustice asserts that SCAQMD must evaluate the 
programs that SCAQMD is planning to use as ``qualified'' programs to 
fund the Rule 317 section 172(e) fee equivalency account, as RACMs. 
Earthjustice claims that, under Rule 317, ``qualified'' programs 
represent those that are ``surplus'' to the plan requirements to attain 
the 1-hour ozone standard and that reduce emissions from mobile sources 
by providing incentive funding that advances the state of mobile source 
emission reduction technology, improves fuel and engine infrastructure, 
and accelerates fleet turnover. The programs included in Rule 317, the 
commenter explains, include School Bus Replacement, Truck Retrofits, 
Clean Vehicle Rebate Programs, Hybrid Truck and Bus Voucher Incentives, 
Natural Gas Taxi Cabs and Shuttle Vans, a Lawnmower Exchange program, 
and others. Earthjustice asserts that SCAQMD must analyze all of the 
programs cited in Rule 317 under the RACM analysis to determine whether 
the programs will individually or collectively advance the date of 
attainment to meet the requirements of section 172(c)(1), and that, if 
any of the programs meet the definition of RACM, the programs must be 
adopted by SCAQMD in enforceable form in the nonattainment plans to 
meet the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards in the South Coast.
    Response 9: SCAQMD Rule 317 (``Clean Air Act Non-attainment Fees'') 
is intended to satisfy the requirements of sections 182 and 185 of the 
Act under EPA's anti-backsliding rules governing the transition from 
the revoked 1-hour ozone standard to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 
The rule utilizes an equivalency approach consistent with the 
principles of section 172(e) of the Act. EPA approved Rule 317 as a 
revision to the California SIP at 77 FR 74372 (December 14, 2012).
    RACM identifies a certain level of control of existing emissions 
sources that must be adopted in legally enforceable form. Incentive 
programs by their nature are voluntary, i.e., not enforceable, and thus 
are not the types of programs that a State must consider in its RACM 
evaluation. Moreover, the types of sources to which the incentive 
programs in Rule 317 apply are mobile sources, and as explained in our 
proposed rule, 79 FR at 29720 (May 23, 2014), we have found that CARB's 
mobile source program continues to meet the RACM requirement for such 
sources. CARB's mobile source program includes regulations for many 
types of existing (i.e, in-use) vehicles and equipment, including the 
types of vehicles and equipment to which the Rule 317 incentive 
programs apply.
    Comment 10: The commenter asserts that, because the South Coast 
failed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the revised 1-hour ozone 
attainment plan must include such additional measures as EPA may 
reasonably prescribe, including all measures that can be feasibly 
implemented in the area in light of technological achievability, costs, 
and any non-air quality and other air quality-related health and

[[Page 52534]]

environmental impacts to comply with the requirements for such plans 
under CAA section 179(d)(2). The commenter states that pursuant to that 
provision, EPA should have prescribed potential feasible measures for 
achieving the standard, and suggests that the elimination of the 
exemption of methane from the definition of ``volatile organic 
compounds'' (VOCs) is one such potential measure that should have been 
prescribed and evaluated.
    Response 10: In December 2011, we issued a final action determining 
pursuant to CAA sections 301(a) and 181(b)(2), that the South Coast had 
failed to attain the 1-hour standard by the applicable attainment date. 
We did not base that determination on section 179(c), and thus the plan 
requirements specified in CAA section 179(d) do not apply. Thus, this 
comment is not timely.
    We note that EPA regulations exempt methane from the definition of 
VOC, 40 CFR 51.100(s), and the South Coast regulations are consistent 
with the EPA regulation. The EPA regulation exempting methane from the 
definition of ``VOC'' stems from the Agency's determination that 
methane is an organic compound that has negligible photochemical 
reactivity and thus need not be controlled for the purposes of reducing 
ground-level ozone concentrations. Independent of that, however, we 
recognize methane as a potent greenhouse gas and we note that many 
control measures that reduce VOC emissions have the co-benefit of 
reducing methane. Because EPA regulations exempt methane from the 
definition of VOC for the purpose of reduce ground-level ozone 
concentrations, it would not be appropriate for the State to rely on 
methane reductions as part of its plan to attain the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS.

Enforceable Commitments

    Comment 11: Earthjustice contends that EPA cannot approve 
California's reliance on section 172(c)(6) enforceable commitments 
because the state's proposed commitments are not enforceable and are 
insufficient to substitute for the credible emission reductions needed 
to demonstrate attainment. More specifically, Earthjustice notes that 
three of CARB's existing commitments in the 2012 AQMP do not have 
schedules for implementation, and without such schedules for 
implementation, CARB's measures are not ``independently enforceable'' 
under Ninth Circuit case law, citing El Comite Para El Bienestar de 
Earlimart v. Warmerdam, 539 F.3 1062, at 1071-1073 (9th Cir. 2008). The 
three CARB measures cited by Earthjustice include expanding passenger 
vehicle retirement, promoting cleaner ship engines and fuel, and 
adopting off-road recreational vehicle expanded emissions standards. In 
addition, Earthjustice contends that the SCAQMD's reservation of the 
right to substitute measures for the 15 specific measures adopted by 
SCAQMD to meet its emissions reduction commitment renders the measures 
unenforceable should the District choose to implement other, 
undisclosed measures.
    Response 11: The 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration in the 2012 
AQMP relies on existing CARB commitments approved by EPA in connection 
with the attainment demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in 
the 2007 AQMP. More specifically, the 1-hour ozone attainment 
demonstration in the 2012 AQMP relies on the same commitments made by 
CARB, and approved by EPA, in connection with the 2007 AQMP to take 
certain defined measures to its Board for consideration and to achieve 
certain aggregate emissions reductions in certain years. In responses 
to comments in our final rule approving the commitments for the 8-hour 
ozone standard attainment demonstration, we addressed in detail the 
issue of enforceability of the commitments. See 77 FR 12674, at 12675-
12677 (March 1, 2012). In short, however, we draw a sharp distinction 
between the commitments for the 2007 AQMP and the aspirational goals 
found to be unenforceable by certain courts. In contrast to an 
unenforceable aspirational goal, we found:

    The language in CARB's and the District's commitments . . . is 
specific; the intent of the commitments is clear; and the strategy 
of adopting measures to achieve the required reductions is 
completely within CARB's and the District's control. Furthermore . . 
. CARB and the District identify specific emission reductions that 
they will achieve, how they could be achieved and the time by which 
these reductions will be achieved, i.e., by the 2023 attainment 
year. 77 FR 12674, at 12676-12677 (March 1, 2012).

Although the excerpt from our March 2012 final rule refers to the 
commitments for the attainment year for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 
CARB also made similar types of commitments for certain interim years, 
including year 2020, and a similar rationale applies. See 77 FR at 
pages 12689-12692 (March 1, 2012).
    As to commitments related to expanding passenger vehicle 
retirement, promoting cleaner ship engines and fuel, and adopting off-
road recreational vehicle expanded emissions standards, we disagree 
that the CARB has failed to include schedules for implementation and 
that, therefore, the commitments are unenforceable. We discuss the 
commitments related to these three control strategies and the current 
status of implementation in the following paragraphs.
    First, with respect to expanding passenger vehicle retirement, 
CARB's 2007 State Strategy calls for expanding the existing vehicle 
retirement program to vehicles that are off-cycle from their Smog Check 
inspections over an implementation period of 2008-2014.\14\ In 2007, 
the California enacted the California Alternative and Renewable Fuel, 
Vehicle Technology, Clean Air, and Carbon Reduction Act of 2007 
(Assembly Bill (AB) 118), which creates the Air Quality Improvement 
Program (AQIP). The Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program (EFMP), one of 
the AQIP programs, is a voluntary vehicle retirement program that is 
funded through a $1 increase in vehicle registration fees (roughly $30 
million annually) and that broadens eligibility criteria beyond vehicle 
failure under the Smog Check program. The California Legislature 
recently extended the program through 2023 (AB 8). In June 2014, CARB 
proposed amendments to the EFMP that would improve the program by 
focusing the program on low-income participants, expanding program 
flexibility to improve participation, and ensuring that retired 
vehicles are functional, which should improve emissions benefits from 
the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See CARB's Proposed State Strategy for California's 2007 
State Implementation Plan, Release Date: April 26, 2007, pages 100-
101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, as to promoting cleaner ship engines and fuel, CARB 
committed to adopting regulations to require use of cleaner, low-sulfur 
fuel by ocean-going vessels (OGV) in transit within 24 miles of the 
California coast with implementation expected from 2007-2010.\15\ In 
2008, CARB adopted the OGV clean fuel (i.e., low sulfur) regulations, 
and later amended the regulations in 2011. CARB's OGV clean fuel 
regulation is expected to be supplanted in 2015 by equivalent fuel 
standards applicable to a much wider area (200 nautical miles) along 
the California coast under the 2010 amendments, adopted by the 
International Maritime Organization (IMO), to the International 
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) 
designating the North American Emission Control Area (ECA).

[[Page 52535]]

MARPOL Tier III NOX standards \16\ will apply within the 
North American ECA to marine diesel engines that are installed on a 
ship constructed on or after January 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See CARB's Proposed State Strategy for California's 2007 
State Implementation Plan, Release Date: April 26, 2007, pages 107-
110.
    \16\ The current Tier I NOX standards range from 9.8 
to 17 g/kW-h, depending on engine speed. The Tier II standards 
represent a 20 percent NOX reduction below Tier I, and 
the Tier III standards represent an 80 percent NOX 
reduction below Tier I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, as to adopting off-road recreational vehicle expanded 
emissions standards, CARB committed to bringing the emissions standards 
to its Board for consideration in 2013, with implementation schedules 
to be determined in the rulemaking process.\17\ In July 2013, CARB 
adopted regulations establishing more extensive evaporative emissions 
standards for new off-highway recreational vehicles beginning with 
model year 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See CARB's Progress Report on Implementation of 
PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South 
Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, Release Date: March 29, 
2011, appendix B (``Rulemaking Calendar'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to the enforceability of SCAQMD's commitments in the 2012 AQMP, 
Earthjustice is correct that, in committing to develop, adopt, 
implement and submit the 15 measures listed in table 5 of the proposed 
rule, SCAQMD reserved the right to substitute measures where a listed 
measure is found to be infeasible and to otherwise substitute measures 
that can achieve equivalent reductions in the same adoption or 
implementation timeframes. See 2012 AQMP, pages 4-42 and 4-43. However, 
SCAQMD's commitment to the 15 defined measures is supported by the 
related, but independently enforceable, commitment to achieve aggregate 
emission reductions of 6 tpd of VOC and 11 tpd of NOX by 
January 1, 2022. The aggregate emissions reduction commitment 
sufficiently ensures that the District will achieve the 6 tpd of VOC 
and 11 tpd of NOX that is relied upon by the 1-hour ozone 
attainment demonstration, notwithstanding the potential for 
substitution of the individual measures by the SCAQMD.
    Moreover, the SCAQMD has committed to be bound by a process with 
significant safeguards to ensure the integrity of the regulatory 
commitment. For instance, as described in more detail on pages 4-43 and 
4-44 of the 2012 AQMP, the SCAQMD has defined ``infeasibility'' for the 
purposes of measure substitution, set cost-benefit thresholds 
triggering refined analysis, and established a public review and 
decision process. With such safeguards, we expect SCAQMD to make few 
substitutions, leaving most of the individual measures fully 
enforceable as part of the SIP.
    Comment 12: Earthjustice challenges EPA's determination that CARB 
and SCAQMD are capable of fulfilling their aggregate emission reduction 
commitments, contending that such a determination conflicts with EPA's 
earlier finding that there are few opportunities to further reduce 
emissions and that six of SCAQMD's defined measures do not have 
estimated emission reductions. Without such reduction estimates, 
Earthjustice argues, EPA has no reason to believe that California will 
satisfy its emission reductions commitments.
    Response 12: EPA's statement as to the few opportunities to further 
reduce emissions was made by way of explanation for why we believe 
that, with respect to the 2012 AQMP 1-hour ozone attainment 
demonstration, circumstances warrant the consideration of enforceable 
commitments as part of the attainment demonstration for the South 
Coast. We do not find this statement to be in conflict with our stated 
belief that CARB and SCAQMD are capable of fulfilling their aggregate 
emissions reductions ``given the State's and SCAQMD's efforts to date 
to reduce emissions and the proposed stationary and mobile source 
strategies found in the 2012 AQMP.'' The former simply acknowledges the 
unique challenges facing the air agencies in the South Coast relative 
to other parts of the country to identify source categories for 
additional controls beyond those already adopted and implemented, while 
the latter notes the long-term success of the air agencies in 
identifying sources to regulate emission sources to achieve the 
necessary reductions notwithstanding the challenges.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The full statement from our May 23, 2014 proposed rule 
regarding the few opportunities to further reduce emissions is: ``As 
a result of these State and District efforts, most sources in the 
South Coast nonattainment area are currently subject to stringent 
rules adopted and approved by EPA (or for which EPA has issued 
waivers or authorization in the case of CARB regulations) prior to 
the development of the 2012 AQMP, leaving few opportunities (and 
generally more technologically and economically challenging ones) to 
further reduce emissions.'' 79 FR 29712, at 29721 (May 23, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earthjustice is correct that SCAQMD does not provide emissions 
reduction estimates for six of the 15 measures that the District has 
committed to develop, adopt, submit and implement. However, as further 
explained in the proposed rule, 79 FR 29712, at 29721 (May 23, 2014), 
SCAQMD is relying on emissions reductions from the SOON program as well 
as the emissions reductions from the 15 individual measures to meet its 
aggregate emissions reduction commitment. The emissions reductions 
estimated from the SOON program plus those from the measures for which 
SCAQMD has provided emissions reduction estimates is equal to the 
aggregate commitment. See table 5 from the proposed rule and pages IV-
B-30 through IV-B-32 from appendix IV-B of the 2012 AQMP. Thus, we 
continue to believe that SCAQMD is capable of fulfilling its aggregate 
emission reduction commitment to achieve necessary emissions reductions 
by January 1, 2022.
    Comment 13: Earthjustice contends that CARB's and SCAQMD's 
emissions reduction commitments are not for a ``reasonable and 
appropriate period of time,'' because the agencies anticipate 
fulfilling their commitments by January 1, 2022--less than a year 
before the 1-hour ozone attainment deadline of December 31, 2022, and 
that EPA provides no support for the notion that the agencies will meet 
the December 31, 2022 deadline simply by fulfilling their commitments 
by January 1, 2022. To the contrary, Earthjustice argues, these 
agencies have not demonstrated that the emissions reduction would occur 
within a 12-month time frame. In addition, Earthjustice claims that the 
agencies could not achieve three years of clean data if the agencies 
wait until January 1, 2022 to fulfill commitments.
    Response 13: First, SCAQMD and CARB have committed to achieve 
aggregate emissions reductions by January 1, 2022 and are already at 
work meeting that commitment, and thus, these agencies have more than 
seven years to fulfill the commitments and achieve the reductions 
necessary for attainment, not 12 months as suggested by the commenter.
    Second, SCAQMD and CARB commitments to achieve emissions reductions 
by January 1, 2022 is consistent with the requirement to ensure that 
necessary emissions reductions are in place by the beginning of the 
ozone season immediately preceding the attainment deadline. Since the 
attainment deadline is December 31, 2022, the ozone season immediately 
preceding that deadline begins on January 1, 2022 for the South Coast.
    Reductions necessary to demonstrate attainment by December 31, 2022 
need not be in place three years before the deadline. The three-year 
record of clean data applies to an attainment determination, not to an 
attainment demonstration, the latter of which we are approving today. 
The determination of attainment required by CAA section 181(b)(2), 
which is made by reviewing

[[Page 52536]]

ambient air quality monitoring data after the attainment date, is 
distinctly different from the demonstration of attainment required by 
CAA section 182(c)(2), which is based on projections of future air 
quality levels and submitted before the attainment date.
    For the 1-hour ozone standard, an attainment determination is based 
on monitored air quality levels in the three years preceding the 
attainment date. See 57 FR 13498, at 13506 (April 16, 1992). In 
contrast, an attainment demonstration is based on air quality modeling 
showing that projected emissions in the attainment year will be at or 
below the level needed to prevent violations of the relevant ambient 
air quality standard. For ozone, the attainment year is defined as the 
calendar year that includes the last full ozone season prior to the 
statutory attainment date. See 75 FR 10420, at 10431 (March 8, 2010) 
(Final approval of San Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone attainment 
demonstration; later withdrawn at 77 FR 70376 (November 26, 2012) on 
other grounds). EPA has consistently interpreted the Act to require 
that the attainment demonstration show that air quality levels will be 
at or below the level of the standard in the attainment year and not 
for each of the three ozone seasons prior to the attainment date.
    We believe this position is consistent with the ozone attainment 
provisions in subpart 2 of title 1, part D of the CAA. The program 
Congress crafted for ozone attainment does not require that all 
measures needed to attain the standard be implemented three years prior 
to the area's attainment date. For example, moderate areas were 
required by section 182(b)(1) to provide for VOC emissions reductions 
of 15 percent reduction by November 15, 1996 which was also the 
attainment date for these areas. For areas classified serious and 
above, CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) requires that ROP of 3 percent per year 
averaged over 3 years ``until the attainment date'' (a total of 9 
percent reduction in emissions in the 3 years leading up to an area's 
attainment date). EPA does not believe that Congress intended these 
mandatory reductions to be in excess of what is needed to attain.
    This position is also consistent with the attainment date extension 
provisions in CAA section 181(a)(5). Under this section, an area that 
does not have three years of data meeting the ozone standard by its 
attainment date, but has complied with all requirements and commitments 
pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan and has no 
more than one exceedance of the standard in the attainment year, may 
receive a one-year extension of its attainment date. Assuming these 
conditions are again met the following year, the area may receive an 
additional one-year extension. If the area has no more than one 
exceedance in this final extension year, then it will have three years 
of data indicating that it has attained the ozone standard.
    EPA has consistently taken this position in guidance and in our 
approval of 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations. Our ozone modeling 
guidance, which was issued less than a year after the 1990 CAA 
Amendments were enacted, requires States to model the ozone season 
before the attainment date and not the third ozone season before the 
attainment date.\19\ The ozone attainment demonstrations that EPA has 
approved since the CAA Amendments of 1990 have been based on this 
modeling guidance and show that there will be no violations in the 
attainment year. See, for example, 61 FR 10921 (March 18, 1996) and 62 
FR 1150 (January 8, 1997), proposed and final approval of California's 
attainment plans for 7 nonattainment areas; 66 FR 54143 (October 26, 
2001), approval of Pennsylvania's 1-hour ozone attainment plan for the 
Philadelphia area; and 67 FR 30574 (May 7, 2002), approval of Georgia's 
1-hour ozone attainment plan for Atlanta.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Chapter 6 (``Attainment Demonstrations'') of Guideline 
for Regulatory Application of the Urban Air Shed Model (July 1991, 
OAQPS, EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We took the same position on attainment demonstrations for the 8-
hour ozone standard promulgated in 1997 when we promulgated regulations 
specifying the deadline for implementing emissions reductions for 
purposes of attainment of that standard. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.908(d) 
provides: ``For each nonattainment area, the State must provide for 
implementation of all control measures needed for attainment no later 
than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season.'' ``Attainment 
year ozone season'' is defined as ``the ozone season immediately 
preceding a nonattainment area's attainment date.'' 40 CFR 51.900(g).
    Third, we do not find that CARB's and SCAQMD's commitments to be 
for a reasonable and appropriate period of time simply because the 
aggregate emissions reductions will be in place at the beginning of 
ozone season prior to the attainment date, but also because the 
agencies have committed to take certain near-term regulatory actions in 
support of those emissions reductions commitments. More specifically, 
SCAQMD has committed to develop, adopt, and submit, and implement 
specific control measures as expeditiously as possible. SCAQMD's 
commitment includes adoption dates for the specific measures (the 
latest of which calls for adoption in 2016) and implementation dates. 
Likewise, CARB has committed to bring certain regulatory measures to 
its Board for action on a certain schedule.
    Therefore, we continue to find the reliance of the 2012 AQMP on 
these commitments to be acceptable because, among other reasons, we 
find the commitments to be for a reasonable and appropriate period of 
time.

Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)

    Comment 14: Earthjustice claims that the emissions reductions from 
SCAG's Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) have been included in the 
baseline but that such inclusion is not appropriate because SCAG has 
not provided any information that the claimed emissions reductions will 
come from enforceable measures nor has EPA approved the SCS as a 
control measure. Earthjustice contends that the SCS should be submitted 
as a control measure towards attainment of the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone 
standards in the South Coast.
    Response 14: The SCS is a new requirement for Regional 
Transportation Plans (RTPs) in California pursuant to state law (Senate 
Bill 375). As described in the 2012 South Coast AQMP, the primary goal 
of the SCS is to provide a vision for future growth in Southern 
California that will decrease per capita greenhouse gas emissions from 
automobiles and light trucks through integrated transportation, land 
use, housing and environmental planning. This leads to strategies that 
can help reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled over the next 25 
years. While the SCS is intended to reduce GHG emissions, it will also 
produce reductions in ozone precursors.
    SCAG's most recent adopted RTP, the 2012-2035 Regional 
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), 
reflects SCS principles to achieve per capita emission reduction 
targets. Earthjustice is correct that the baseline inventory for the 
South Coast 2012 AQMP includes emissions reductions from the RTP/SCS to 
the extent that it reflects the same population, employment, economic 
activity, vehicle and transit activity forecasts and transportation 
control measures as the RTP/SCS and those forecasts and measures are 
projected to result in lower transportation-related emissions than 
would have occurred under the RTP baseline case. However, because SCS 
strategies are fully

[[Page 52537]]

integrated into the RTP/SCS, separate emissions reduction estimates 
attributable to land use pattern changes cannot reliably be made apart 
from those associated with the various forecasts, transportation 
projects, and TCMs in the RTP/SCS. Distinguishing between emissions 
reductions associated with the types of changes in land use development 
patterns associated with SCS principles from those associated with 
transportation projects and TCMs is confounded by the fact that, as 
noted in the 2012 South Coast AQMP, the regional transportation system 
is appropriately viewed on a systems-level basis, and not by its 
components, since each of the individual transportation improvements 
and strategies affect each other and the system.
    In addition, to the extent that the RTP/SCS reflects land use 
policies, we note that we have historically allowed States to take into 
account land use policies in their baseline (as opposed to being 
specifically approved into the SIP) if those policies are not being 
relied on as part of the control strategy. Specifically, we state: 
``EPA believes that it would be appropriate to include a specific land 
use policy in the land use assumptions made for the initial forecast 
[of future emissions] only if:
    A. The policy meets one of the following conditions:
     It has already been adopted by an appropriate 
jurisdiction, or
     the policy is planned and there is an enforcing mechanism 
to ensure it will happen; and
    B. The effects of the policy haven't already been accounted for in 
the land use assumptions--that is, you are not double counting.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EPA's Improving Air Quality through Land Use Activities, 
EPA420-R-01-001, January 2001), page 35. This guidance document can 
be found at the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/stateresources/policy/transp/landuse/r01001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this instance, to the extent that the RTP/SCS embodies certain 
land use policies, those policies are not being relied upon as part of 
the control strategy to demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour ozone 
standard in the South Coast by the applicable attainment date and are 
enforceable through mechanisms provided in SB 375, and the effects of 
the policies have not already been accounted for in the land use 
assumptions.

Solar Power

    Comment 15: Noting ongoing litigation between PSPC and SCAQMD over 
the 2012 AQMP, PSPC calls for adoption by SCAQMD of rules to implement 
an Immediate Total Solar Conversion Plan, with full implementation by 
2020, or 2023 at the latest, contending that that the Immediate Total 
Solar Conversion Plan is cost effective and represents reasonably 
available control technology (RACT), Best Available Control Technology 
(BACT), and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT). PSPC 
asserts that California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) section 40404.5 
mandates a solar conversion plan within the South Coast.
    Response 15: For ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate 
or above, CAA section 182(b)(2) requires the implementation of 
provisions that require the implementation of RACT on all major 
stationary sources of VOC and for each VOC source category for which 
EPA has issued Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) documents. CAA 
section 182(f) requires that RACT under section 182(b)(2) also apply to 
major stationary sources of NOX. In extreme ozone 
nonattainment areas such as the South Coast, a major source is a 
stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 10 
tons of VOC or NOX per year. CAA sections 182(e) and (f). 
The current rulemaking does not address the RACT SIP for the South 
Coast, thus the issue of whether a particular control is required for a 
specific source or source category is not pertinent to this rulemaking. 
With respect to the requirement to ensure implementation of emission 
limits representing BACT, we note that, for federal law purposes, BACT 
determinations are made in connection with preconstruction review and 
permitting of new major sources or major modifications of existing 
major sources under the provisions of the CAA and EPA regulations for 
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). As such, BACT is 
relevant in the context of individual major source permit applications, 
but not in the context of EPA's action on the regional air quality 
plan.
    Though not relevant to this rulemaking, we note that we are 
currently unaware of any sources that use solar power to control or 
limit VOC or NOX emissions. SJVUAPCD has researched solar-
powered aeration for green waste composting, but recent discussions 
with SJVUAPCD staff indicated that while this work shows promise, it is 
still in the research phase.
    Lastly, our role in reviewing SIP revisions is to ensure that they 
meet the applicable requirements of federal law, not state law, and 
thus, the issue of whether state law, in this case, CH&SC section 
40404.5, mandates a solar conversion plan within the South Coast and 
whether the 2012 AQMP complies with the provisions of CH&SC section 
40404.5 is not relevant for the purposes of our review of the 2012 AQMP 
under CAA section 110(k).\21\ Similarly, the term ``Best Available 
Retrofit Control Technology'' is a term established under state law, 
and thus is also not relevant to our action on the 2012 AQMP.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ CH&SC section 40404.5 states: ``The Legislature further 
finds and declares that the south coast district, in fulfilling its 
directive to require the use of best available control technology 
for new sources, and in consideration of the state policy to promote 
and encourage the use of solar energy systems, shall make reasonable 
efforts to incorporate solar energy technology into its air quality 
management plan in applications where it can be shown to be cost-
effective.''
    \22\ BARCT is defined in CH&SC section 40406: ``As used in this 
chapter, ``best available retrofit control technology'' means an 
emission limitation that is based on the maximum degree of reduction 
achievable, taking into account environmental, energy, and economic 
impacts by each class or category of source.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    Under section 110(k) of the CAA, and for the reasons discussed 
above and in our May 23, 2014 proposal (see 79 FR 29712), the EPA is 
approving certain ozone-related portions of the 2012 South Coast AQMP 
as a revision to the California SIP. The relevant portions of the 2012 
AQMP that are being approved include the updated control strategy for 
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the demonstration of attainment of 
the 1-hour ozone standard in the South Coast by December 31, 2022. In 
so doing, we are approving the following commitments and measures upon 
which the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration relies as well as the 
State's reliance on the approved control strategy for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone standard:
     SCAQMD's commitments to develop, adopt, submit and 
implement the measures as summarized in table 5 of the proposed rule, 
subject to findings of infeasibility and measure substitution, and a 
commitment to meet aggregate emissions reductions targets of 6 tpd of 
VOC and 11 tpd of NOX by January 1, 2022;
     The new technology provisions (summarized in table 6 of 
the proposed rule) through which the 2012 AQMP expects to achieve 
emissions reductions of 17 tpd of VOC and 150 tpd of NOX in 
the South Coast by January 1, 2022; and
     CARB's commitment to submit contingency measures by 
January 1, 2019 as necessary to ensure that the emissions reductions 
from new technology measures are achieved.
    In approving this SIP revision, EPA finds that an attainment date 
of

[[Page 52538]]

December 31, 2022 is appropriate in light of the severity of the 1-hour 
ozone problem in the South Coast and given the extent to which 
emissions sources in the South Coast have already been controlled and 
the difficulty of developing regulations and controlling additional 
emissions. EPA also finds that the South Coast 1-hour ozone attainment 
demonstration is based on reasonable estimates and forecasts of ozone 
precursor emissions and appropriate photochemical modeling techniques 
and assumptions and an acceptable control strategy.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves a state plan as meeting 
federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by November 3, 2014. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen Oxides, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: August 13, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(439) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (439) The following plan was submitted on February 13, 2013, by the 
Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) California Air Resources Board.
    (1) Resolution 13-3, dated January 25, 2013, adopting the Final 
2012 Air Quality Management Plan (December 2012) prepared by the South 
Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (2) Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, California Air 
Resources Board, dated May 2, 2014.
    (B) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Governing Board Resolution No. 12-19, dated December 7, 2012, 
adopting the Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan.
    (2) The following portions of the Final 2012 Air Quality Management 
Plan (December 2012): Ozone-related portions of chapter 4 (``Control 
Strategy and Implementation''); Appendix IV-A (``District's Stationary 
Source Control Measures''); Appendix IV-B (``Proposed Section 182(e)(5) 
Implementation Measures''); Appendix IV-C (``Regional Transportation 
Strategy and Control Measures''); and Appendix VII (``1-Hour Ozone 
Attainment Demonstration'').
    (3) Letter from Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env, Executive Officer, 
South Coast Air Quality Management District, May 1, 2014.

[FR Doc. 2014-20790 Filed 9-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P