[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71294-71316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29235]
[[Page 71293]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 52
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
California; 2007 South Coast State Implementation Plan for 1997 Fine
Particulate Matter Standards; 2007 State Strategy;
PM[bdi2].[bdi5]; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 71294]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0366; FRL-9229-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
California; 2007 South Coast State Implementation Plan for 1997 Fine
Particulate Matter Standards; 2007 State Strategy;
PM[ihel2].[ihel5]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part
State implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
California to provide for attainment of the 1997 annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the
Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin area (South Coast nonattainment
area). The submitted SIP revisions are contained in the South Coast
2007 Air Quality Management Plan (South Coast 2007 AQMP) and portions
of the 2007 State Strategy as revised in 2009. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to approve the emissions inventories as meeting the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's fine particulate
implementing regulations. EPA is also proposing to approve commitments
to propose specific measures and meet specific aggregate emissions
reductions by the South Coast Air Quality Management (District) and the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) because the commitments
strengthen the SIP. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the air
quality modeling demonstration as meeting the requirements of the CAA
and EPA guidance. EPA is proposing to disapprove the attainment
demonstration because it does not provide sufficient emissions
reductions from adopted and EPA approved measures to provide for
attainment of the NAAQS. As a result, EPA is also proposing to
disapprove the reasonably available control measures/reasonably
available control technology (RACM/RACT) and reasonable further
progress (RFP) demonstrations and proposing not to grant California's
request to extend to April 5, 2015 the deadline for the South Coast
nonattainment area to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because
these requirements are linked to approving the attainment demonstration
under the 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule. We are also
proposing to disapprove the assignment of 10 tpd of NOX to
the federal government. Finally, EPA is proposing to disapprove
PM2.5 contingency measures and the motor vehicle emissions
budgets (budgets) for the area's RFP years and attainment year. To the
extent that the State can remedy the shortfall in emissions reductions
for the attainment demonstration, which is the basis for the proposed
disapproval of the attainment demonstration, EPA believes that many of
the noted deficiencies could be addressed.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by January 21, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0366, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions.
E-mail: [email protected].
Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office of Air Planning (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will
be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment.
If EPA cannot read your comments due to technical difficulties and
cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider
your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically on the http://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., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at
the following locations:
California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento,
California 95812, and
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E.
Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765.
The SIP materials are also electronically available at: http://aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/index.html and http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4192,
[email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The PM2.5 NAAQS and the South Coast PM2.5
Nonattainment Area
II. California's State Implementation Plan Submittals to Address
PM2.5 Attainment in the South Coast Nonattainment Area
A. California's SIP Submittals
1. 2007 South Coast AQMP
2. 2007 State Strategy
3. Additional SIP Submittal Related to Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets (Budgets)
B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP
Submittals
III. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for PM2.5 Attainment
SIPs
IV. Review of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the South Coast Portion
of the Revised 2007 State Strategy
A. Summary of EPA's Proposed Actions
B. Emission Inventories
1. Requirements for Emission Inventories
2. Emission Inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP
3. Proposed Action on the Emission Inventories
C. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)/Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) and Adopted Control Strategy
1. Requirement for RACM/RACT
2. RACM/RACT Demonstration in the SIP
a. District's RACM/RACT Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy
b. CARB's RACM Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy
c. The Local Jurisdiction's RACM Analysis
3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT Demonstration and Adopted
Control Strategy
D. Attainment Demonstration
1. Requirements for Attainment Demonstration
2. Air Quality Modeling in the South Coast 2007 AQMP
3. PM2.5 Precursors Addressed in the South Coast 2007
AQMP
4. Extension of the Attainment Date
[[Page 71295]]
5. Attainment Demonstration
a. Enforceable Commitments
i. The Commitments Do Not Represent a Limited Portion of
Required Reductions
ii. The State Is Capable of Fulfilling Its Commitment
iii. The Commitment Is for a Reasonable and Appropriate Period
of Time
b. Federal Reductions
6. Proposed Action on the Attainment Demonstration
E. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration
1. Requirements for RFP
2. RFP Demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP
3. Proposed Action on the RFP Demonstration
F. Contingency Measures
1. Requirements for Contingency Measures
2. Contingency Measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP
3. Proposed Action on the Contingency Measures
G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
H. Mid-Course Review
V. EPA's Proposed Actions
A. EPA's Proposed Approvals and Disapprovals
B. CAA Consequences of a Final Disapproval
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The PM[bdi2].[bdi5] NAAQS and the South Coast
PM[bdi2].[bdi5] Nonattainment Area
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established new national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5, particulate
matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, including annual
standards of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations, and 24-hour (or daily) standards of 65
[mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. 40 CFR 50.7 EPA established the standards based on
substantial evidence from numerous health studies demonstrating that
serious health effects are associated with exposures to
PM2.5 concentrations above the levels of these standards.
Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant
correlations between elevated PM2.5 levels and premature
mortality. Other important health effects associated with
PM2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions,
emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restricted
activity days), changes in lung function and increased respiratory
symptoms, as well as new evidence for more subtle indicators of
cardiovascular health. Individuals particularly sensitive to
PM2.5 exposure include older adults, people with heart and
lung disease, and children. See, EPA, Air Quality Criteria for
Particulate Matter, No. EPA/600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/P-99/002bF,
October 2004.
PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a
solid or liquid particle (``primary'' or ``direct PM2.5'')
or can be formed in the atmosphere as a result of various chemical
reactions from precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
ammonia (NH3) (``secondary PM2.5''). See 72 FR
20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007)
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the United States
as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On January 5, 2005, EPA
published initial air quality designations for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, based on air quality monitoring data for three-
year periods of 2001-2003 or 2002-2004. (70 FR 944). These designations
became effective on April 5, 2005.
EPA designated the ``Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin'' area
(South Coast nonattainment area), including Orange County, the
southwestern two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San
Bernardino County, and western Riverside County as nonattainment for
both the 1997 24-hour and the annual PM2.5 standards. The
South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area is home to about 17
million people, has a diverse economic base, and contains one of the
highest-volume port areas in the world. For a precise description of
the geographic boundaries of the South Coast PM2.5
nonattainment area, See 40 CFR 81.305.\1\ The local air district with
primary responsibility for developing a plan to attain the
PM2.5 NAAQS in this area is the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (District).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On October 17, 2006, EPA strengthened the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 [mu]g/m\3\. At
the same time, we retained the level of the annual PM2.5
standard at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. 71 FR 61144. On November 13, 2009, EPA
designated areas, including the South Coast, with respect to the
revised 24-hour NAAQS. 74 FR 58688. California is now required to
submit an attainment plan for the 35 [mu]g/m\3\ standards by
December 14, 2012. In this preamble, all references to the
PM2.5 NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997
24-hour PM2.5 standards of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ and annual
standards of 15 [mu]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambient annual PM2.5 levels in the South Coast are among
the highest recorded in the United States at 18.8 [mu]g/m\3\ for the
2007-2009 period.\2\ In the South Coast, the levels and composition of
PM2.5 differ by geographic location, with higher
PM2.5 concentrations typically occurring in metropolitan Los
Angeles and in the inland valley areas of San Bernardino and
metropolitan Riverside Counties. The higher PM2.5
concentrations in Los Angeles County are mainly due to secondary
formation of particulates. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, pages 2-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See the Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) Preliminary Design Value
Report dated August 26, 2010 in the docket for today's action. 18.8
[mu]g/m\3\ is the highest design value in the South Coast
nonattainment area. The design value is the three year average of
annual means of a single monitoring site. (See 40 CFR 50 Appendix N
Section 1(c)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. California's State Implementation Plan Submissions to Address
PM[bdi2].[bdi5] Nonattainment in the South Coast
Nonattainment Area
A. California's SIP Submittals
Designation of an area as nonattainment starts the process for a
state to develop and submit to EPA a State implementation plan (SIP)
under title 1, part D of the CAA. This SIP must include, among other
things, a demonstration of how the NAAQS will be attained in the
nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
the date required by the CAA. Under CAA section 172(b), a State has up
to three years after an area's designation to nonattainment to submit
its SIP to EPA. For the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, these
nonattainment SIPs were due no later than April 5, 2008.
California has made several SIP submittals to address
PM2.5 nonattainment in the South Coast nonattainment area.
The two principal ones are the District's 2007 PM2.5 Plan
(South Coast 2007 AQMP) and the CARB's State Strategy for California's
2007 State Implementation Plan (2007 State Strategy).
1. 2007 South Coast AQMP
On November 28, 2007, the California Air Resources Board (CARB or
State) submitted the ``Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, June
2007.'' \3\ This Plan was adopted by the District on June 1, 2007 and
submitted to CARB on October 24, 2007.\4\ The South Coast
[[Page 71296]]
2007 AQMP includes a PM2.5 attainment demonstration for the
South Coast. In order to meet relevant CAA requirements for the
PM2.5 NAAQS, the South Coast 2007 AQMP includes base and
projected year PM2.5 emissions inventories for the South
Coast nonattainment area; air quality monitoring data; short-, medium-
and long-term District control measures; a summary of CARB's control
measures; transportation control measures (TCMs); a demonstration of
RFP; a modeled attainment demonstration; a demonstration of RACM/RACT;
contingency measures for the 1997 PM2.5 RFP and for
attainment for the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area; and
a request to extend the attainment date for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS to April 5, 2015.\5\ The South Coast 2007 AQMP submittal also
includes District Governing Board Resolution 07-9 adopting the final
South Coast 2007 AQMP. The South Coast 2007 AQMP also contains
documentation of the District's public process, including written
responses to all public comments received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The South Coast 2007 AQMP is the first South Coast Plan to
address PM2.5. We have previously acted on numerous South
Coast air quality plans for ozone, PM-10, carbon monoxide, and
NO2, such as the 1997/1999 AQMP. We approved the ozone
portion of the 1997 South Coast AQMP, as amended in 1999, on April
10, 2000 (See 65 FR 18903). Our most recent action on a SIP
addressing the CAA requirements for the South Coast ozone
nonattainment area was our partial approval and partial disapproval
of the 2003 AQMP (See 74 FR 10176, March 10, 2009). Because the
District prepares integrated plans that address multiple pollutants,
and also controls VOC and NOX as precursors to
PM2.5, we will refer to control measures and control
measure commitments from the 2003 AQMP further in this notice.
\4\ See November 28, 2007 letter to Wayne Nastri, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9, from James N. Goldstene, Executive
Officer, CARB, with enclosures.
\5\ While the attainment date for PM2.5 areas with a
full five-year extension would be April 5 2015, reductions must be
implemented by 2014 to achieve attainment by that date. See 40 CFR
51.1007(b). We refer, therefore, to 2014 as the ``attainment year''
and April 5, 2015 as the ``attainment date.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 2007 State Strategy
To demonstrate attainment, the South Coast 2007 AQMP relies in part
on measures in the 2007 State Strategy. The 2007 State Strategy was
adopted by CARB on September 27, 2007 and submitted to EPA on November
16, 2007.\6\ It discusses CARB's overall approach to addressing, in
conjunction with local plans, attainment of both the 1997
PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS not only in the South Coast
nonattainment area but also in California's other nonattainment areas
such as the San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento area. It also
includes CARB's commitments to propose 15 defined State measures\7\ and
to obtain specific amounts of aggregate emissions reductions of direct
PM2.5, NOX, VOC and SOX in the South
Coast from sources under the State's jurisdiction, primarily on- and
off-road motor vehicles and engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See CARB Resolution No. 07-28, September 27, 2007 with
attachments and letter from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer,
CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,
November 16, 2007 with enclosures.
\7\ The 2007 State Strategy also includes measures to be
implemented by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (Smog
Check improvements) and the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation (VOC reductions from pesticide use). See 2007 State
Strategy, p. 64-65 and CARB Resolution 7-28, Attachment B, p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted the ``Status Report on the State
Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and
Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007
State Strategy'', dated March 24, 2009, adopted April 24, 2009 (``2009
State Strategy Status Report''),\8\ which updates the 2007 State
Strategy to reflect its implementation during 2007 and 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See CARB Resolution No. 09-34, April 24, 2009 and letter,
James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 12, 2009 with
enclosures. Only pages 11-27 of the 2009 State Strategy Status
Report are submitted as a SIP revision. The balance of the report is
for informational purposes only. See Attachment A to CARB Resolution
No. 09-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In today's proposal, we are evaluating only those portions of the
2007 State Strategy as revised in 2009 \9\ that are relevant for
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the South Coast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ We will also refer to the 2007 State Strategy as revised in
2009 as the ``revised 2007 State Strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Additional SIP Submittal Related to Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
(Budgets)
In addition to the SIP submittals for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS mentioned above, on April 4, 2008, the District Governing Board
approved an alternative approach for transportation conformity motor
vehicle emission budgets for the South Coast nonattainment area. This
new approach was based on the 2007 SIP baseline emissions reflecting
only the regulations adopted as of October 2006 for all milestone years
up to the attainment years. The CARB Governing Board approved
Resolution 08-27 itemizing the modifications to the South Coast
nonattainment area transportation conformity emission budgets. The
revised PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions budgets were submitted
as an amendment to the California SIP on April 30, 2008. We are acting
on those budgets today.
B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP Submittals
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state to
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing
prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet
this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that
adequate public notice was given and a public hearing was held
consistent with EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
Both the District and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior
to adoption and submittal of the South Coast 2007 AQMP. The District
conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held
public hearings prior to the adoption of the South Coast 2007 AQMP on
June 1, 2007 (District Governing Board Resolution No. 07-9). CARB
provided the required public notice and opportunity for public comment
prior to its September 27, 2007 public hearing on the plan. See CARB
Resolution No. 07-41.
CARB conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods,
and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the 2007 State
Strategy on September 27, 2007. (CARB Resolution No. 07-28). CARB also
provided the required public notice, opportunity for public comment,
and a public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009 adoption of the 2009
State Strategy Status Report. See CARB Resolution 09-34, April 24,
2009.
The SIP submittals include proof of publication for notices of the
District and CARB public hearings, as evidence that all hearings were
properly noticed. We therefore find that the submittals meet the
procedural requirements of CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l).
CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires EPA to determine whether a SIP
submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also
provides that any plan that EPA has not affirmatively determined to be
complete or incomplete will become complete 6 months after the date of
submittal by operation of law. EPA's SIP completeness criteria are
found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.
The South Coast 2007 AQMP became complete by operation of law on
May 28, 2008. The November 16, 2007 submission of the 2007 State
Strategy and the 2009 revisions to the Strategy became complete by
operation of law on May 16, 2008 and February 12, 2010, respectively.
III. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for PM[bdi2].[bdi5]
Attainment SIPs
EPA is implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS under Title 1, Part
D, subpart 1 of the CAA, which includes section 172, ``Nonattainment
plan provisions.'' Section 172(a)(2) establishes the attainment date
for a PM2.5 nonattainment area ``as expeditiously as
practicable'' but no later than five years after the area's designation
as nonattainment. This section also allows EPA to grant up to a five-
year extension of an area's attainment date based on the severity of
the area's nonattainment and
[[Page 71297]]
the availability and feasibility of controls. EPA designated the South
Coast as a nonattainment area effective April 5, 2005, and thus the
applicable attainment date is no later than April 5, 2010 or, should
EPA grant a full five-year extension, no later than April 5, 2015.
Section 172(c) contains the general statutory planning requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas, including the requirements for
emissions inventories, RACM/RACT, attainment demonstrations, RFP
demonstrations, and contingency measures.
On April 25, 2007, EPA issued the Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 72 FR 20586,
codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z (PM2.5 implementation
rule). The PM2.5 implementation rule and its preamble
address the statutory planning requirements for emissions inventories,
RACM/RACT, attainment demonstrations including air quality modeling
requirements, RFP demonstrations, and contingency measures. This rule
also addresses other matters such as which PM2.5 precursors
must be addressed by the State in its PM2.5 attainment SIP,
applicable attainment dates, and the requirement for mid-course
reviews.\10\ We will discuss each of these CAA and regulatory
requirements for attainment plans in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In June 2007, a petition to the EPA Administrator was filed
on behalf of several public health and environmental groups
requesting reconsideration of four provisions in the
PM2.5 implementation rule. See EarthJustice, Petition for
Reconsideration, ``In the Matter of Final Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule,'' June 25, 2007. These provisions are (1) the
presumption that compliance with the Clean Air Interstate Rule
satisfies the NOX and SO2 RACT requirements
for electric generating units; (2) the deferral of the requirement
to establish emission limits for condensable particulate matter
(CPM) until January 1, 2011; (3) revisions to the criteria for
analyzing the economic feasibility of RACT; and (4) the use of out-
of-area emissions reductions to demonstrate RFP. These provisions
are found in the PM2.5 implementation rule and preamble
at 20623-20628, 40 CFR 51.1002(c), 20619-20620, and 20636,
respectively. On May 13, 2010, EPA granted the petition with respect
to the fourth issue. Letter, Gina McCarthy, EPA, to David Baron and
Paul Cort, Earthjustice, May 13, 2010. EPA is currently considering
the other issues raised in the petition.
Neither the District nor the State relied on the first, third,
or fourth of these provisions in preparing the South Coast 2007 AQMP
or 2007 State Strategy. The District has deferred CPM limits in its
rules. EPA does not believe that this deferral adversely affects the
Plan's RACT or expeditious attainment demonstrations. See section
II.D.3 of the TSD for this proposal. EPA will evaluate any rule
adopted or revised by the District after January 1, 2011 to assure
that it appropriately addresses CPM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Review of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the South Coast Portion of
the 2007 State Strategy
A. Summary of EPA's Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part those
portions of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and those portions of the 2007
State Strategy as revised in 2009 specific to the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in the South Coast. We are proposing to approve the base year and
baseline emissions inventories in these SIP revisions as meeting the
applicable requirements of the CAA and the PM2.5
implementation rule. We are also proposing to approve the District's
and CARB's commitments to propose specific measures and to meet
specific aggregate emissions reductions in these revisions as
strengthening the SIP, as well as the District's air quality modeling
demonstration as meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA
guidance.
We are proposing to disapprove the attainment demonstration, RACM/
RACT analysis, RFP demonstration, and California's request to extend
the attainment date to 2015 as not meeting the applicable requirements
of the CAA and the PM2.5 implementation rule because they
are dependent on the approval of the attainment demonstration (See 40
CFR 51.1009 and 51.1010). For the attainment demonstration, we are
proposing to approve the air quality modeling, but we are proposing to
disapprove the overall demonstration because it relies too extensively
on commitments to emissions reductions in lieu of fully adopted and
submitted rules. Rules that have either not been adopted in final form
or have not been submitted to EPA cannot be credited toward the
attainment demonstration. We are proposing to disapprove the motor
vehicle emissions budgets for the RFP milestone years and the
attainment year, because they are derived from RFP and attainment
demonstrations which we are proposing to disapprove. Finally, we are
proposing to disapprove the RFP and attainment contingency measures as
not meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA and the
PM2.5 implementation rule. To the extent that the State can
remedy the shortfall in emissions reductions for the attainment
demonstration, which is the basis for the proposed disapproval of the
attainment demonstration, EPA believes that many of the noted
deficiencies could be addressed.
EPA's analysis and findings are summarized below and are described
in more detail in the technical support document (TSD) for this
proposal, which is available on line at http://www.regulations.gov in
the docket for this proposal (EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0366), or from the EPA
contact listed at the beginning of this notice.
B. Emissions Inventories
1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories
CAA section 172(c)(3) requires states to submit a ``comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the
relevant pollutant.'' The PM2.5 implementation rule requires
states to include direct PM2.5 emissions and emissions of
all PM2.5 precursors in this inventory, even if it has
determined that control of any of these precursors is not necessary for
expeditious attainment. 40 CFR Sec. 51.1008(a)(2) and 72 FR 20586, at
20648. Direct PM2.5 includes condensable particulate matter.
See 40 CFR 51.1000. PM2.5 precursors are NOX,
SO2, VOC, and ammonia (NH3).\11\ Id. The
inventories should meet the data requirements of EPA's Consolidated
Emissions Reporting Rule (codified at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A) and
include any additional inventory information needed to support the
SIP's attainment demonstration and (where applicable) RFP
demonstration. 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The District controls sulfur oxides (SOX), which
includes SO2, and considers the two terms interchangeable
for emissions purposes. We will use SOX in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A baseline emission inventory is required for the attainment
demonstration and for meeting RFP requirements. As determined on the
date of designation, the base year for this inventory should be the
most recent calendar year for which a complete inventory was required
to be submitted to EPA. The baseline emission inventory for calendar
year 2002 or other suitable year should be used for attainment planning
and RFP plans for areas initially designated nonattainment for the
PM2.5 NAAQS in 2005. 40 CFR 51.1008(b).
EPA has provided additional guidance for PM2.5 emission
inventories in ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of
Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulations,''
November 2005 (EPA-454/R-05-001).
2. Emissions Inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP
The baseline planning inventories for direct PM2.5 and
all PM2.5 precursors for the South Coast nonattainment area
together with additional documentation for the inventories are found in
[[Page 71298]]
Appendix III of the South Coast 2007 AQMP. Average annual day baseline
inventories are provided for the years 2002, 2005 (the reference year
for the air quality modeling) and for the years 2008, 2010, 2011, and
2014. The baseline inventories incorporate reductions from federal,
state, and District measures adopted prior to 2007 (``baseline
measures''). South Coast 2007 AQMP, page 3-1. The District also
provided both summer and winter planning inventories for
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. South Coast 2007
AQMP, Appendix III, page III-1-23.
Table 1 is a summary of the average annual day inventories for
directly-emitted PM2.5 and for the PM2.5
precursors NOX, VOC, and SOX for the baseline
modeling year of 2005 and the targeted attainment year of 2014 from the
South Coast 2007 AQMP (derived from Appendix A, Table A-2). It is these
inventories that provide the basis for the control measure analysis and
the RFP and attainment demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 AQMP.
Table 1--South Coast Nonattainment Area Emissions Inventory Summary for PM[ihel2].[ihel5] and PM[ihel2].[ihel5]
Precursors for the 2005 Baseline Year and 2014 Attainment Year
[Annual average day emissions in tons per day] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC PM2.5 SOX NH3
Emissions inventory category -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary/Areawide Sources..... 87 71 259 260 58 63 22 17 75 68
On-road Mobile Sources.......... 526 287 264 159 20 17 4 2 29 15
Off-road Mobile Sources......... 360 293 208 157 22 18 37 25 n/a n/a
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 972 650 731 566 101 98 63 45 104 83
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Numbers may not add due to rounding.
As a starting point for the South Coast 2007 AQMP's inventories,
the District used CARB's 2002 base year inventory. An example of this
inventory and CARB's documentation for its inventories can be found in
Appendices A and F, respectively, of the 2007 State Strategy. The 2002
inventory for the South Coast nonattainment area was projected to 2005
and future years using CARB's California Emission Forecasting and
Planning Inventory System (CEFIS). South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III,
page III-1-1. Both base year and baseline inventories use the current
version of California's mobile source emissions model approved by EPA
for use in SIPs, EMFAC2007 V2.3, for estimating on-road motor vehicle
emissions. 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). Off-road inventories were
developed using the CARB off-road model. Ammonia emissions estimates
were provided separately by the District.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Electronic mail from Kathy Hsiao, SCAQMD to Wienke Tax, EPA
Region 9, RE: NH3 numbers for SCAB, dated October 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Proposed Action on the Emission Inventories
We have reviewed the emissions inventories in the South Coast 2007
AQMP and the inventory methodologies used by the District and CARB for
consistency with CAA requirements, the PM2.5 implementation
rule, and EPA's guidance. We find that the base year and projected
baseline year inventories are comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventories of actual or projected emissions of PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors in the South Coast nonattainment area as of
the date of their submittal. We therefore propose to approve these
inventories as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), the
PM2.5 implementation rule and applicable EPA guidance. We
provide more detail on our review of the inventories in section II.A.
of the TSD for this proposal.
C. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)/Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) and Adopted Control Strategy
1. Requirements for RACM/RACT
CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan ``provide
for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as
expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions
from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the
adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology),
and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air
quality standards.'' EPA defines RACM as measures that a State finds
are both reasonably available and contribute to attainment as
expeditiously as practicable in its nonattainment area. Thus, what
constitutes RACM/RACT in a PM2.5 attainment plan is closely
tied to that plan's expeditious attainment demonstration. 40 CFR
51.1010; 72 FR 20586 at 20612. States are required to evaluate RACM/
RACT for direct PM2.5 and all of its attainment plan
precursors. 40 CFR 51.1002(c).
For PM2.5 attainment plans, EPA is requiring a combined
approach to RACM and RACT under subpart 1 of Part D of the CAA. Subpart
1, unlike subparts 2 and 4, does not identify specific source
categories for which EPA must issue control technology documents or
guidelines, or identify specific source categories for State and EPA
evaluation during attainment plan development. 72 FR 20586, at 20610.
Rather, under subpart 1, EPA considers RACT to be part of an area's
overall RACM obligation. Because of the variable nature of the
PM2.5 problem in different nonattainment areas, which may
require States to develop attainment plans that address widely
disparate circumstances, EPA determined that states should have
flexibility with respect to RACT and RACM controls but also that in
areas needing significant emission reductions to attain the standards,
RACT/RACM controls on smaller sources may be necessary to reach
attainment as expeditiously as practicable. 72 FR 20586, at 20612,
20615. Thus, under the PM2.5 implementation rule, RACT and
RACM are those reasonably available measures that contribute to
attainment as expeditiously as practicable in the specific
nonattainment area. 40 CFR 51.1010; 72 FR 20586, at 20612.
Specifically, the PM2.5 implementation rule requires that
attainment plans include the list of measures the state considered and
information sufficient to show that a state met all requirements for
the determination of what constitutes RACM/RACT in the specific
nonattainment area. 40 CFR 51.1010(a). In addition, the rule requires
that the state, in determining whether a particular emissions reduction
measure or set of measures must be adopted as
[[Page 71299]]
RACM/RACT, consider the cumulative impact of implementing the available
measures and adopt as RACM/RACT any potential measures that are
reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility
if, considered collectively, they would advance the attainment date by
one year or more. Any measures that are necessary to meet these
requirements that are not already either federally promulgated, part of
the state's SIP, or otherwise creditable in SIPs must be submitted in
enforceable form as part of a state's attainment plan for the area. 72
FR 20586, at 20614.
A more comprehensive discussion of the RACM/RACT requirement for
PM2.5 attainment plans and EPA's guidance for it can be
found in the PM2.5 implementation rule preamble at 20609-
20633 and in section II.D. of the TSD for this proposal.
2. RACM/RACT Demonstration in the SIP
CARB and the District have rulemaking processes for development,
adoption and implementation of RACM/RACT that have been in place for
decades. Many of the measures being implemented in California and the
South Coast nonattainment area are the most stringent in the nation and
are often adopted for implementation in other areas. In addition, the
State and District have adopted new measures since 2002, the base year
for the South Coast 2007 AQMP, and included enforceable commitments for
measures that are scheduled to be adopted in the future. The RACM/RACT
analysis for the South Coast 2007 AQMP includes an evaluation of the
State's, District's, and the Southern California Association of
Governments' (SCAG's) new stationary, area and mobile sources measures
that have been adopted since the base year and those that are being
committed to for adoption in the future. See CARB Staff Report,
``Proposed 2007 State Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air
Basin--PM2.5 Annual Average and 8-Hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (September 21, 2007); South Coast 2007
AQMP, Appendix VI; and 2007 State Strategy, Appendix G. A more detailed
discussion of the District, State and SCAG measures is provided below.
a. District's RACM/RACT Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy
The District's RACM/RACT analysis, which focuses on stationary and
area source controls, is described in Chapter 6 and Appendix VI of the
South Coast 2007 AQMP.
Since the 1970s, the District has adopted stationary source control
rules that have resulted in significant improvement of air quality in
the South Coast nonattainment area. When command and control rules were
no longer within the limitations of economic efficiency, the District
began using economic incentive approaches with programs such as the
Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) and the Carl Moyer
program.\13\ While the District still relies on command and control
regulations, the District's control strategies are now supplemented by
market incentive and compliance flexibility approaches where
appropriate. These regulations and strategies have yielded significant
emissions reductions from sources under the District's jurisdiction. In
developing the South Coast 2007 AQMP, the District conducted a process
to identify RACM for the South Coast that involved public meetings to
solicit input, evaluation of EPA suggested RACM and RACT, and
evaluation of other air agencies' regulations. See South Coast 2007
AQMP, Appendix VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment
Program (``Carl Moyer Program'') provides incentive grants for
engines, equipment and other sources of pollution that are cleaner
than required, providing early or extra emission reductions.
Eligible projects include cleaner on-road, off-road, marine,
locomotive and stationary agricultural pump engines. The program
achieves near-term reductions in emissions of NOX, PM,
and VOC or reactive organic gas (ROG) which are necessary for
California to meet its clean air commitments under the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine which measures would be feasible for the South Coast,
the District looked at measures implemented in other nonattainment
areas' plans (including the San Joaquin Valley, the San Francisco Bay
Area, Sacramento, Ventura, Dallas-Fort Worth, the Houston-Galveston
area, and by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, or LADCO), and
held meetings with CARB, technical experts, local government
representatives, and the public during development of the South Coast
2007 AQMP. The District sponsored an AQMP summit, which generated 200
potential control measures. In addition, the District reviewed the list
of control measures in EPA's PM2.5 implementation rule. The
District also reevaluated all 82 District rules and regulations. The
District then screened the identified measures and rejected those that
affected few or no sources in the South Coast, had already been adopted
as rules, or were in the process of being adopted. The remaining
measures were evaluated using baseline inventories, available control
technologies, and potential emission reductions as well as whether the
measure could be implemented on a schedule that would contribute to
attainment of the PM2.5 standard assuming a 2015 deadline.
South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix VI.
In general, EPA believes that the District's current rules and
regulations are equivalent to or more stringent with respect to
emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors than
those developed by other air districts, with a few exceptions where
improvements are possible. The District is exploring several options
for reducing emissions further. These include the feasibility of
lowering emission limits and increasing levels of control in order to
promote cleaner stationary source technologies; lowering the VOC
content of coatings and solvents; establishing standards and test
methods for generic equipment and lowering release or leak thresholds;
improving leak detection, repair, inspection and maintenance; and
adding best management practices to rules.
Based on its RACM/RACT evaluation for stationary and area sources
under its jurisdiction, the District developed 37 stationary source
control measures that contained all measures included in other
districts' AQMPs, as well as some new innovative measures. The District
determined that the few available measures that District staff did not
include would not advance the attainment date or contribute to RFP due
to the insignificant or unquantifiable emissions reductions they would
potentially generate. Since submittal of the AQMP in 2007, the District
has completed action on the majority of these rules and submitted them
to EPA for approval into the SIP.
From October 2002 through June 2006, the District adopted
approximately 17 rules to address its commitment to achieve the
reductions committed to in the 2003 AQMP for the South Coast. These
rules included controls on VOC emissions from refineries and chemical
plants, co-composting operations, architectural coatings, solvent
cleaning operations, oil and gas production wells, and livestock waste.
Many of the adopted rules achieved more estimated reductions in VOC,
NOX and SOX than were expected in the 2003 AQMP.
A summary of these rules, which are included in the baseline emissions
estimates for the South Coast 2007 AQMP, is provided in Table 1-2 of
the South Coast 2007 AQMP. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Chapter 1, Table
1-2 and Chapter 4, page 4-6, and Table B-1 in Appendix B of the TSD for
today's action.
[[Page 71300]]
In addition to the rules adopted for 2003 AQMP, the District has
also made new commitments in its South Coast 2007 AQMP to achieve
further reductions from VOC, NOX, SOX and direct
PM2.5 sources in the South Coast Area. The District
committed to adopt and submit measures that will achieve the following
additional emissions reductions: 32 tpd NOX, 10 tpd VOC, 4
tpd direct PM2.5 and 3 tpd SOX.\14\ See CARB
Staff Report on the South Coast 2007 AQMP, page ES-2 to ES-4. The
District expects to meet its emissions reductions commitments for each
of the pollutants by adopting new control measures and programs found
in the Table 4-2A of the South Coast 2007 AQMP (See South Coast 2007
AQMP, page 4-10 and CARB Staff Report on South Coast 2007 AQMP, p. 18)
and from additional actions summarized in the CARB Staff Report on the
South Coast 2007 AQMP (See CARB Staff Report on South Coast 2007 AQMP,
p. 17). The new control measures and additional actions are estimated
to achieve more of the District's NOX and VOC emission
reduction commitments. They include new rules to regulate lubricants,
consumer products, non-RECLAIM ovens, dryers and furnaces, space
heaters, facility modernizations, livestock waste, residential wood
burning, commercial cooking, and continuation of the Carl Moyer
program. The South Coast 2007 AQMP also identifies 22 measures (beyond
the new control measures and additional actions just discussed) for
further review which may also yield additional reductions towards the
District's commitments. As discussed above, the District's commitment
is to achieve the estimated total tonnage reductions of each pollutant
because specific control measures and actions as adopted may provide
more or less reductions than estimated in the South Coast 2007 AQMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ CARB uses the term ROG (reactive organic gases) where we
use the term VOC. We will use the term ``VOC'' in this notice to
refer to both ROG and VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, EPA notes that since the adoption of the South Coast 2007
AQMP, the District has already adopted and submitted several new rules
that help fulfill the District's enforceable commitments for additional
emission reductions of NOX, VOC, direct PM2.5 and
SOX in the South Coast area. Tables 2 and 3 below summarize
the status of these new rules.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 71301]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO10.021
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
Table 3--Submittal and Approval Status of District Rules in the 2007 PM[ihel2].[ihel5] Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 445--Woodburning fireplaces and SIP-approved........... 74 FR 27716, 6/11/09.
wood stoves.
Rule 1144--Vanishing oils and rust SIP-approved........... 75 FR 40726, 07/14/10.
inhibitors.
Rule 1143--Consumer Paint Thinners Not yet submitted-- New rule; no previous version approved into the
and Multi-Purpose Solvents. adopted 07/09/10. SIP; District is revising rule.
Rule 1145--Plastic, Rubber, Leather SIP-approved........... 75 FR 40726, 07/14/10.
and Glass Coatings.
Rule 1147--NOX reductions from SIP-approved........... 75 FR 46845, 08/04/10.
miscellaneous sources.
Rule 2002--Further SOX reductions Not yet adopted........ Most recent approval 08/29/06, 71 FR 51120.
from RECLAIM.
Rule 1111--Further NOX reductions SIP-approved........... 75 FR 46845, 08/04/10.
from space heaters.
Rule 1110.2--Liquid and gaseous SIP-approved........... 74 FR 18995, 4/27/09.
fuels--stationary ICEs.
Rule 1146--NOX from industrial, Submitted.............. Most recent approval--04/08/02, 67 FR 16640.
institutional, commercial boilers,
steam generators, and process
heaters.
Rule 1146.1--NOX from small Submitted.............. Most recent approval--09/06/95, 60 FR 46220.
industrial, institutional,
commercial boilers, steam
generators, and process heaters.
Rule 1127--Livestock Waste........... Submitted to EPA on 10/ Found complete on 10/25/06.
05/06.
Refinery Pilot Program............... Not yet adopted........ N/A.
[[Page 71302]]
Rule 2301--Indirect Source Review.... Not yet adopted........ N/A.
Carl Moyer program................... No rule associated with Ongoing.
this measure.
AB923 Light duty vehicle high emitter No rule associated with N/A.
program. this measure.
AB923 Light duty vehicle high emitter No rule associated with N/A.
program. this measure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. CARB's RACM Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy
Source categories for which CARB has primary responsibility for
reducing emissions in California include most new and existing on- and
off-road engines and vehicles, motor vehicle fuels, and consumer
products. In addition, California has unique authority under CAA
section 209 (subject to a waiver by EPA) to adopt and implement new
emission standards for many categories of on-road vehicles and engines,
and new and in-use off-road vehicles and engines.
Given the need for significant emissions reductions from mobile and
area sources to meet the NAAQS in California nonattainment areas, the
State of California has been a leader in the development of some of the
most stringent control measures nationwide for on-road and off-road
mobile sources and the fuels that power them. These standards have
reduced new car emissions by 99 percent and new truck emissions by 90
percent from uncontrolled levels. 2007 State Strategy, p. 37. The State
is also working with EPA on goods movement activities and is
implementing programs to reduce emissions from ship auxiliary engines,
locomotives, harbor craft and new cargo handling equipment. In
addition, the State has standards for lawn and garden equipment,
recreational vehicles and boats, and other off-road sources that
require newly manufactured equipment to be 80-98% cleaner than their
uncontrolled counterparts. Id. Finally, the State has adopted many
measures that focus on achieving reductions from in-use mobile sources
that include more stringent inspection and maintenance (I/M) or ``Smog
Check'' requirements, truck and bus idling restrictions, and various
incentive programs. Since 1994 alone, the State has taken more than 45
rulemaking actions and achieved most of the emissions reductions needed
for attainment in the State's nonattainment areas. See 2007 State
Strategy, pp. 36-40. As is noted in the 2007 State Strategy, EPA has
approved California's mobile source program as representing best
available control measures. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix G, 69 FR
5412 (February 4, 2004), 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) (proposed and final
approval of San Joaquin Valley PM10 plan).
CARB developed its proposed 2007 State Strategy after an extensive
public consultation process to identify potential SIP measures.\15\
From this process, CARB identified and committed to propose 15 new
defined measures. These measures focus on cleaning up the in-use fleet
as well as increasing the stringency of emissions standards for a
number of engine categories, fuels, and consumer products. Many, if not
most, of these measures are being proposed for adoption for the first
time anywhere in the nation. They build on CARB's already comprehensive
program described above that addresses emissions from all types of
mobile sources and consumer products, through both regulations and
incentive programs. See Appendix A of the TSD. Table 4 below lists the
new defined measures in the 2007 State Strategy that include one
measure each from the California Bureau of Automotive Repair and the
California Department of Pesticide Regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ More information on this public process including
presentations from the workshops and symposium that proceeded the
adoption of the 2007 State Strategy can be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm.
Table 4--2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Scheduled for Consideration and Current Status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary area (SC and/or
Defined state measure SJV) Adoption year Current status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smog Check Improvements............... Both..................... 2007-2008............... Elements approved 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010).
Expanded Vehicle Retirement........... Both..................... 2008-2014............... Adopted CARB June 2009; Bureau of Automotive Repair
September 2010.
Revisions to Reformulated Gasoline Both..................... 2007.................... Approved, See 75 FR 26653 (May 2, 2010).
Program.
Cleaner In-use Heavy Duty Trucks...... Both..................... 2008.................... Adopted 2008, pending revisions.
Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Other SC....................... 2007-2008............... Adopted December 2007.
Clean Technologies.
Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels... SC....................... Fuel: 2007, Engines: Adopted July 2007.
2009.
Port Truck Modernization.............. SC....................... 2007-2008............... Adopted December 2007 and December 2008.
Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Both..................... 2007-2008............... In progress.
Locomotives.
Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts....... SC....................... 2007.................... Adopted November 2007, revised June 2010.
Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Engines....... Both..................... 2007.................... Adopted 2007, pending revisions.
Cleaner In-Use Agricultural Equipment. SJV...................... 2009.................... In progress using incentive funds.
New Emissions Standards for Both..................... 2009-2010............... Partial adoption, 2008; additional regulation in public
Recreational Boats. review.
[[Page 71303]]
Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Both..................... By 2010................. Adopted November 2008.
Emissions Standards.
Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above Both..................... 2007.................... Adopted June 2007.
Ground Storage Tanks.
Additional Evaporative Emissions Both..................... By 2010................. Partial adoption, 2008.
Standards.
Consumer Products Program (I & II).... Both..................... 2008 & 2010-2012........ Phase I--Approved 74 FR 57074 (November 4, 2009).
Department of Pesticide Regulation.... SJV...................... 2008.................... Adopted 2008, amended 2009.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC = South Coast nonattainment area; SJV = San Joaquin Valley. Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 23 (footnotes in original not included).
Appendix A of the TSD includes a list of all measures adopted by
CARB between 1990 and the beginning of 2007. These measures, reductions
from which are reflected in the South Coast 2007 AQMP's baseline
inventories, fall into two categories: Measures that are subject to a
waiver of Federal preemption under CAA section 209 (``section 209
waiver measures'' or ``waiver measures'') and those for which the State
is not required to obtain a waiver (``non-waiver measures''). Emissions
reductions from waiver measures are fully creditable in attainment and
RFP demonstrations and may be used to meet other CAA requirements, such
as contingency measures. See EPA's proposed approval of the San Joaquin
Valley 1-hour ozone plan at 74 FR 33933, 33938 (July 14, 2009) and
final approval at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010). The State's baseline
non-waiver measures have generally all been approved by EPA into the
SIP and as such are fully creditable for meeting CAA requirements.
In addition to the State's commitments to propose defined new
measures, the 2007 State Strategy includes enforceable commitments for
direct PM2.5, NOX, VOC, and SOX
emissions reductions from mobile source categories that are that are
crucial for attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast
nonattainment area. For the South Coast nonattainment area, the revised
2007 State Strategy includes State commitments to achieve 152 tpd of
NOX, 46 tpd of VOC, 9 tpd of direct PM2.5, and 20
tpd of SOX (See 2007 State Strategy, p. 63 and CARB
Resolution 07-28, Attachment B, p. 6). The 2007 State Strategy
indicates that the State expects to achieve these emission reductions
in the South Coast nonattainment area by the projected attainment year
of 2014 from the measures listed in Table 4 or other similar measures.
In the 2007 State Strategy, CARB provides an estimated emissions
reduction for each measure to show that, when considered together,
these measures can meet the total commitment. CARB states, however,
that its enforceable commitment is to achieve the aggregate emissions
reductions for each pollutant by the given dates and not for a specific
level of reductions from any specific measure. See 2007 State Strategy,
p. 58. A summary of the estimates from the proposed measures is
provided in Table 5 below.
As mentioned above, CARB's commitment is also to propose specific
new measures that are identified and defined in the 2007 Strategy
State. See 2007 State Strategy, pp. 64-65 and 2009 State Strategy
revisions, pp. 22-23. Table 5 below lists these defined measures. As
shown in this table, the State has adopted many of the measures.
Table 5--Expected Emissions Reductions from Defined Measures in the 2007 State Strategy for the South Coast
(2014 Tons per Day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 Direct
Measure 2014 NOX 2014 VOC PM2.5 2014 SOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smog Check Improvements (BAR) [partial]......... 2.0 4.1 .............. ..............
Modifications to Reformulated Gasoline Program.. .............. 4.4 .............. ..............
Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks................ 59.7 5.0 3.5 ..............
Ship Auxiliary Engine Cold Ironing & Clean 25.4 0.1 0.5 0.3
Technology.....................................
Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuel [fuel portion 1.3 .............. 1.9 17.0
only]..........................................
Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft.................. 2.4 0.1 0.1 ..............
Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment (> 25hp)...... 10.5 2.7 2.6 ..............
Consumer Products Program [partial]............. .............. 1.8 .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.......................................... 101.3 18.2 8.6 17.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2009 CARB Staff Report on the State Strategy, p. 5. Only defined measures with reductions in the South
Coast nonattainment area are shown here.
c. The Local Jurisdiction's RACM Analysis
The local jurisdiction's RACM analysis was conducted by the
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the South Coast region,
the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). This
analysis, which focused on transportation control measures (TCMs), and
its results are described in Appendix IV-C of the South Coast 2007
AQMP. The TCMs in the South Coast 2007 AQMP are derived from TCM
projects in the 2006 SCAG Regional Transportation Improvement Program
(RTIP). This evaluation, described beginning on page 49 of Appendix IV-
C of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, resulted in extensive local government
commitments to implement
[[Page 71304]]
programs to reduce auto travel and improve traffic flow. South Coast
2007 AQMP page 6-6 and Appendix IV-C. SCAG also provided reasoned
justifications for any measures that it did not adopt. Attachment A to
Appendix IV-C contains an extensive list of TCMs in process and newly
programmed TCMs. The enforceable commitment from SCAG and the
transportation agencies was to fund and implement projects in the first
two years of the 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
(RTIP).
3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT and Adopted Control Strategy
Under the PM2.5 implementation rule, RACM/RACT are the
set of measures necessary for expeditious attainment. The measures must
address emissions of PM2.5 and all PM2.5
attainment plan precursors that are necessary to result in such
expeditious attainment. In order for a PM2.5 plan to
demonstrate that it provides for RACM/RACT, it must also demonstrate
that it provides for expeditious attainment. 72 FR 20586, p. 20612-
20623. As discussed further below in section D.5., we are proposing to
disapprove the PM2.5 attainment demonstration for the South
Coast nonattainment area because it relies too heavily on commitments
to reduce emissions in lieu of fully adopted measures. Absent an
approvable attainment demonstration, we are unable to propose to
approve and must instead propose to disapprove the AQMP's RACM/RACT
demonstration. It appears, however, that the District, State and local
jurisdictions have identified and otherwise provided for the
implementation of a comprehensive set of measures that are among the
most stringent in the nation and, should the State correct the
deficiencies in the attainment demonstration, we expect to be able to
propose to approve the plan's RACM/RACT demonstration.
Because they will strengthen the California SIP, we are proposing
to approve the District's commitments to the adoption and
implementation schedule for specific control measures given in Table 7-
3 in the South Coast 2007 AQMP, to the extent that these commitments
have not yet been fulfilled, and to achieve specific aggregate
emissions reductions of direct PM2.5, NOX, VOC,
and SOX by specific years as given in Table 4-10 of the
South Coast 2007 AQMP.
We are also proposing to approve, as a SIP strengthening measure,
CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, as given on
page 23 of the 2009 State Strategy Status Report, to achieve aggregate
emissions reductions of 152 tpd NOX, 46 tpd VOC, 9 tpd
PM2.5, and 20 tpd SOX in the South Coast by 2014.
D. Attainment Demonstration
1. Requirements for Attainment Demonstrations
CAA section 172 requires a State to submit a plan for each of its
nonattainment areas that demonstrates attainment of the applicable
ambient air quality standard as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than the specified attainment date. Under the PM2.5
implementation rule, this demonstration should consist of four parts:
(1) Technical analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources
of emissions that are contributing to violations of the
PM2.5 NAAQS;
(2) analyses of future year emissions reductions and air quality
improvement resulting from already-adopted national, State, and local
programs and from potential new State and local measures to meet the
RACT, RACM, and RFP requirements in the area;
(3) adopted emissions reduction measures with schedules for
implementation; and
(4) contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) of the
CAA.
See 40 CFR 51.1007; 72 FR 20586, at 20605.
The requirements for the first two parts are described in the
sections on emissions inventories and RACM/RACT above and in the
sections on air quality modeling, PM2.5 precursors,
extension of attainment date, and attainment demonstrations that follow
immediately below. Requirements for the third and fourth parts are
described in the sections on the control strategy and the contingency
measures, respectively.
2. Air Quality Modeling in the South Coast 2007 AQMP
The procedures for modeling attainment of the PM2.5
NAAQS as part of an attainment SIP are contained in EPA's ``Guidance on
the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of
Air Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and
Regional Haze.'' \16\ A brief description of the modeling used to
support South Coast's attainment demonstration follows. For more
detailed information about the modeling, please refer to the TSD
associated with this rulemaking, which can be found in the docket for
today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The guidance is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance_sip.htm and in the docket for today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air quality modeling is used to establish emission attainment
targets, a combination of emissions of PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors that the nonattainment area can accommodate
without exceeding the NAAQS, and to assess whether the proposed control
strategy will result in attainment of the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. Air quality modeling is performed for a base year and
compared to air quality monitoring data to determine model performance.
Once the performance is determined to be acceptable, future year
emission inventory changes are simulated to determine the relationship
between emission reductions and changes in ambient air quality
throughout the nonattainment area.
The attainment demonstration for the South Coast nonattainment area
is based on the CAMx model using the ``one atmosphere'' approach
comprised of the carbon bond IV (CB-IV) gas phased chemistry and a
static two-mode particle size aerosol.\17\ CAMx annual average
PM2.5 modeling simulations were generated for 2005 and 2014
baseline emissions scenarios and for a 2014 controlled emissions
scenario by the District. District staff compared the base year model
output to speciated particulate data measured in 2005 as part of the
Multiple Air Toxics III (MATES-III) program. Model specifications, such
as boundary conditions, domain size, and resolution, meet EPA criteria
and are discussed in the TSD. Model performance for total mass (the sum
of specific individual species), as well as specific individual
species, is adequate and is discussed in the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ CAMx is the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
extensions, an Eulerian photochemical dispersion model that allows
for integrated ``one-atmosphere'' assessments of gaseous and
particulate air pollution (ozone, PM2.5, PM10,
air toxics) over many scales ranging from sub-urban to continental.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District's attainment analysis follows EPA's guideline
technique of applying component-specific relative response factors
(RRF) to monitored data throughout the South Coast nonattainment area.
A RRF is the ratio of the model's future to current (baseline)
predictions at a monitor. Future PM2.5 concentrations are
estimated at existing monitoring sites by multiplying a modeled RRF at
the grid cell locations of each monitor by the observation-based,
monitor-specific, ``baseline'' design value. A separate RRF is
calculated for each of the PM2.5 precursors. Future
PM2.5 design values were estimated by District staff at
existing monitoring sites throughout the South Coast nonattainment area
by multiplying modeled RRFs for each
[[Page 71305]]
monitor times the observed ``component-specific design value''. The
future PM2.5 design values were then compared to the annual
and 24-hour NAAQS to demonstrate attainment at each site. The maximum
2014 predicted 24-hour PM2.5 design value at any site is
56.6 [mu]g/m\3\; this is lower than the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
at 65 [mu]g/m\3\. The maximum 2014 predicted PM2.5 annual
design value is 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\; a predicted design value of 15.04
[mu]g/m\3\ or lower is considered modeled attainment of the annual
standard.
EPA guidance also recommends the use of supplemental data analyses
to support the air quality modeling. The District used air quality
trends and emission inventory trends as ``weight of evidence'' to
support the air quality modeling for the attainment demonstration.
The District used its air quality modeling to establish emissions
reduction targets to be used in developing the control strategy for the
nonattainment SIP. Once a proposed control strategy was developed, the
District then used the photochemical modeling to verify that the
projected emissions reductions would result in attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 standards throughout the South Coast nonattainment
area by the target attainment date of 2014. The estimated carrying
capacities for the South Coast nonattainment area are included in Table
7.18 19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ``Carrying capacity'' is defined as the maximum level of
emissions that enable the attainment and maintenance of an ambient
air quality standard for a pollutant. (See South Coast 2007 AQMP,
page 5-27.)
\19\ The CARB Staff Report for the South Coast 2007 AQMP
presents a slightly different emissions carrying capacity which
relies more heavily on reductions of primary PM2.5 and
less heavily on reductions of precursors to PM2.5. The
Staff Report's emission carrying capacity estimates are
PM2.5--86 tons/day, NOX--460 tons/day,
SOX--20 tons/day, and VOC--474 tons/day (See CARB Staff
Report on the South Coast AQMP, page ES-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to approve the air quality modeling demonstration
in the South Coast 2007 AQMP as meeting the requirements of the CAA and
EPA guidance. We provide further discussion in the TSD.
Table 6--Emissions Carrying Capacity Estimates for the South Coast
Nonattainment Area for PM[ihel2].[ihel5] Attainment
[Tons/day, based on planning inventory]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX SOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
87 454 19 469
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. PM2.5 Precursors Addressed in the South Coast 2007 AQMP
EPA recognizes NOX, SO2, VOCs, and ammonia as
the main precursor gases associated with the formation of secondary
PM2.5 in the ambient air. These gas-phase PM2.5
precursors undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere to form
secondary particulate matter. Formation of secondary PM2.5
depends on numerous factors including the concentrations of precursors;
the concentrations of other gaseous reactive species; atmospheric
conditions including solar radiation, temperature, and relative
humidity; and the interactions of precursors with preexisting particles
and with cloud or fog droplets. 72 FR 20586, at 20589.
As discussed previously, a state must submit emissions inventories
for each of the four PM2.5 precursor pollutants. 72 FR
20586, at 20589 and 40 CFR Sec. 51.1008(a)(1). However, the overall
contribution of different precursors to PM2.5 formation and
the effectiveness of alternative potential control measures will vary
by area. Thus, the precursors that a state should regulate to attain
the PM2.5 NAAQS could also vary to some extent from area to
area. 72 FR 20586, at 20589.
In the PM2.5 implementation rule, EPA did not make a
finding that all potential PM2.5 precursors must be
controlled in each specific nonattainment area. See 72 FR 20586, at
20589. Instead, for the reasons explained in the rule, a state must
evaluate control measures for sources of SO2 in addition to
sources of direct PM2.5 in all nonattainment areas. 40 CFR
Sec. 51.1002(c) and (c)(1). A state must also evaluate control
measures for sources of NOX unless the State and/or EPA
determine that control of NOX emissions would not
significantly reduce PM2.5 concentrations in the specific
nonattainment area. Id. at 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(2). EPA has determined in
the PM2.5 implementation rule that states do not need to
address VOC and ammonia in an area unless the state and/or EPA
determine that controls on such sources would significantly contribute
to reducing PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area.
Id. at 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3) and (4). ``Significantly contributes'' in
this context means that a significant reduction in emissions of the
precursor from sources in the area would be projected to provide a
significant reduction in PM2.5 concentrations in the area.
72 FR 20586, at 20590.
In the South Coast nonattainment area, PM2.5 can be
directly emitted, such as from road dust, diesel soot, combustion
products, and other sources (``primary particles''), or formed through
atmospheric chemical reactions of precursor chemicals (``secondary
particles''). Examples of secondary particles include sulfates,
nitrates, and complex carbon compounds formed from reactions of
NOX, SOX, VOCs, and ammonia. The attainment
demonstration for the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area
addresses ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate because they represent
a dominant fraction of PM2.5 components in this area and are
formed through secondary reactions of the precursors NOX,
SOX, VOC and ammonia. The District's analysis indicates that
SOX reductions followed by directly-emitted PM2.5
and NOX reductions provide the greatest ambient
PM2.5 reductions. VOC reductions can also contribute to
improving ambient PM2.5 concentrations and will occur
concurrently as a result of District's 8-hour ozone strategy.\20\
Starting in 2011, the PM2.5 implementation rule requires
that states must also address condensable particulate matter (CPM),
including estimates of CPM in emissions inventories, modeling, and
control strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See page 5-17 of Chapter 5 of the South Coast 2007 AQMP. We
approved the South Coast RACT SIP on December 18, 2008 (See 73 FR
76947) as complying with the relevant CAA requirements for RACT SIPs
for 8-hour ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Extension of the Attainment Date
CAA section 172(a)(2) provides that an area's attainment date
``shall be the date by which attainment can be achieved as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date
such area was designated nonattainment * * *, except that the
Administrator may extend the attainment date to the extent the
Administrator determines appropriate, for a period no greater than 10
years from the date of designation as nonattainment considering the
severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of
pollution control measures.''
Because the effective date of designations for the 1997
PM2.5 standards was April 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), the initial
attainment date for PM2.5 nonattainment areas is as
expeditiously as practicable but not later than April 5, 2010. For any
areas that are granted a full five-year attainment date extension under
section 172, the attainment date would be no later than April 5, 2015.
Section 51.1004 of the PM2.5 implementation rule
addresses the attainment date requirement. Section 51.1004(b) requires
a State to submit an
[[Page 71306]]
attainment demonstration justifying its proposed attainment date and
provides that EPA will approve an attainment date when we approve that
demonstration. Thus, the selection of the attainment date is dependent
upon a demonstration showing expeditious attainment, and likewise
dependent upon proper evaluation of what constitutes RACM/RACT level
controls in the area.
States that request an extension of the attainment date under CAA
section 172(a)(2) must provide sufficient information to show that
attainment by April 5, 2010 is impracticable due to the severity of the
nonattainment problem in the area and the lack of available and
feasible control measures to provide for faster attainment. 40 CFR
51.1004(b). States must also demonstrate that all RACM and RACT for the
area are being implemented to bring about attainment of the standard by
the most expeditious alternative date practicable for the area. 72 FR
20586, at 20601. Thus, the proper evaluation of RACM/RACT controls is
an integral part of justifying an extension of the attainment date.
For urban areas nationwide, the South Coast nonattainment area has
the second highest average annual mean PM2.5 concentration
(ranking only behind the San Joaquin Valley in California for the 1997
PM2.5 standards). PM2.5 concentrations recorded
over the last few years at the Riverside and Mira Loma monitoring sites
continue to read well above the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\21\ The
PM2.5 problem in the South Coast is complex, caused by both
direct PM2.5 and secondary PM2.5, and compounded
by the topographical and meteorological conditions for the area that
are very conducive to the formation and concentration of
PM2.5 particles. South Coast 2007 AQMP, Chapter 4.
As discussed in section IV.C.3. above, the District's strategy for
attaining the PM2.5 standard relies on reductions of
directly-emitted PM2.5 as well as the PM2.5
precursor pollutants NOX, VOC, and SOX. The South
Coast nonattainment area needs significant reductions in
PM2.5, NOX, VOC, and SOX to
demonstrate attainment. EPA believes that further reduction of these
pollutants is challenging, because the State and local air pollution
regulations already in place include most of the readily available
PM2.5, NOX, VOC, and SOX control
measures. Moreover, attainment in the South Coast nonattainment area
must also mitigate the emissions increases associated with the
projected increases in population and emissions levels for this high-
growth area.
The direct PM2.5 reductions are achieved primarily from
open burning and residential wood combustion control measures. These
types of control measures present special implementation challenges
(e.g., the large number of individuals subject to regulation and the
difficulty of applying conventional technological control solutions).
NOX reductions come largely from District rules for fuel
combustion sources, and from the State's mobile source rules. VOC
reductions come from District rules governing the petroleum industry,
as well as consumer products rules at both the State and local level.
SOX reductions identified in the plan come from District
rules such as RECLAIM, and State measures related to ships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the necessity of obtaining additional emissions
reductions from these source categories in the South Coast
nonattainment area and the need to conduct significant public outreach
if applicable control approaches are to be effective, EPA agrees with
the District and CARB that the South Coast 2007 AQMP reflects
expeditious implementation of the programs during the 2008-2014 time
frame. EPA also agrees that the implementation schedule for enhanced
stationary source controls is expeditious, taking into account the time
necessary for purchase and installation of the required control
technologies. Finally, we believe that it is not feasible at this time
to accelerate the emission reduction schedule for the State and Federal
mobile source requirements, which set aggressive compliance dates for
new emission standards and which must rely on fleet turnover over the
years to deliver the ultimate emission reductions. The District's
control strategies are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4 of the
South Coast 2007 AQMP, and in section IV.C.2 above.
In addition, the State has adopted standards for many categories of
on-road and off-road vehicles and engines, and gasoline and diesel
fuels, and included commitments to develop rules for Smog Check
Improvements, Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks, SIP Auxiliary Engines
Cold Ironing and Clean Technology, Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuel,
Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment.
EPA believes that the District and State are implementing these
rules and programs as expeditiously as practicable. We anticipate that
the District will reevaluate this conclusion after completion of the
mid-course review of the nonattainment SIP for this area, due in April
2011. EPA also expects that CARB and the District will continue to
investigate opportunities to accelerate progress as new control
opportunities arise, and that the agencies will promptly adopt and
expeditiously implement any new measures found to be feasible in the
future.
As discussed in section IV.C.6 above, however, we are not in a
position at this time to approve, and therefore are proposing to
disapprove, the RACM/RACT demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP
because we cannot approve the attainment demonstration. As stated in
the PM2.5 implementation rule, EPA cannot grant an extension
of the attainment date beyond the initial five years provided by
section 172(a)(2)(A) if the State has not adequately considered and
evaluated the implementation of RACM and RACT for this area. (See 72 FR
20586, at 20601) Given the severity of the PM2.5
nonattainment problem in the South Coast nonattainment area and the
substantial progress the District has made to adopt and implement
reduction strategies, an extension of the attainment date would most
likely be appropriate and approvable if it were supported by the
necessary analysis and a part of an attainment plan that meets the
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
5. Attainment Demonstration
Table 7 below summarizes the measures that are relied upon in the
South Coast 2007 AQMP's PM2.5 attainment demonstration to
achieve the target emissions estimates shown in Table 7. The District
and State reduction levels reflect an agreement between CARB, the
District, and SCAG which provides for more NOX reductions
than were identified as necessary for attainment in the South Coast
2007 AQMP. See CARB Staff Report for South Coast 2007 AQMP, ES-1, ES-3;
November 28, 2007 letter to Wayne Nastri, EPA Region 9 Regional
Administrator, Enclosure VI, CARB Resolution 07-41, adopting the 2007
South Coast nonattainment area revisions to the California SIP,
September 27, 2007.
[[Page 71307]]
Table 7--Summary of Measures Needed for South Coast's PM[ihel2].[ihel5] Attainment Demonstration
[tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC PM2.5 SOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 2006 baseline (2007 State Strategy, p. 33)............... 972 732 101 63
B. 2014 baseline (ARB Staff Report for South Coast 2007 654 528 102 43
AQMP)......................................................
C. 2014 Attainment target (ARB staff Report for South Coast 460 474 86 20
2007 AQMP).................................................
D. Reductions needed from ``new'' measures (B minus C)...... 194 54 16 23
E. Total reductions needed by 2014 (A minus C).............. 512 258 16 43
F. Reductions from ``baseline'' (pre-2007 measures) (A minus 318 204 0 20
B).........................................................
G. New local/AQMD reductions................................ 28 10 4 3
H. New State reductions..................................... 152 46 9 20
I. Federal reductions....................................... 10 ........... ........... ...........
J. Additional local/AQMD reductions......................... 4 ........... ........... ...........
K. Total ``new'' reductions (G+H+I+J)....................... 194 56 16 23
L. Total reductions (F+K)................................... 512 260 16 43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CARB staff report on the South Coast 2007 AQMP, 2009 State Strategy Status Report.
As shown in Table 7, the majority of emissions reductions the State
projects are needed for PM2.5 attainment in the South Coast
nonattainment area by 2015 come from baseline reductions, i.e., from
adopted measures that have generally been approved by EPA either
through the SIP or the CAA section 209 waiver process. See Appendices A
and B of the TSD. The remaining reductions needed for attainment are to
be achieved through the District's and CARB's commitments to reduce
emissions in the South Coast and from a federal assignment which EPA
cannot approve, as discussed below. Since the submittal of the South
Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, the District and CARB have
already adopted measures (summarized in Table 8 below) that can be
credited toward reducing their aggregate emissions reduction in their
enforceable commitments. For the State, adopted waiver measures \22\ or
EPA-approved measures since 2007 (Ship Auxiliary Engine Cold Ironing &
Clean Technology; Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft; Modifications to
Reformulated Gasoline Program--Phase 3; Consumer Products Program I)
reduced emissions by 27.8 tpd of NOX, 6.4 tpd of VOC, 0.6
tpd of PM 2.5 and 0.3 of SOX (See Table 8 for a
summary of these reductions). Emissions reductions from District
measures approved by EPA since 2007 include 14.5 tpd of NOX,
4.3 tpd of VOC, and 1.2 tpd of PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ EPA allows emission reduction credit for measures that are
subject to the CAA section 209 process. See EPA's proposed approval
of the San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan at 74 FR 33933, 33938
(July 14, 2009). The State's baseline non-waiver measures have
generally all been approved by EPA into the SIP. See TSD, Appendix
A.
Table 8--Summary of Enforceable Commitments in the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM[ihel2].[ihel5] Attainment in
2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 NOX 2014 VOC 2014 PM2.5 2014 SOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Strategy Commitment (tpd).. 152............... 46................ 9 \23\............ 20.
Less Reductions from Adopted 27.8 tpd.......... 6.4 tpd........... 0.6 tpd........... 0.3 tpd.
Waiver Measures or EPA-approved
measures Since 2007 (Ship
Auxiliary Engine Cold Ironing &
Clean Technology; Clean Up
Existing Harbor Craft;
Modifications to Reformulated
Gasoline Program--Phase 3;
Consumer Products Program I) \a\.
Remaining State Commitment....... 124.2............. 39.6.............. 8.4............... 19.7.
District Commitment.............. 32................ 10................ 4................. 3.
Less reductions from EPA approved 14.5.............. 4.3............... 1.2............... 0.
District measures since 2007.
Remaining District Commitment.... 17.5.............. 5.7............... 2.8............... 3.
Missing 3 tpd PM2.5 (See footnote .................. .................. 3................. .................
23).
Total remaining commitment (tpd) 151.7............. 45.3.............. 14.2.............. 22.7.
\b\.
Total remaining commitment (%) 30%............... 18%............... 89% \c\........... 53%.
(compared to Line E of Table 7
above).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Reductions from other adopted measures listed in the revised 2007 State Strategy on p. 5 (South Coast 2014)
are not creditable in reducing the enforceable commitment because they have either not been submitted to EPA
or approved (or proposed for approval) into the SIP. These measures include the Smog Check Improvements (to be
adopted by the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR)), Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks, Cleaner In-Use Off-Road
Equipment, and Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuel. See 2009 State Strategy revisions, p. 5.
\b\ Includes federal assignment of 10 tpd NOX.
\c\ See footnote 23. This percentage assumes that total direct PM2.5 reductions needed for attainment is 16 tpd,
as indicated in Table 7.
a. Enforceable Commitments
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The 2007 State Strategy identifies 9 tpd of directly-
emitted PM2.5 as the aggregate State commitment by the
2015 attainment date (See 2009 State Strategy Status Report, page
20) but the CARB staff report for the South Coast 2007 AQMP
indicates a 12 tpd commitment. (See 2007 staff report, page ES-3) It
is unclear whether the State's commitment is for 9 tpd
PM2.5 or 12 tpd of direct PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated and shown above, measures already adopted by the District
and CARB (both prior to and pursuant to the South Coast 2007 AQMP and
revised 2007 State Strategy) provide the majority of emission
reductions needed to demonstrate attainment in the nonattainment SIP as
designed for this area. The balance of the needed reductions is in the
form of enforceable commitments by CARB. This approach is consistent
with past practice because the CAA allows approval of enforceable
commitments that are limited in scope where circumstances exist that
warrant the use of such commitments in place
[[Page 71308]]
of adopted measures.\24\ Once EPA determines that circumstances warrant
consideration of an enforceable commitment, EPA considers three factors
in determining whether to approve the CAA requirement that relies on
the enforceable commitment: (a) Does the commitment address a limited
portion of the CAA requirement; (b) is the State capable of fulfilling
its commitment; and (c) is the commitment for a reasonable and
appropriate period of time.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Commitments approved by EPA under section 110(k)(3) of the
CAA are enforceable by EPA and citizens under, respectively,
sections 113 and 304 of the CAA. In the past, EPA has approved
enforceable commitments and courts have enforced these actions
against states that failed to comply with those commitments: See,
e.g., American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J.
1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, Inc. v. N.Y. State
Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for
a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in
par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for Clean Air v.
South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist., No. CV 97-6916-HLH, (C.D. Cal.
Aug. 27, 1999). Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments,
EPA could make a finding of failure to implement the SIP under CAA
Section 179(a), which starts an 18-month period for the State to
correct the non-implementation before mandatory sanctions are
imposed.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) provides that each SIP ``shall include
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means
or techniques * * * as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirement of the Act.'' Section 172(c)(6) of the Act,
which applies to nonattainment SIPs, is virtually identical to
section 110(a)(2)(A). The language in these sections of the CAA is
quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any ``means or techniques''
that EPA determines are ``necessary or appropriate'' to meet CAA
requirements, such that the area will attain as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than the designated date. Furthermore, the
express allowance for ``schedules and timetables'' demonstrates that
Congress understood that all required controls might not have to be
in place before a SIP could be fully approved.
\25\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld
EPA's interpretation of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and
the Agency's use and application of the three factor test in
approving enforceable commitments in the 1-hour ozone SIP for
Houston-Galveston. BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et al., 355 F.3d
817 (5th Cir. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that, in acting on the South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised
2007 State Strategy, circumstances warrant the consideration of
enforceable commitments as part of the attainment demonstrations for
this area. As shown in Table 8 above, the majority of emission
reductions needed to demonstrate attainment and all of the emission
reductions needed to demonstrate RFP come from rules and regulations
that were adopted prior to the AQMP's submittal in November 2007, i.e.,
they come from the baseline measures.
As a result of these already-adopted State and District efforts,
most sources in the South Coast nonattainment area were already subject
to stringent rules prior to the development of the 2007 State Strategy
and the South Coast 2007 AQMP, leaving fewer and more technologically
challenging opportunities to reduce emissions. In the South Coast 2007
AQMP and the revised 2007 State Strategy, the District and CARB
identified potential control measures that could achieve the additional
emissions reductions needed for attainment (See CARB Staff Report on
South Coast 2007 AQMP, pp. 17-20, and revised 2007 State Strategy, p.
17). However, the timeline needed to develop, adopt, and implement
these measures went well beyond November 28, 2007, the submittal date
of the South Coast's attainment plan. As discussed above and below,
since 2007, the State and District have made progress meeting their
commitments, but have not completely fulfilled them. Given these
circumstances, the reliance on enforceable commitments in the South
Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy is warranted. We now
consider the three factors EPA uses to determine whether enforceable
commitments in lieu of adopted measures are approvable.
i. The Commitments Do Not Represent a Limited Portion of Required
Reductions
First, we look to see if the commitment addresses a limited portion
of a statutory requirement, such as the amount of emissions reductions
needed in a nonattainment area. The remaining portion of the
enforceable commitments in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the revised
2007 State Strategy are 141.7 tpd NOX, 45.3 tpd VOC, 11.2
tpd direct PM2.5 and 22.7 tpd SOX. When compared
to the State's current estimate of the emissions reductions needed for
PM2.5 attainment in 2014, the remaining portion of the
enforceable commitments represent approximately 30% of the needed
NOX reductions, 18% of the needed VOC reductions, 89% of the
needed PM2.5 reductions and 53% of the needed SOX
reductions. Historically, EPA has generally approved nonattainment area
SIPs with enforceable commitments in the range of 10% or less of the
total needed emissions reductions. See, e.g., approval of the San
Joaquin Valley PM-10 SIP at 69 30005 (May 26, 2004), approval of the
San Joaquin 1-hour ozone plan at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010), and
approval of the Houston-Galveston ozone SIP at 66 FR 57160, 57161
(November 14, 2001).
We note that there are significant emissions reductions tied to the
Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks measure, and the Cleaner Main Ship
Engines and Fuel measure listed in the 2009 State Strategy Status
Report, page 5. EPA understands that the State is working on adopting
and submitting these measures for EPA approval. It is possible that the
reductions from these measures and several outstanding District rules
will reduce the percentage of the remaining portion of the emissions
reductions attributed to enforceable commitments to below 10% of the
total needed reductions for each of the pollutants. However, until
these (or other) measures are adopted, submitted to EPA and approved
(as necessary), we believe that the percentages of enforceable
commitments for NOX, VOC, direct PM2.5 and
SOX, relied upon by the South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised
2007 State Strategy are too high and not a limited portion of the total
emissions reductions needed to meet the statutory requirement for
attainment in the South Coast nonattainment area.
ii. The State is Capable of Fulfilling Its Commitment
The second factor to consider for enforceable commitments is
whether the State and District are capable of fulfilling their
commitments. As discussed above, following the adoption and submittal
of the 2007 State Strategy, CARB adopted and submitted the 2009 State
Strategy Status Report which shows the State's progress in achieving
its enforceable commitments for the South Coast and several other
nonattainment areas in California. The revised 2007 State Strategy
shows that during 2007 and 2008, the State adopted rules for 10 control
measures identified in the 2007 State Strategy and 3 control measures
that were not identified in the 2007 State Strategy that will
contribute to the needed PM2.5 reductions. See 2009 Status
Report on State Strategy, p. 1, Highlights. While progress has been
made by the State to achieve its enforceable commitments for reductions
of NOX, VOC, direct PM2.5 and SOX,
there are still significant reductions that must be addressed in order
to satisfy the commitments. As discussed above, the remaining portion
of the enforceable commitments is anywhere from 18-89% for the relevant
pollutants. The revised 2007 State Strategy includes a table with
estimates of the measures that may fulfill the whole commitment. See
2009 Status Report on State Strategy, p. 17. While the percentage of
remaining commitments is too high for EPA to accept as part of an
approvable attainment demonstration, EPA believes that the State and
District have made good progress in meeting their
[[Page 71309]]
enforceable commitments in the past. Given the evidence of the State's
and District's efforts to date and their continuing program to adopt
controls, we believe that the State and District are capable of meeting
their enforceable commitments to achieve the necessary reductions in
the South Coast nonattainment area by 2014.
iii. The Commitment Is for a Reasonable and Appropriate Timeframe
Finally, the third factor we consider is whether the commitment is
for a reasonable and appropriate period of time. In order to meet the
commitment to achieve the needed reductions by 2014, the South Coast
2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy projected an ambitious rule
development, adoption, and implementation schedule. EPA considers this
projected schedule as providing sufficient time to achieve the
committed reductions by 2014. As we noted previously, many of the
scheduled measures have been adopted. See Tables 2, 3, 5 and 6 above
and the 2009 State Strategy Status Report, pp. 4, 17 & 23. The State
and District are continuing to evaluate their adopted measures and the
need for additional emissions reductions from new measures in this
area. See District Board Resolution 07-9 and the 2009 State Strategy
Status Report, p. 24. While we believe the State and District have
provided a reasonable and appropriate schedule for achieving their
commitments by 2014, as discussed above, EPA is not proposing to
approve the attainment date extension for the South Coast nonattainment
area. Thus we cannot currently conclude that the third factor is
satisfied.
b. Federal Reductions
As shown in Table 7, the South Coast 2007 AQMP assigns 10 tons per
day of NOX reductions to the Federal government. The CAA
does not authorize a State to assign responsibility to the Federal
government for meeting SIP requirements. However, we agree that we have
both the authority and the responsibility under the Act for regulating
certain nationwide sources of air pollution. The 1990 CAA Amendments
extended EPA's authority to regulate nonroad vehicles and engines and
expressly required EPA to evaluate nonroad engine emissions, determine
whether these emissions contribute significantly to ozone or CO in
areas which have failed to attain the ozone or CO NAAQS, and regulate
these emissions categories if found to be significant. EPA agrees with
the State that national mobile source emissions are increasingly
significant contributors to PM2.5 and ozone pollution,
particularly in the South Coast. The federal government has adopted a
variety of national measures that have reduced emissions in the South
Coast and will continue to explore future reduction opportunities.
South Coast may take credit for these reductions in its attainment
plans. The District may not, however, assign a reduction target to the
federal government as it has done in the 2007 AQMP.
In May 2004, as part of the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule, EPA
finalized new requirements for nonroad diesel fuel that decreased the
allowable levels of sulfur in fuel used in locomotives by 99
percent.\26\ The requirement for locomotives to use ultra-low sulfur
diesel takes effect in 2012. These fuel improvements have created and
will continue to result in significant environmental and public health
benefits by reducing PM2.5 from existing engines. In
addition, in March 2008, EPA finalized a three-part program that
reduces emissions from diesel locomotives of all types--line-haul,
switch, and passenger rail.\27\ The Locomotive and Marine Diesel Engine
rule cuts PM2.5 emissions from these engines by as much as
90 percent and NOX emissions by as much as 80 percent when
fully implemented. This rule sets new emission standards for existing
locomotives when they are remanufactured. The rule also includes Tier 3
emission standards for newly-built locomotives, provisions for clean
switch locomotives, and idle reduction requirements for new and
remanufactured locomotives. The Tier 3 emissions standards for
locomotives started to phase-in in 2009. Finally, the Locomotive and
Marine Diesel Engine rule establishes long-term, Tier 4, standards for
newly-built engines based on the application of high-efficiency
catalytic after treatment technology, beginning in 2015. See 73 FR
37096. To the extent that these and other Federal programs yield
additional reductions in the South Coast by 2014, the South Coast 2007
AQMP and State Strategy can be revised to reflect these reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See 69 FR 38957, ``Control of Emissions of Air Pollution
from Nonroad Diesel Engines'', also referred to as the ``Clean Air
Nonroad Diesel Rule'', June 29, 2004.
\27\ See 73 FR 37095, ``Control of Emissions of Air Pollution
from Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less than
30 Liters per Cylinder,'' also referred to as the ``Locomotive and
Marine Diesel Engine Rule,'' June 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, as stated above, because the CAA does not authorize States
to assign responsibility for meeting emission reduction requirements to
the EPA, we are proposing to disapprove the 10 tpd NOX
emissions reductions the District and State assigned to the Federal
government in the South Coast 2007 AQMP.
5. Proposed Action on Attainment Demonstrations
In order to approve a SIP's attainment demonstration, EPA must make
several findings and approve the plan's proposed attainment date.
First, we must find that the demonstration's technical bases,
including the emissions inventories and air quality modeling, are
adequate. As discussed above in section IV.B and IV.D, we are proposing
to approve these portions of the South Coast 2007 AQMP.
Second, we must find that the SIP submittal provides for
expeditious attainment through the implementation of all RACM and RACT.
As discussed above in section IV.C., we are proposing to disapprove the
RACM/RACT demonstration in the South Coast South Coast 2007 AQMP.
Third, EPA must find that the emissions reductions that are relied
on for attainment are creditable. As discussed above in section
IV.D.5.a., the South Coast 2007 AQMP relies on enforceable commitments
for almost 27 percent of the State's current estimate of the total
emissions reductions needed in this area. See Table 8. While EPA has
previously accepted enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted control
measures in attainment demonstrations, EPA has done so only when the
circumstances warranted it and the commitments met three criteria. We
believe that circumstances here warrant the consideration of
enforceable commitments. We also believe that both the State and the
District have demonstrated their capability to meet their commitments.
However, the commitments do not constitute a limited portion of the
required emissions reductions, and are not for an appropriate
timeframe. The State's and District's unfulfilled commitments currently
represent 30 percent of the NOX reductions, 18 percent of
the VOC reductions, 89 percent of the PM2.5 reductions, and
53 percent of the SOX emissions reductions currently
estimated to be required for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment area. These percentages are well
above the 10 percent figure of total reductions needed for attainment
generally accepted by EPA to approve an attainment demonstration that
relies in part on enforceable commitments. The timeframe of 2014 is not
currently appropriate since we are not proposing
[[Page 71310]]
to grant the State's request for the full attainment date extension to
2015.
Finally, for PM2.5 nonattainment areas that demonstrate
that they cannot attain within five years of designation as
nonattainment, EPA must grant an extension of the attainment date in
order to approve the attainment demonstration for the area. As
discussed above in section IV.D.4., we are proposing not to grant the
State's request to extend the attainment date in the South Coast
nonattainment area to April 5, 2015 because we cannot at this time
approve the attainment demonstration.
For the foregoing reasons, we are proposing to disapprove the
attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP. As noted above,
however, we believe that the State and District are in a position to
address these issues in the relatively near term, before we take final
action. We look forward to working with the State and District in the
coming months.
E. RFP Demonstration
1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress
CAA Section 172(c)(2) requires that plans for nonattainment areas
shall provide for reasonable further progress (RFP). RFP is defined in
section 171(1) as ``such annual incremental reductions in emissions of
the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date.''
The PM2.5 implementation rule requires submission of a
specific RFP demonstration at the same time as the attainment
demonstration for any area for which the State justifies an extension
of the attainment date beyond 2010. For areas seeking an attainment
date extension to 2015 such as the South Coast, the RFP demonstration
must show that in the applicable milestone years of 2009 and 2012,
emissions in the area will be at a level consistent with generally
linear progress in reducing emissions between the base year and the
attainment year. See 40 CFR 51.1009(d). States may demonstrate this by
showing that emissions for each milestone year are roughly equivalent
to benchmark emission levels for direct PM2.5 emissions and
each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the plan.
The steps for determining the benchmark emissions levels to demonstrate
generally linear progress are given in the PM2.5
implementation rule in 40 CFR 51.1009(f).
The RFP plan must describe the control measures that provide for
meeting the reasonable further progress milestones for the area, the
timing of implementation of those measures, and the expected reductions
in emissions of directly-emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5
attainment plan precursors. See 40 CFR Sec. 51.1009(c).
2. RFP Demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP
The RFP demonstration is in Chapter 6 of the South Coast 2007 AQMP.
The demonstration addresses direct PM2.5, NOX, VOC, and SOX
emissions and uses the 2002 annual average inventory as the baseline
year inventory and 2014 as the attainment year. Table 9 below
summarizes the South Coast PM2.5 RFP demonstration. See
South Coast 2007 AQMP, Table 6-3A.
Table 9--South Coast RFP Demonstration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant NOX VOC PM2.5 SOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 baseline inventory (tpd)............................... 1,093 844 99 53
Annual percentage change needed to show linear progress (%). 4.87 3.7 1.01 5.35
2009 target needed to show linear progress (tpd)............ 720 625 92 33
2009 remaining emissions with plan (tpd).................... 813 578 99 28
Projected shortfall (tpd)................................... 93 0 7 0
2012 target needed to show linear progress (tpd)............ 561 532 89 25
2012 remaining emissions with plan (tpd).................... 565 505 92 21
Projected shortfall (tpd)................................... 4 0 3 0
2014 remaining emissions with plan (tpd).................... 459 464 87 19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, the District's modeling demonstration indicated
that for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, SOX
reductions are the most effective, followed by directly-emitted
PM2.5, and then NOX and VOC. Therefore, the
District's proposed control strategy maximizes reductions of direct
PM2.5 and SOX to the extent possible. The RFP
demonstration for 2009 shows a shortfall of 7 tpd of directly-emitted
PM2.5 and 93 tpd of NOX while the SOX
and VOC reductions exceed their linear targets. The RFP demonstration
for 2012 indicates a slight shortfall in meeting the 2012 milestones
for directly-emitted PM2.5 and for NOX, although
SOX and PM2.5 targets are not only met but
surpassed. While the shortfall of 93 tpd for NOX in 2009 is
significant, this shortfall is almost completely made up by the
reductions estimated for 2012. We note that the shortfall in 2012 for
PM2.5 is only about 3% of the 2002 baseline inventory, and
the shortfall in NOX reductions is less than 1%, while
SOX and VOC reduction milestones are exceeded by more than
4% and 3% respectively. Thus, we find that the RFP demonstration for
2012 meets the ``generally linear'' test for RFP requirements for 2012
and addresses the shortfall of NOX in 2009.
3. Proposed Action on the RFP Demonstration
While we believe the District has demonstrated generally linear
progress towards attainment by 2015, we are not proposing to approve
the attainment date extension to 2015 and therefore cannot propose to
approve the RFP demonstration. We believe, however, that if the
deficiencies identified with the attainment demonstration are
addressed, we may then be able to propose to approve the attainment
date extension and RFP demonstration. See 40 CFR 51.1009.
F. Contingency Measures
1. Requirements for Contingency Measures
Under CAA section 172(c)(9), all PM2.5 attainment plans
must include contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to
meet RFP (``RFP contingency measures'') and contingency measures to be
implemented if an area fails to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date (``attainment contingency measures'').
These
[[Page 71311]]
contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures
that are ready to be implemented quickly without significant additional
action by the State. 40 CFR 51.1012. They must also be measures not
relied on in the plan to demonstrate RFP or attainment and should
provide SIP-creditable emissions reductions equivalent to one year of
RFP. Finally, the SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for the
contingency measures and specify a schedule for their implementation.
72 FR 20586, p. 20642.
Contingency measures can include Federal measures and local
measures already scheduled for implementation that provide emissions
reductions in excess of those needed to provide for RFP or expeditious
attainment. EPA has approved numerous SIPs under this interpretation.
See, e.g., 62 FR 15844, April 3, 1997; 62 FR 66279, December 18, 1997;
66 FR 30811, June 8, 2001; 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634, January 3, 2001.
2. Contingency Measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP
The attainment plan for the South Coast nonattainment area includes
contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to attain by
its attainment date or fails to meet RFP requirements. The contingency
measures for the South Coast nonattainment area are described in
Chapter 9 of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and discussed in more detail in
Appendix IV-A, section 2 of the AQMP. They are described below.
The South Coast 2007 AQMP describes the contingency measures in the
following way, ``Although implementation of these measures is expected
to reduce emissions, there are issues that limit the viability of these
measures as AQMP control measures at this time. Issues surrounding
these measures include, but are not limited to availability of District
resources to implement and enforce the measure, cost-effectiveness of
the measure, potential adverse environmental impacts, potential
economic impacts, effectiveness of emissions reductions, and
availability of methods to quantify emissions reductions.'' South Coast
2007 AQMP, page 9-1. The contingency measures do not meet the
requirements of the CAA, namely the requirements for these contingency
measures to be fully adopted or otherwise ready for quick
implementation, for trigger mechanisms and an implementation schedule,
and the AQMP does not provide for quantification of emissions
reductions demonstrating the equivalent of one year of RFP.
CTY-01--Offsetting potential emissions increase due to change in
natural gas specifications--This proposed contingency measure requires
RECLAIM facilities that use natural gas of a quality that creates more
emissions to offset these emissions for all pollutants. The measure is
listed as a ``Remaining 2003 AQMP Revision Control Measure'' and thus
was relied on in the 2003 AQMP for attainment. In addition, the
reductions are not quantified, and may be zero, since the proposed
measure may only reduce future emissions increases rather than provide
net reductions. The measure is not triggered by failure to meet RFP or
attainment and there is no defined implementation schedule. For these
reasons, this proposed measure does not meet CAA requirements for
contingency measures.
CTY-02--Clean Air Act Emission Fees for Major Stationary Sources--
This proposed contingency measure would use fees generated from the
District's Rule 317, Clean Air Act Nonattainment Fees, to achieve
emissions reductions. The implementation of Rule 317 is triggered by a
failure of the South Coast to attain the 1-hour standard by its
applicable attainment date (which can occur no earlier than November
15, 2010) and not by any failure to make RFP or to attain the
PM2.5 NAAQS, a minimum requirement for contingency measures
for PM2.5 SIPs. There is no implementation schedule
provided, and the AQMP does not quantify the reductions associated with
this measure. For these reasons, this proposed measure does not meet
CAA requirements for contingency measures.
CTY-03--Banning pre-Tier 3 off road diesel engines on High
Pollution Advisory (HPA) days--This proposed contingency measure would
complement a CARB rule which proposed to establish declining fleet
average emissions levels for off-road equipment over 25 horsepower
(hp). The District proposed a complementary measure, SC-OFFRD-1, that
would ban the use of pre-Tier 3 off-road diesel engines after 2023 on
HPA days should the South Coast nonattainment area fail to meet the 8-
hour ozone standard. This proposed contingency measure would require
additional rulemaking at the District level, as it is not currently
adopted. It also would be implemented too late in time to provide for
RFP or contingency reductions for PM2.5 RFP or attainment.
In addition, the AQMP does not quantify the reductions associated with
this measure. For these reasons, this proposed measure does not meet
CAA requirements for contingency measures.
CTY-04--Accelerated implementation of CARB's mobile source
measures--This proposed contingency measure, which could function as
both an RFP and an attainment contingency measure, requires the
District's Board to request that CARB accelerate the adoption and/or
implementation of the remaining control measures that have not been
adopted or fully implemented by one year. South Coast 2007 AQMP, page
9-3. Under CAA section 172(c)(9) and EPA's long-standing policies
interpreting this section, contingency measures must require minimal
additional rulemaking by the State and take effect within a few months
of a failure to make RFP or to attain. This proposed contingency
measure would require additional rulemaking at the District level and
potentially substantial and lengthy additional rulemaking at the State
level to be implemented. There is no trigger mechanism or
implementation schedule provided, and the AQMP does not quantify the
reductions associated with this measure. For these reasons, this
proposed measure does not meet CAA requirements for contingency
measures.
Post-Attainment-Year Emissions Reductions. We note that we are not
proposing to approve the attainment date extension. However, even if it
were approved, excess reductions in 2015/2016 from CARB mobile source
measures do not fully address the contingency measure requirement for
the PM2.5 attainment year. There is no calculation of the
emissions reductions equivalent of one year's work of RFP in the South
Coast 2007 AQMP. However, from information in the Plan, we calculate
one year's worth of RFP to be 1.08 tpd PM2.5, 52.8 tpd
NOX, 30.8 tpd of VOC, and 2.75 tpd SO2. See TSD,
section II.H, and CARB Staff Report on the 2007 South Coast AQMP,
Appendix A. However, CARB's mobile source measures do not provide
sufficient NOX reductions to meet one year's worth of RFP; therefore,
post-attainment-year emissions reductions cannot be used to meet the
CAA contingency measure requirement.
3. Proposed Action on the Contingency Measures
The South Coast 2007 AQMP includes suggestions for several measures
that do not meet the CAA's minimum requirements (e.g., no additional
rulemaking, surplus to attainment and RFP needs). The AQMP, however,
indicates that the measures proposed by the District are not adopted,
and does not quantify the expected emissions reductions in order to
gauge whether
[[Page 71312]]
they provide reductions equivalent to one year's worth of RFP. For the
reasons stated above, we are proposing to disapprove the District's
contingency measure provisions in the South Coast 2007 AQMP for
PM2.5.
G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Our transportation conformity rule (codified in 40 CFR part 93, subpart
A) requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform
to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining
whether or not they do so. Conformity to the SIP means that
transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national
ambient air quality standards or any interim milestone.
Control strategy SIP submittals (such as RFP and attainment SIP
submittals) must specify the maximum emissions of transportation-
related emissions allowed in the RFP years and attainment year, i.e.,
the motor vehicle emissions budgets (``budgets''). The submittal must
also demonstrate that these emissions levels, when considered with
emissions from all other sources, are consistent with RFP or attainment
of the NAAQS, whichever is applicable. In order for us to find these
emissions levels or ``budgets'' adequate and/or approvable, the
submittal must meet the conformity adequacy provisions of 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) and (5). Additionally, motor vehicle emissions budgets
cannot be approved until EPA completes a detailed review of the entire
SIP and determines that the SIP and the budgets will achieve their
intended purpose (i.e., RFP, attainment or maintenance). For more
information on the transportation conformity requirement and applicable
policies on budgets, please visit our transportation conformity Web
site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm.
As submitted on November 28, 2007, the 2007 South Coast AQMP
included a set of PM2.5 budgets for RFP years 2009 and 2012,
the attainment year 2014, and analysis years 2023 and 2030. See CARB
Resolution 07-05, which revised the budgets in the 2007 South Coast
AQMP as adopted by the District, and which was included in the November
28, 2007 submittal. We refer herein to these budgets as the
``original'' budgets. On April 30, 2008, CARB submitted a SIP revision
that replaces the original set of PM2.5 budgets with two new
sets of budgets (herein, ``replacement'' budgets). One set of the
replacement budgets is referred to as ``SIP-based'' budgets, and the
other set is referred to as ``baseline'' budgets. In its April 30, 2008
submittal, CARB requests that EPA give primary consideration to the
``SIP-based'' budgets and only find the ``baseline'' budgets to be
adequate if EPA cannot find the ``SIP-based'' budgets adequate in their
entirety.
The replacement budgets submitted on April 30, 2008 differ from the
original budgets in that they reflect the EPA-approved EMFAC2007 motor
vehicle emissions factor model (See 73 FR 3464, January 18, 2008)
rather than District's CEPA emission factor model, which had been used
for the original budgets. The ``SIP-based'' budgets reflect emissions
reductions from rules adopted by October 2006 and also from control
measures CARB expects to adopt in regulatory form in the future. The
``baseline'' budgets differ from the ``SIP-based'' budgets by excluding
emission reductions from control measures in the 2007 State Strategy
that had not been adopted in regulatory form by October 2006.\28\
Moreover, the ``baseline'' budgets are only established for RFP years
2009 and 2012 whereas the ``SIP-based'' budgets are established for the
RFP years, the attainment year, and analysis years 2023 and 2030. The
two sets of PM2.5 budgets (i.e., the replacement budgets)
are shown in Tables 10 and 11, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ With respect to the ``SIP-based'' budget for RFP year 2009,
however, CARB did exclude the emissions reductions from measures not
adopted by October 2006. Thus, the ``SIP-based'' PM2.5
budget for 2009 is the same as the ``baseline'' PM2.5
budget for that year.
Table 10--``SIP-Based'' PM[ihel2].[ihel5] Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets
[Annual average tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget year VOC NOX PM2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 196 413 38
2012 139 276 37
2014 122 201 33
2023 89 131 37
2030 75 121 39
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11--``Baseline'' [ihel2].[ihel5] Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
[Annual average tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget year VOC NOX PM2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 196 413 38
2012 163 337 38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted a SIP revision that updates
certain portions of the 2007 State Strategy to account for emission
reductions from regulations adopted in 2007 and 2008, some of which
relate to on-road sources, such as modifications to the reformulated
gasoline program, smog check improvements, and cleaner in-use heavy
duty trucks. CARB's August 12, 2009 SIP revision did not revise the
budgets but documents the extent to which control measures for which
credit had been taken in the ``SIP-based'' budgets, but not in the
``baseline'' budgets, have now been adopted in regulatory form.
EPA generally first reviews budgets submitted with an attainment,
RFP, or maintenance plan for adequacy, prior to taking action on the
plan itself, and did so with respect to the PM2.5 budgets in
the 2007 South Coast AQMP. The availability of the original budgets was
announced for public comment on EPA's adequacy Web page on February
[[Page 71313]]
12, 2008 and the availability of the replacement (then available in
draft form) was announced for public comment on March 27, 2008. EPA
received comments from the public in response to both postings.
On May 6, 2008, we found the ``SIP-based'' PM2.5 budgets
for the 2007 South Coast AQMP, as revised on April 30, 2008, to be
inadequate for transportation conformity purposes. See the letter and
enclosures dated May 6, 2008 from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air
Division, EPA Region IX to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB (a
copy of which has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking).
However, in our May 2008 adequacy determination, we found the
``baseline'' PM2.5 budgets for RFP years 2009 and 2012 to be
adequate. Generally, we found the ``SIP-based'' budgets to be
inadequate because they reflected control measures not yet adopted in
regulatory form and thus not adequately quantified or supported by the
plan. In contrast, we found the ``baseline'' PM2.5 budgets
to be consistent with the plan's RFP demonstration and to be based on
adopted mobile source regulations that have already been implemented.
Our notice of adequacy/inadequacy of the budgets was published on May
15, 2008 at 73 FR 28110 (corrected on June 18, 2008 at 73 FR 34837),
and was effective on May 30, 2008.
The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's budgets are
adequate and approvable for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) and (5). The following paragraphs provide our review of
the ``SIP-based'' and ``baseline'' PM2.5 budgets for the
2007 South Coast AQMP against our adequacy criteria and provide the
basis for our proposed action relative to the budgets. Since the
criteria for evaluation purposes are the same for adequacy or
inadequacy as for approval or disapproval of budgets, we incorporate by
reference our earlier determination of adequacy/inadequacy, and focus
in the following paragraphs on those considerations that have changed
since the time of our May 2008 adequacy/inadequacy determination.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i), we review a submitted plan to
determine whether the plan was endorsed by the Governor (or designee)
and was subject to a public hearing. As documented in our May 2008
adequacy/inadequacy determination, the 2007 South Coast AQMP and 2007
State Strategy, and April 2008 replacement budgets, were all submitted
under cover of letters signed by CARB's Executive Officer, the
Governor's designee. Likewise, CARB's August 12, 2009 SIP revision was
submitted under cover of a letter sent by CARB's Executive Officer and
includes documentation of a public hearing held on April 23-24, 2009.
Therefore, we propose that the submitted plan and related ``SIP-based''
and ``baseline'' budgets meet the criterion under 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(i).
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii), we review a submitted plan to
determine whether the plan was developed through consultation with
Federal, State and local agencies and whether full implementation plan
documentation was provided to EPA and EPA's stated concerns, if any,
were addressed. As documented in our May 2008 adequacy/inadequacy
determination, the 2007 South Coast AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, and
April 2008 replacement budgets, were all developed through consultation
with Federal, State and local agencies and included documentation of
adequate responses to EPA's concerns. Moreover, CARB's August 12, 2009
SIP revision was developed to meet EPA's requests for additional
information to aid in our review of the 2007 South Coast AQMP and 2007
State Strategy. We propose that the submitted plan, and related ``SIP-
based'' and ``baseline'' budgets, were developed through sufficient
consultation with Federal, State and local agencies and thereby meet
the criterion under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii).
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), we review a submitted plan to
determine whether the budgets are clearly identified and precisely
quantified. Both the ``SIP-based'' and ``baseline'' budgets are clearly
identified. As noted in our May 2008 adequacy/inadequacy determination,
the budgets are shown in attachments 1 (``SIP-based'' budgets) and 2
(``baseline'' budgets) to CARB Resolution 08-27, which was included in
the SIP revision submitted by CARB on April 30, 2008. The ``SIP-based''
budgets are not precisely quantified because the new emission
reductions do not result from adequately specified control measures. In
contrast, the ``baseline'' budgets reflect control measures that are
already implemented and do not include new emission reductions
attributed to general commitments; therefore, these budgets are
precisely quantified. We propose that the ``SIP-based'' budgets do not
meet the criterion under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii) but the ``baseline''
budgets do.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv), we review a submitted plan to
determine whether the budgets, when considered together with all other
emissions sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for
reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance (whichever is
relevant to a given SIP submission). Based on our proposed disapproval
of the RFP and attainment demonstrations (See sections IV.D and IV.E of
this document), EPA proposes that all of the ``SIP-based'' and the
``baseline'' budgets, when considered together with all other emission
sources, are not consistent with the requirement to demonstrate
attainment or RFP of the PM2.5 NAAQS by 2014.
Because we are proposing to disapprove the RFP demonstrations for
years 2009 and 2012, we do encourage CARB to submit revised budgets to
lock in the benefit of the new regulations and thereby avoid the chance
that increases in vehicle activity will increase the overall challenge
of attaining the NAAQS. For the reasons stated above, we propose that
the ``baseline'' and ``SIP-based'' budgets do not meet the criterion
under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv).
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v), we review a plan to determine whether
the budgets are consistent with and clearly related to the emissions
inventory and the control measures in the submitted control strategy
plan or maintenance plan. The plan, as supplemented by the SIP revision
dated August 12, 2009, does not show a clear relationship between the
``SIP-based'' budgets and the emissions inventory and control measures.
The ``SIP-based'' budgets incorporate new emission reductions from the
State's strategy that result, in part, from specified control measures
that have not been adopted in regulatory form (or have been adequately
supported as a voluntary measure). As noted above, more control
measures have been adopted by CARB in regulatory form than was the case
when the ``SIP-based'' budgets were adopted and submitted by CARB to
EPA, but a portion of the emission reductions included in the ``SIP-
based'' budgets remains unsupported by regulations or as a voluntary
measure. In contrast, as discussed further in our May 2008 adequacy/
inadequacy determination, the plan does show a clear relationship
between the ``baseline'' budgets, control measures, and the total
emissions inventory. Thus, we propose that the submitted plan's ``SIP-
based'' budgets do not meet this criterion for adequacy and approval
and the ``baseline'' budgets do.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(vi), we review a submitted plan to
determine whether revisions to previously submitted plans explain and
document any changes to previously submitted budgets and control
measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; any changes to
established safety margins; and reasons for the changes (including
[[Page 71314]]
the basis for any changes related to emissions factors or estimates of
vehicle miles traveled and changes in control measures). As noted in
our May 2008 adequacy/inadequacy determination, the SIP revision
submitted on April 30, 2008 explains and documents all changes to
previously submitted budgets. Thus, we propose that the submitted plan
meets this criterion for adequacy and approval with respect to both the
``SIP-based'' and ``baseline'' budgets.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(5), we review the State's compilation of
public comments and response to comments that are required to be
submitted with any SIP revision. As noted in our May 2008 adequacy/
inadequacy determination, District compiled public comments submitted
during the June 1, 2007 public hearing and during the public comment
periods and we reviewed this compilation and found that District's and
CARB's responses were acceptable. No issues that might have affected
our adequacy findings remain unanswered. Thus, we propose that the plan
meets this criterion for adequacy and approval with respect to both the
``SIP-based'' and ``baseline'' budgets.
For the reasons described in the May 6, 2008 letter from Deborah
Jordan to James Goldstene, we found that the ``SIP-based'' budgets for
the 2007 South Coast AQMP, as submitted on April 30, 2008, do not meet
certain adequacy requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and
concluded that they were inadequate for transportation conformity
purposes. Now that we have completed a thorough review of the entire
South Coast PM2.5 SIP, which is described above in this
proposal, we have concluded that the ``SIP-based'' budgets are not
precisely quantified because the new emission reductions do not result
from adequately specified control measures, and that the plan as a
whole will not ensure RFP and attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS
and does not show a clear relationship between the ``SIP-based''
budgets and the emissions inventory and control measures. Thus, we
propose to disapprove both the ``baseline'' and the ``SIP-based''
PM2.5 budgets (shown in Table 11 above) for transportation
conformity purposes. SCAG and the U.S. Department of Transportation are
not currently using the ``SIP-based'' budgets in transportation
conformity determinations due to the inadequacy finding made in 2008.
If the proposed disapproval of the budgets is finalized, then neither
the ``baseline'' nor ``SIP-based'' budgets could be used in
transportation conformity determinations after the effective date of
the disapproval.
In summary, for the reasons discussed above, we are now proposing
disapproval of the PM2.5 budgets that we previously had
determined to be inadequate. Because we are proposing to disapprove the
RFP demonstration, we are proposing to disapprove the PM2.5
budgets we previously found adequate as well.
I. Mid Course Review
Any State that submits to EPA an approvable attainment plan for a
PM2.5 nonattainment area justifying an attainment date of
nine or ten years from the date of designation also must submit to EPA
a mid-course review six years from the date of designation, or by April
2011. 40 CFR 51.1011. The mid-course review for an area must include:
(1) A review of emissions reductions and progress made in implementing
control measures to reduce emissions of direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 attainment plan precursors contributing to
PM2.5 concentrations in the area; (2) an analysis of changes
in ambient air quality data for the area; (3) a revised air quality
modeling analysis to demonstrate attainment; (4) any new or revised
control measures adopted by the State, as necessary to ensure
attainment by the attainment date in the approved SIP of the
nonattainment area. We anticipate receiving this midcourse review from
the District and CARB by April 2011.
V. EPA's Proposed Actions
A. EPA's Proposed Approvals and Disapprovals
For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve in
part and disapprove in part California's attainment SIP for the South
Coast nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This SIP
submittal consists of the portions of the District's South Coast 2007
AQMP and the South Coast nonattainment area-specific portions of CARB's
revised 2007 State Strategy addressing CAA and EPA regulations for
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the South Coast
nonattainment area.
EPA is proposing to approve under CAA section 110(k)(3) the
following elements of the South Coast PM2.5 attainment SIP:
1. The SIP's base year and baseline emissions inventories as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR Sec.
51.1008;
2. the District's commitments for the adoption and implementation
schedule for specific control measures listed in Table 7-3 in the South
Coast 2007 AQMP to the extent that these commitments have not yet been
fulfilled, and to achieve specific aggregate emission reductions of 32
tpd of NOX, 10 tpd of VOC, 4 tpd of direct PM2.5,
and 3 tpd of SOX by 2014 as listed in Table 4-10 of the
South Coast 2007 AQMP and the CARB Staff Report for the South Coast
2007 AQMP, page 17, as SIP-strengthening;
3. CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, as
listed on page 23 of the 2009 State Strategy Status Report; and to
achieve aggregate emission reductions of 152 tpd of NOX, 9
tpd of direct PM2.5, 46 tpd of VOC, and 20 tpd of
SOX in the South Coast nonattainment area by 2014 as
provided, as SIP-strengthening; and
4. the air quality modeling in the South Coast 2007 AQMP as meeting
the requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.
EPA is proposing to disapprove under CAA section 110(k)(3) the
following elements of the South Coast PM2.5 attainment SIP:
1. The attainment demonstration for failing to meet the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1007 due to
insufficient adopted and EPA-approved rules needed to support the
determination that the South Coast nonattainment area will attain by
the State's proposed attainment date. As a result, we are also
proposing to disapprove the RACM/RACT demonstration, the State's
request for an attainment date extension to April 5, 2015, and the RFP
demonstration, because they are dependent on the approval of an
attainment demonstration under the PM2.5 implementation rule
(See 40 CFR 51.1009, 51.1010, and 51.1004);
2. The motor vehicle emissions budgets for the RFP milestone years
of 2009 and 2012, and for the attainment year, because they are derived
from RFP and attainment demonstrations which we are proposing to
disapprove;
3. The contingency measures for failing to meet the requirements of
CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1012; and
4. The assignment of 10 tpd of NOX to the federal
government.
B. CAA Consequences of a Final Disapproval
EPA is committed to working with the District, CARB and SCAG to
resolve the identified problems that make the current South Coast 2007
AQMP for the South Coast nonattainment area for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS not fully approvable under the CAA. We firmly
believe that such solutions are available and that expeditious
attainment of the 1997
[[Page 71315]]
PM2.5 standards in the South Coast is achievable.
However, should we finalize the disapprovals as proposed here, a
conformity freeze would take effect once the action becomes effective
(usually 30 days after publication of the final action in the Federal
Register). A conformity freeze means that only projects in the first
four years of the most recent conforming Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) can proceed. During
a freeze, no new RTPs, TIPs or RTP/TIP amendments can be found to
conform. See 40 CFR 93.120.
In addition to the effect on conformity, should we finalize the
disapprovals proposed here, the offset sanction in CAA section
179(b)(2) would apply in the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment
area 18 months after the effective date of a final disapproval. The
highway funding sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) would apply in the
area six months after the offset sanction is imposed. Neither sanction
will be imposed if California submits and we approve prior to the
implementation of the sanctions, SIP revisions that correct the
problems identified in EPA's final action on the South Coast 2007 AQMP
and applicable portions of the revised 2007 State Strategy that are the
basis for any disapprovals.
In addition to the sanctions, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that
EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan addressing the
deficient elements in the PM2.5 attainment SIP for the South
Coast, two years after the effective date of any disapproval should we
not be able to approve a revised SIP revision before that date.
VI. 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 proposes to partially approve and
partially disapprove state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter
I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements
but simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into
the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for
small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that
the Clean Air Act prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher
offset requirements) may or will flow from this disapproval does not
mean that EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis for this action. Therefore, this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector.'' EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to
disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
EPA is proposing
[[Page 71316]]
to disapprove would not 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110
and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself
create any new regulations but simply disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's
role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria
of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to
disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act and will not
in-and-of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it does not
provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive
Order 12898.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 8, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-29235 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P