to that court's agreement with the district court's conclusion that
neither the baseline nor the methodology qualifies as an independently
enforceable aspect of the SIP. Rather, it is the district court's
opinion, in distinguishing the commitments in CBE and Bayview, that
provides insight into the situation at issue in our action. As the
court recognized, a baseline inventory or the methodology used to
calculate it, is not a measure to reduce emissions. It instead
``identifies emission sources and then quantifies the amount of
emissions attributed to those sources.'' In contrast,

as stated previously, in the 2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and
2011) and 2007 AQMP, CARB and the District commits to adopt and
implement measures sufficient to achieve specified emission reductions
by a date certain. As described above, a number of courts have found
commitments substantially similar to CARB's here to be enforceable
under CAA section 304(a).
    Comment: Commenters state that the commitments do not satisfy EPA's
three-part test for enforceable commitments. First, commenters state
that EPA admits that the State and District have no idea at all how
they will achieve the remaining 11% of the NOX, 3% of VOC
and 8% of PM2.5. Commenters state that this is hardly a
``limited'' or minimal portion of the long-overdue reductions and cite
BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817, 840-41 (5th Cir. 2003)
(commitments for only six percent of the overall reductions).
Commenters state it is arbitrary and capricious for EPA to conclude
that 11% is approximately within the 10% range that EPA has
historically accepted in approving attainment demonstrations.
Commenters believe EPA's strategy trivializes the task of achieving 70
tpd of reductions over the next 3 years and believes it is even more
arbitrary given the importance of NOX reductions for
attainment.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters' assertion that CARB and
the District do not know how they will achieve the remaining
NOX, VOC, and PM2.5 reductions needed for
attainment in the South Coast. As discussed in our amended proposal,
the South Coast 2007 AQMD relies principally on adopted rules approved
into the SIP or given a waiver under CAA section 209 to achieve the
emissions reductions needed to attain the 1997 PM2.5
standards in the South Coast by April 5, 2015, including baseline (pre-
2007) measures that continue to achieve emission reductions through
2014. 76 FR at 41576. The balance of the needed reductions is currently
in the form of enforceable commitments that account for 11% of the
NOX, 7% of the VOC and 8% of the PM2.5 emission
reductions needed from 2002 levels to attain.\32\ See id. These SIP-
approved or CAA-waived control measures and enforceable commitments
satisfy the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) to include
``enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or
techniques * * * as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as
may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements''
of the CAA. See id. at n. 31. Although CARB's and the District's
enforceable commitments to additional emission reductions are expressed
in aggregate tonnages and not tied to specific measures, both CARB and
the District have provided a list of potential measures that may
achieve the additional reductions needed to attain the standards,
together with expeditious rule development, adoption, and
implementation schedules. See id. at 41576, 41577.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Table 3 of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also disagree with the commenters' assertions that these
remaining amounts are not ``limited'' and that it is arbitrary and
capricious for EPA to conclude that 11% is approximately within the 10%
range that EPA has historically accepted as appropriate for enforceable
commitments in approving attainment demonstrations. The State of Texas'
enforceable commitment for the Houston/Galveston area, the approval of
which was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in BCCA,
represented 6 percent of the reductions needed for attainment in the
area. We note that the court in BCCA did not conclude that any amount
greater than 6 percent of the reductions needed would be unreasonable.
We believe that the 11% of NOX, 7% of VOC and 8% of
PM2.5 reductions, as stated in our amended proposal, also
fit within the parameters of a ``limited'' amount of the reductions
needed for attainment and nothing in the BCCA decision contravenes
that. See also 76 FR 41562 at 41576, n. 34.
    Finally, we disagree with the commenters' assertion that EPA's
strategy ``trivializes'' the task of achieving 70 tpd of NOX
reductions over the next three years. As explained in our amended
proposal, CARB has adopted and submitted a 2009 State Strategy Status
Report and a 2011 Progress Report, which update and revise the 2007
State Strategy. These reports show that CARB has made significant
progress in meeting its enforceable commitments for the South Coast and
several other nonattainment areas in California. Additional ongoing
programs that address locomotives, recreational boats, and other
measures have yet to be quantified but are expected to reduce
NOX and direct PM2.5 emissions in the South Coast
by 2014. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E, page 2. The District has
already exceeded its commitment for reducing VOC and SOX
emissions and is working to meet the commitment to reduce
NOX and directly-emitted PM2.5. See Tables 2 and
3. The District is also continuing to work to identify and adopt
additional measures that will reduce emissions. Beyond the rules
discussed above, both CARB and the District have well-funded incentive
grant programs to reduce emissions from the on- and offroad engine
fleets. Reductions from several of these programs have yet to be
quantified and/or credited in the attainment demonstration. Finally, we
note that the South Coast has experienced significant improvements in
its PM2.5 air quality in the past few years.
    Given the evidence of the State's and District's efforts to date
and their continuing efforts to reduce emissions, we conclude that the
State and District are capable of meeting their enforceable commitments
to achieve the necessary reductions needed to attain the 1997
PM2.5 standards in the South Coast nonattainment area by
April 5, 2015.
    Comment: For the second factor, commenters state that the State has
not shown that they are capable of achieving its reductions because
they have done little more than assert that they are committed to
meeting the requirements of federal law--but have not included any
indication of how they will meet the requirements. Commenters assert
that given the slow progress to date, it seems unlikely that the
reductions of the magnitude remaining--70.5 tpd NOX, 11 tpd
VOC and 1.3 tpd PM2.5--can be achieved without a plan more
focused and robust than the vague commitment to somehow get the needed
reductions.
    Response: We disagree. As explained in our amended proposal, the
State's and District's efforts to date and their continuing efforts to
reduce emissions (discussed above and in our proposed rule), indicate
they are capable of meeting their specific enforceable commitments to
achieve the necessary reductions by 2014. 76 FR 41562 at 41568-41572
and 41575-41577 and July 2011 TSD at Sections II.D and II.F.
    Comment: Finally, for the third factor, commenters state that it is
unclear with the changing landscape of many of the measures whether any
of these commitments will take place within a reasonable and
appropriate period of time. Commenters state that EPA fails to explain
how in the context of an approval in late 2011, the state and air
district will be able to complete even the requisite rulemaking
process, much less actually achieve the reductions required by 2014.
    Response: Commenters assume that the only path open to the State to
fulfill its commitments is the adoption of new measures. We disagree.
The list of measures provided by CARB in the 2011 Progress Report,
Appendix B, Table B-1. represents a fraction of the rules and programs
adopted and implemented by the State. See TSD Appendix A. CARB

has not provided, nor has it been required to provide, an evaluation of
the effectiveness of its entire control program in reducing emissions
in the South Coast area. Given that the State has preliminarily
demonstrated, based on a limited set of measures, that all of the
needed SOX reductions, and approximately 90 percent or more
of the reductions of NOX, VOC, and PM2.5
reductions needed for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards
in the South Coast have already been achieved, we believe it is
reasonable to conclude that the balance of the needed reductions will
also be achieved by 2014. See 76 FR 41562, p. 41575, Table 7 and
September 2011 TSD, Table F-10.
    Comment: Commenters assert that although EPA has previously allowed
conditional approval of SIPs based on ``commitments to complete the
adoption of specific enforceable measures within a short period of
time,'' EPA has never before allowed a five-year extension of the
statutory deadline for the submission of control measures yet to be
specified by the State.
    Response: EPA is not granting a five-year extension under section
110(k)(4) of the CAA. Rather, EPA is granting California's request for
an attainment date extension to April 5, 2015 under CAA section
172(a)(2)(A). We are granting this extension of the attainment date for
the reasons discussed in our amended proposal. 76 FR 41562 at 41577.
    Comment: NRDC asserts that EPA is allowing the South Coast to
``adjust'' the 2014 baseline emissions inventory to account for
California's recent slowdown in economic growth. NRDC states that the
Act requires that improvements in air quality are the result of
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.
    Response: The commenters correctly note that the 2014 baseline
emissions inventory in the South Coast 2007 AQMP have been adjusted to
account for California's recent slowdown in economic growth. As
explained in Section II.B (Emission Inventory) of the TSD, however,
CARB's revisions to the 2014 baseline inventory took into account not
only updates to the State's economic forecasts but also a variety of
other factors (out-of-state VMT estimates, cumulative mileage,
equipment populations, load factors, and hours of use, etc.) used to
calculate emissions from trucks, buses, and certain off-road equipment
categories. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E.
    The commenters' assertion that the CAA requires improvements in air
quality to result from permanent and enforceable emissions reductions
appears to be based on an incorrect understanding of the statutory
basis for EPA's action. EPA is not determining that emission
``reductions'' related to the economic recession are ``enforceable''
measures under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6). Section
110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA requires that each implementation plan
submitted by a State include ``enforceable emission limitations and
other control measures, means, or techniques * * * as well as schedules
and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to
meet the applicable requirements of [the CAA].'' Section 172(c)(6)
contains substantively identical requirements for all nonattainment
area plans. Baseline emissions inventories, however, are not
``enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means,
or techniques'' or ``schedules and timetables for compliance'' that are
necessary or appropriate to meet CAA requirements. See El Comite Para
El Bienestar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam, 539 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2008)
(concluding that a baseline inventory is not an enforceable ``standard
or limitation'' as defined by the CAA and is not, therefore, an
independently enforceable aspect[] of the SIP''). Rather, base year and
baseline emissions inventories provide the basis for, among other
things, the State's development of progress milestones and control
strategies for attaining the NAAQS consistent with the requirements of
CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 172(c)(2). See General Preamble at 13503-
13510 (discussing planning inventory requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas). In short, emissions inventories provide estimates
of current and future emissions that, in turn, provide the starting
point for the State's attainment demonstration and enforceable control
strategy.
    Nothing in the CAA precludes a State from revising a submitted plan
to take into account revised emissions estimates and growth
projections. All projections of future emissions-generating activity,
including the projections in the South Coast 2007 AQMP as originally
submitted, are based on projections of population, employment and other
growth factors, all of which can increase or decrease as economic
conditions change. However, reliance on projections from reputable
sources of economic behavior based on established methods of predicting
such behavior is the historic practice for development of emissions
inventories. CARB's revised projections of future emissions-generating
activity are based on reputable sources, represent the most current
understanding of expected economic conditions through at least 2014,
and were subject to extensive public review and comment before CARB
adopted its 2011 SIP revisions containing these updated projections.
Given the magnitude of the economic recession's impact on emissions-
generating activity in the South Coast and other parts of California,
and the resulting impact on the State's assessment of the control
strategy necessary to demonstrate attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 standards, we conclude that it is appropriate to take
these updated emissions projections into account as part of our action
on the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy. Other than
asserting generally that CARB and EPA should not rely on the revised
economic data to determine the reductions needed for attainment and
that future conditions may change, the commenters provides no
information to undermine the State's revised economic data or the
related changes to the projected inventories.
    For these reasons and as explained in our amended proposal (76 FR
41562, at 41567), we are concluding that CARB's 2011 SIP revisions,
which updated the State's projected (``baseline'') emissions
inventories based on improved methodologies for estimating emissions
and more recent growth factors, reduced the total amount of emission
reductions needed for attainment and that the control strategy in the
South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, as revised in 2011,
demonstrates expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
in the South Coast.

G. Comments on Attainment Demonstration and Modeling

    Comment: NRDC comments that the attainment demonstration cannot be
approved because of changes in the inventory. NRDC states that EPA's
new proposal to approve the air quality modeling in the 2007
PM2.5 Plan based on the supplemental documentation provided
by CARB does not address the fundamental problem with the modeling,
which is that the modeling fails to provide an accurate picture of
whether the region will attain. EPA even admits that ``Ideally, new
attainment demonstration modeling would be performed to evaluate the
effect of [the diesel rule updates] * * *'' 76 FR at 41,573. However,
the Clean Air Act does not allow EPA to approve inventories it knows to
be erroneous because new modeling would be too hard. EPA must analyze
how these errors in the base year inventory actually affect the
attainment demonstration. EPA attempts

to do this by looking at sensitivity modeling submitted by CARB, which
was meant to determine the ``relative effectiveness'' on design values
of additional reductions of NOX and PM2.5
emissions in the attainment year. EPA claims that the results of this
sensitivity modeling support its conclusion that new attainment
demonstration modeling would be unnecessary. The obvious flaw in EPA's
reasoning is that it is calculating attainment year design value
changes, to the hundredth of a percent, from attainment year design
values that it has already admitted are erroneous. EPA cannot justify
its failure to require updated attainment modeling by back-calculating
from the wrong 2014 design values to claim that the changes to the
inventory would be too small to affect the design values. Accordingly,
this approach is arbitrary and capricious.
    Response: While some large emission inventory changes might indeed
necessitate new modeling, EPA does not agree that the inventory changes
were large enough to substantially affect the modeling conclusions, or
to invalidate the attainment demonstration. Ideally new modeling would
be performed when an area's emission inventory is changed. However,
since the cost in time and resources of remodeling and consequent
reworking of a Plan is not trivial, administrative necessity requires a
judgement call about when changes are large enough to merit new
modeling. An important criterion in making this judgement is whether
the changes would affect the conclusion that the Plan's emission
reductions are adequate for attaining the NAAQS. Another consideration
is the uncertainty inherent in modeling; although model results may be
reported to several decimal places, model performance goals for
fractional bias are typically in the range of 30%. (EPA Guidance
Appendix B) Small changes in the emission inventory are likely to have
a small impact on future year design values. This is not to discount
the importance of an accurate emission inventory, but rather to make
the point that relatively small changes in inventory estimates do not
necessarily invalidate a model application. EPA believes that the base
year emission decreases due to the inventory updates are small enough
to leave the overall modeling conclusions unchanged. This is a
quantitative showing that the emission updates are small enough that
they do not invalidate the attainment demonstration.
    EPA does not agree with NRDC that starting from the Plan's modeled
design values, and ending with small design value changes, constitute
flaws in the procedure for estimating the effect of the baseline
inventory revisions. EPA believes that results derived from model
sensitivity tests are a reasonable approximation to what would result
from new modeling with the updated inventory. EPA's procedure based on
model sensitivity does make a number of assumptions: however, the
original modeling is basically sound in how it portrays South Coast Air
Basin's atmospheric chemistry and transport. The emission changes are
small enough that the model response is linear, model sensitivity is
similar in the starting and ending years, and the spatial and temporal
distribution of emissions is little changed with the inventory update.
EPA believes that these assumptions hold well enough that the procedure
provides strong evidence for the attainment demonstration's validity.
    For regulatory purposes, administrative necessity requires a
judgement call about whether such problems are substantial enough to
compromise regulatory decisions. Years of effort by modeling experts
from regulatory agencies and academia went into developing the SC
modeling; it underwent successful diagnostic testing; and it performs
well. EPA believes that it should not be discarded, and that it
continues to constitute an adequate basis for the attainment
demonstration.
    As for the small magnitude of the design value changes resulting
from the procedure, EPA does not believe this is a substantive issue.
Any procedure (even new modeling) that starts with small emission
changes will necessarily result in small design value changes: within a
small range, over which the chemistry does not shift fundamentally,
ambient concentrations are approximately proportional to emissions.
This is not a case of an overly precise tiny number being added to a
large erroneous random number, but rather of an adjustment ratio
applied to a number with a lot of solid work behind it. The emission
inventory update, involving small NOX changes, would also
yield relatively small design value changes. Of course, this assumes
the basic soundness of the original modeling, as discussed above.
    Comment: NRDC comments that EPA should not approve the attainment
demonstration because it fails to identify and address elevated
PM2.5 concentrations in the near-highway environment. In
addition, NRDC asserts that SCAQMD's monitoring network is deficient
because none of the monitoring stations are within 300 meters of a
major freeway.
    Response: The PM2.5 Implementation Rule requires that
states prepare attainment demonstrations through modeling that is
``consistent with EPA's modeling guidance,'' and the modeling guidance
explains that future air quality should be estimated at current
monitoring sites. 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007); SCAQMD followed EPA's
modeling guidance in developing its air quality modeling and attainment
demonstration.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ ``Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze,'' prepared by EPA's Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, at 15 (April 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to SCAQMD's monitoring network, EPA has approved
previous Annual Monitoring Network Plans (2007-2010) submitted by the
District and determined that the PM2.5 network covered under
the Annual Monitoring Network Plan meets regulatory requirements. EPA's
monitoring rules do not require placement of PM2.5 monitors
in micro or middle scale locations.\34\ The requirements for the Annual
Monitoring Network Plan are found in 40 CFR 58.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 71 FR 61236 (October 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Comments on the Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration

    Comment: CBE commented that the RFP demonstration is unapprovable
due to shortfalls in SO2 in 2009 and in NOX and
PM2.5 in 2012.
    Response: Under the PM2.5 implementation rule, an RFP
plan must demonstrate that in each applicable milestone year, emissions
will be at a level consistent with generally linear progress in
reducing emissions between the base year and the attainment year. See
40 CFR 51.1009(d). The goal of the RFP requirements is for areas to
achieve generally linear progress toward attainment. The RFP
requirements were included in the Clean Air Act to assure steady
progress toward attaining air quality standards, as opposed to
deferring implementation of all measures until the end date by which
the standard is to be attained. 75 FR 20586, at 20633.
    As we noted in our July 14, 2011 proposed rulemaking, although the
South Coast experienced a shortfall of 9 tpd for SOX in
2009, this shortfall is made up by the reductions estimated for 2012,
and the area meets its 2012 SOX milestone. We note that the
shortfall in 2012 for NOX is less than 1% of the 2002
baseline inventory, and the shortfall in PM2.5 reductions in
2012 is also about 1% of the 2002 baseline inventory, while 2012
SOX reduction

milestones are met and 2012 VOC reduction milestones are exceeded by 20
tpd. (TSD, p. 116) In addition, we noted that we were not evaluating
the provisions of the updated South Coast 2007 AQMP that address
contingency measures for failure to meet the 2009 RFP benchmarks.
Information available to EPA and the public shows that the South Coast
met its 2009 RFP benchmarks for 2009 for directly emitted
PM2.5, NOX, and VOC. SOX emissions are
higher than the linear benchmark but achieve the benchmark levels in
2012 due to recently adopted rules controlling emissions of
SOX. See 2011 Progress Report, Table C-2 and section II.H of
the TSD. Therefore, contingency measures for failure to meet the 2009
RFP benchmark no longer have meaning or effect under the CAA and
therefore do not require any review or action by EPA.
    In addition, as noted above, the purpose of RFP contingency
measures is to provide continued progress while the SIP is being
revised to meet a missed RFP milestone. Failure to meet the 2009
benchmark would have required California to revise the South Coast 2007
AQMP to assure that the next milestone was met and that the plan still
provided for attainment. California has, in fact, prepared and
submitted a revision to the South Coast 2007 AQMP that provides for RFP
in 2012 and for attainment by 2015. (TSD, p. 122) For all of these
reasons we conclude that the South Coast 2007 AQMP provides for
generally linear progress towards attainment, consistent with the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1009. The State has
also submitted a SIP revision to address the missed 2009 SOX
milestone which assures that the 2012 SOX milestone will be
met (the 2011 Progress Report).

I. Comments on Contingency Measures

    Comment: In their January 20, 2011 comment letter, the SCAQMD
agrees that the SIP must contain contingency measures that should be
implemented if the area fails to meet the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. However, the District argues that the requirement for
these measures to be fully adopted in rule form at time of plan
submittal is unrealistic.
    Response: EPA understands that for some areas the CAA requirement
for contingency measures is difficult; however, the Act is clear on
these requirements. Under CAA section 172(c)(9), all PM2.5
attainment plans must include specific contingency measures to be
implemented if an area fails to meet RFP (RFP contingency measures) and
contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to attain the
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (attainment
contingency measures). These contingency measures must be fully adopted
rules or control measures that are ready to be implemented quickly
without significant additional action by the State. 40 CFR 51.1012
(``contingency measures must take effect without significant further
action by the State or EPA''); see also 57 FR 13498, at 13510-11. They
must also be measures not relied on in the plan to demonstrate RFP or
attainment and should provide SIP-creditable emissions reductions
equivalent to one year of RFP. Finally, the SIP should contain trigger
mechanisms for the contingency measures and specify a schedule for
their implementation. 72 FR 20586, p. 20642. We noted that the purpose
of RFP contingency measures is to provide continued progress while the
SIP is being revised to meet a missed RFP milestone. See 76 FR 41562,
at 41580. This timely continued progress would not be possible if
significant additional rulemaking action needed to be taken at the
District or State level before a measure could be fully adopted and
implemented. For the reasons provided in both of our proposals, we are
disapproving the proposed contingency measures in the South Coast 2007
AQMP, which include measures that are not yet fully adopted, because
they do not meet the requirements for contingency measures in CAA
section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1012. See 76 FR 41562, at 41580.
    Comment: In its August 12, 2011 comment letter, the SCAQMD
recognizes that the SIP must contain contingency measures that should
be implemented if the area fails to meet the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date; however, they again state that they believe the
requirement to have such measures adopted at the time of plan submittal
is unrealistic. They point out that under the California Clean Air Act,
the SCAQMD is required to evaluate all feasible measures in SIP
development to achieve the maximum emissions reductions possible.
Therefore, they believe it is unreasonable to expect that there are
additional rules that would achieve one year's worth of RFP reductions
beyond what is already adopted. Nevertheless, the SCAQMD outlines a
three pronged approach to demonstrate that sufficient emissions
reductions can be identified to meet the requirement for 1-year's worth
of RFP reductions for contingency measures. The three prongs are (1)
PM2.5 air quality improvements have significantly exceeded
the RFP milestone targets by more than one year's worth of reductions,
(2) relying on continued emissions reductions beyond 2014 based on
adopted regulations for the 2007 ozone plan, and (3) quantifying excess
emissions reductions that were not originally included in the 2007
PM2.5 SIP. The District provides additional detailed
information for each of these prongs in an attachment to their
comments.
    Response: EPA understands the unique air quality challenges in the
South Coast area and appreciates the District's efforts to identify
additional measures that may serve as contingency measures for purposes
of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. We note, however, that contingency
measures should consist of available control measures beyond those
required to attain the standards, and may go beyond those measures
considered to be RACM for the area. See 72 FR 20586 at 20643. We commit
to work with the State and District to identify new or existing control
measures and programs not currently included in the South Coast 2007
AQMP that may satisfy the CAA section 172(c)(9) requirements for
contingency measures for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Comment: In both their January 21, 2011 and August 15, 2011 comment
letters, NRDC supports our proposed disapproval of the contingency
measures. NRDC raises two issues related to the contingency measures.
First, it asserts that the contingency measures lack enforceability.
Second, they note that the District does not describe the criteria
regarding how the monies in the proposed ozone nonattainment fee
contingency measure will be spent, and does not provide mechanisms for
ensuring that emissions reductions are enforceable. (We address NRDC's
third comment about contingency measures in relation to RACM in our
responses to RACM comments above).
    Response: In both our 2010 proposal and our 2011 amended proposal,
we proposed to disapprove the Plan's contingency measure provisions and
we are disapproving those provisions in today's action. See 75 FR
71294, 71311-71312 and 76 FR 41562, 41580. In particular, we stated the
following: The South Coast 2007 AQMP includes suggestions for several
measures that do not meet the CAA's minimum requirements (e.g., no
additional rulemaking, surplus to attainment and RFP needs). The AQMP,
however, indicates that the measures proposed by the District are not
adopted, and does not quantify the expected emissions

reductions in order to gauge whether they provide reductions equivalent
to one year's worth of RFP. For the reasons stated above, we are
disapproving the District's contingency measure provisions in the South
Coast 2007 AQMP for PM2.5. 76 FR 41562, at 415780 (July 14,
2011).
    Regarding NRDC's second point, we agree that for CTY-02, ``Clean
Air Act Emission Fees for Major Stationary Sources,'' the District does
not describe how the monies for the CAA nonattainment fees will be
spent, nor does it provide mechanisms for ensuring that emissions
reductions are enforceable. These are among the reasons that we
provided for disapproving this contingency measure in both our November
2010 and July 2011 proposed rulemakings. We also noted that the 2007
AQMP does not identify the quantity of emissions reductions that the
District intended to use to meet the contingency measure requirement
and therefore, we are unable to determine if the proposed measures are
SIP creditable or sufficient to provide in combination with other
measures the roughly one-year's worth of RFP needed. For these reasons,
we determined that the measures submitted did not currently meet the
CAA requirements for contingency measures.

III. Approval Status of the Control Strategy Measures and Enforceable
Emissions Reductions Commitments

A. Approval Status of Control Strategy Measures

    We describe CARB's and the District's commitments in the 2007 State
Strategy (as revised in 2009 and 2011) and the South Coast 2007 AQMP in
detail in our amended proposal. See 76 FR 41562, at 41575-41577. As
part of its control strategy for attaining the PM2.5
standards in the South Coast, the District made specific commitments to
adopt or revise nineteen measures for SIP credit on the schedule
identified in the revised 2007 AQMP. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix
F, Tables 2 through 5. The District has now completed its adoption
actions and EPA has approved most of the adopted rules. See Table 1
below. The rules we have not yet approved we have not credited with
emissions reductions in the attainment demonstration.

  Table 1--Approval and Submittal Status of District Rules in the South
                             Coast 2007 AQMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Current SIP
          District rule              Adoption date      approval status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 445--Woodburning fireplaces  03/07/08..........  74 FR 27716, 6/11/
 and wood stoves.                                      09.
Rule 461--Gasoline transfer and   03/07/08..........  71 FR 18216, 4/11/
 dispensing.                                           06.
Rule 1110.2--Liquid and gaseous   02/01/08..........  74 FR 18995, 4/27/
 fuels--stationary ICEs.                               09.
Rule 1111--Further NOX            11/06/09..........  75 FR 46845, 08/04/
 reductions from space heaters.                        10.
Rule 1127--Livestock Waste......  08/06/04..........  Under EPA review.
Rule 1138--Restaurant Operations  2012..............  Most recent
                                                       approval: 66 FR
                                                       36170, 7/11/01.
Rule 1143--Consumer Paint         12/03/10..........  Proposed for
 Thinners and Multi-Purpose                            approval 76 FR
 Solvents.                                             41744, 07/15/11.
Rule 1144--Vanishing oils and     07/09/10..........  Proposed for
 rust inhibitors.                                      approval 76 FR
                                                       41744, 07/15/11.
Rule 1145--Plastic, Rubber,       12/3/04...........  75 FR 40726, 07/14/
 Leather and Glass Coatings.                           10.
Rule 1146--NOX from industrial,   09/05/08..........  Proposed limited
 institutional, commercial                             approval/limited
 boilers, steam gens, and                              disapproval 76 FR
 process heaters.                                      40303, 7/8/11.
Rule 1146.1--NOX from small       09/05/08..........  Proposed limited
 industrial, institutional,                            approval/limited
 commercial boilers, steam gens,                       disapproval 76 FR
 and process heaters.                                  40303, 7/8/11.
Rule 1147--NOX reductions from    12/05/08..........  75 FR 46845, 08/04/
 miscellaneous sources.                                10.
Rule 1149--Storage Tank and       05/02/08..........  74 FR 67821, 12/21/
 Pipeline Cleaning and Degassing.                      09.
Rule 2002--Further SOX            11/4/10...........  76 FR 50128, 8/12/
 reductions from RECLAIM.                              11.
Rule 2301--Indirect Source        2012..............  ..................
 Review.
Refinery Pilot Program..........  Not yet adopted...  N/A.
SOON program....................  Submitted.........  Not yet acted on.
AB923 Light and medium duty       No rules            N/A.
 vehicle high emitter program.     associated with
                                   these measures.
AB923 Light and medium duty       No rules            N/A.
 vehicle high emitter program.     associated with
                                   these measures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its control strategy for attaining the PM2.5
standards in the South Coast, CARB committed to propose certain
measures on the schedule identified in the 2007 State Strategy. These
commitments, which were updated in the 2011 Progress Report, and their
current approval status, are shown in Table 2.

       Table 2--Revised 2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for Consideration and Current Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         State measures               Expected action year           Implementation date         Current status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Defined Measures in 2007 State Strategy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smog Check Improvements........  2007-2009....................  2008-2010; 2013..............  Elements approved
                                                                                75 FR 38023
                                                                                (July 1,
                                                                                2010).\35\
Expanded Vehicle Retirement (AB  2007.........................  2009.........................  Adopted by CARB,
 118).                                                                                June 2009; by
                                                                                BAR, September
                                                                                2010.
Modifications to Reformulated    2007.........................  2010.........................  Approved 75 FR
 Gasoline Program.                                                                              26653 (May 12,
                                                                                2010).
Cleaner In-use Heavy Duty        2007, 2008, 2010.............  2011-2015....................  Proposed approval
 Trucks.                                                                                76 FR 40562,
                                                                                July 11, 2011.
Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and  2007-2008....................  2010.........................  Adopted December,
 Other Clean Technologies.                                                                      2007.
Cleaner Main Ship Engines and    Fuel: 2008-2011..............  Fuel: 2009-2-15..............  Proposed approval
 Fuels.                          Engines: 2008................  Engines: 2011................   76 FR 40562,
                                                                                July 11, 2011.
Port Truck Modernization.......  2007, 2008, 2010.............  2008-2020....................  Adopted December
                                                                                2007 and
                                                                                December 2008.
Accelerated Introduction of      2008.........................  2012.........................  Prop 1B funds
 Cleaner Locomotives.                                                                           awarded to
                                                                                upgrade line-
                                                                                haul locomotive
                                                                                engines not
                                                                                already
                                                                                accounted for by
                                                                                enforceable
                                                                                agreements with
                                                                                the railroads.
                                                                                Those cleaner
                                                                                line-hauls will
                                                                                begin operation
                                                                                by 2012.
Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft.  2007, 2010...................  2009-2018....................  Adopted November
                                                                                2007, revised
                                                                                June 2010.
Cleaner In-Use Off-Road          2007, 2010...................  2009.........................  Waiver action
 Equipment.                                                                                pending.
New Emissions Standards for      2013.........................  tbd..........................  Partially
 Recreational Boats.                                                                            adopted, July,
                                                                                2008; additional
                                                                                action expected
                                                                                2013.
Expanded Off-Road Recreational   2013.........................  tbd..........................  Partially
 Vehicle Emissions Standards.                                                                   adopted, July,
                                                                                2008; additional
                                                                                action expected
                                                                                2013.
Enhanced Vapor Recovery for....  2008.........................  .............................  Adopted June,
                                                                                2007.
Above Ground Storage Tanks.....  .............................  2009-2016....................
Additional Evaporative           2009.........................  2010-2012....................  Partial adoption:
 Emissions Standards.                                                                           September, 2008
                                                                                (outboard marine
                                                                                tanks).
Consumer Products Program (I &   2008, 2009, 2011.............  2010-2014....................  Approved, 74 FR
 II).                                                                                57074 (November
                                                                                4, 2009), 76 FR
                                                                                27613 (May 12,
                                                                                2011), and
                                                                                proposed
                                                                                approval of 2011
                                                                                rule signed
                                                                                September 28,
                                                                                2011.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 23 (footnotes in original not included) and 2011 Progress Report,
  Appendix B, Table B-1. Additional information from http://www.ca.arb.gov. Only defined measures with
  PM2.5,VOC, SOX or NOX reductions in South Coast are shown here.

    Generally speaking, EPA will approve a State plan that takes
emissions reduction credit for control measures only where EPA has
approved the measures as part of the SIP, or in the case of certain on-
road and nonroad measures, where EPA has issued the related waiver of
preemption or authorization under CAA section 209(b) or section 209(e).
In our July 14, 2011 proposed rule, in calculating and proposing to
approve the State's aggregate emissions reductions commitment in
connection with our proposed approval of the attainment demonstration,
we assumed that full final approval, waiver, or authorization of a
number of CARB rules would occur prior to our final action on the South
Coast PM2.5 Plan. See 76 FR at 41562, 41575 (Table 7). Three
specific CARB rules on which the attainment demonstration relies
include the Truck Rule, Drayage Truck Rule, and Ocean-Going Vessel
(OGV) Rule. We proposed approval of all three rules at 76 FR 40652
(July 11, 2011), but will be unable to take final action on the rules
until after taking final action on the plan because, while CARB has
adopted the rules, the rules cannot take effect until approved by the
California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and such approval will
not happen before EPA's final action must be taken on the plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ California Assembly Bill 2289, passed in 2010, requires the
Bureau of Automotive Repair to direct older vehicles to high
performing auto technicians and test stations for inspection and
certification effective 2013. Reductions shown for the SmogCheck
program in the 2011 Progress Report do not include reductions from
AB 2289 improvements. See CARB Progress Report Supplement,
Attachment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are nonetheless allowing the plan's attainment demonstration,
and our final approval of it, to rely on the emissions reductions from
the three CARB rules for the following reasons:
     All three rules have been adopted by CARB and submitted to
EPA as a revision to the California SIP,\36\ and the adopted versions
are essentially the same as those for which EPA proposed approval;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The Truck Rule and Drayage Truck Rules were included in a
SIP submittal dated September 21, 2011, and the OGV Rule was
included in a SIP submittal also dated September 21, 2011. We have
placed both of these SIP submittals in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The comments that we have received on our proposed
approval of the three CARB rules (truck rule, drayage truck rule, and
ocean-going vessel rule) contend that the rules are costly and may not
be economically or technologically feasible, but such considerations
cannot form the basis for EPA disapproval of a rule submitted by a
state as part of a SIP [see Union Electric Company v. EPA; 427 U.S.
246, 265 (1976)];
     The remaining administrative process, which involves
review of the final adopted rules by California's Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) is essentially procedural in nature, and
should be completed over the near-term; \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See letters from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer,
CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX,
dated September 21, 2011, submitting the Truck and Drayage Truck
rules SIP revision and the OGV Rule SIP revision to EPA. CARB
indicates that the Drayage Truck Rule will be submitted to OAL no
later than September 23, 2011, and the Truck Rule will be submitted
to OAL no later than October 29, 2011. CARB has already submitted
the OGV Rule to OAL. Under California law, OAL must take action
within 30 working days.

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

     CARB intends to submit the final, effective rules to EPA
as soon as OAL completes its review and approves the rules.
Therefore, we are confident that the final action on the rules will be
completed in the near term and that, as a result, continued reliance by
the plan, and our final approval of it, on the emissions reductions
associated with the rules is reasonable and appropriate. If, however,
California does not submit the adopted and fully effective rules to EPA
as a SIP revision prior to the effective date of today's action, we
will take appropriate remedial action to ensure that our action on the
plan is fully supportable or to reconsider that action.

B. Enforceable Emissions Reduction Commitments

    CARB's emissions reductions commitment is to achieve the ``total
emissions reductions necessary to attain Federal standards'' through
``the implementation of control measures; the expenditure of local,
State, or federal incentive funds; or through other enforceable
measures.'' See CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B at pp. 3-5 and 2009
State Strategy Status Report, pp. 20-21.
    The updates and improvements to the inventories as presented in
CARB's 2011 Progress Report altered the calculation of the reductions
needed for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in South
Coast by revising the total reductions needed from District and State
control strategy measures to 44 tpd for VOC, 129 tpd for
NOX, and 41 tpd for SOX (the remaining reductions
needed for direct PM2.5 remained the same at 9 tpd). See
Table 3 below and July 2011 TSD, Table F-10.
    We are approving the South Coast 2007 AQMP for attainment of the
1997 PM2.5 standards taking into account CARB's revisions to
the control strategy based on the revisions to its projected baseline
inventories and its enforceable emissions reductions commitment.
Specifically, we are interpreting CARB's emissions reductions
commitment, together with the adjustments to the 2014 baseline
inventories provided in CARB's 2011 SIP revision and the District's
commitments, as adjusting the State's total emission reduction
commitment such that the State is now obligated to achieve 129 tpd of
NOX, 44 tpd of VOC, 41 tpd of SOX, and
9 tpd of PM2.5 reductions and reductions by 2014 through
enforceable control measures to provide for attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast. See Table 3 below. The
commitment numbers in this table do not include reductions from
measures adopted by CARB and the District and approved or waived by EPA
following submittal of the South Coast AQMP in 2007.

           Table 3--2014 Emissions Reductions Commitments for the South Coast PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
                                      [Tons per average annual day in 2014]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    NOX              VOC          Direct PM2.5         SOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...................  Adjusted 2014 baseline            589              518               95               61
                       emissions level \1\.
B...................  2014 attainment target            460              474               86               20
                       level \2\.
C...................  Reductions needed from            129               44                9               41
                       control strategy
                       measures (A-B).
D...................  District commitments               10.8             10.4              2.9              2.9
                       \3\.
E...................  CARB commitments (C-D)            118.2             33.6              6.1             38.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From TSD, Table F-9.
\2\ See 76 FR 41562, 41573, fn 27.
\3\ See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix F, Table 1.

    The level of emissions reductions remaining as commitments after
adjusting the baseline to reflect updates and improvements to the
inventories and crediting reductions from SIP-approved or otherwise
SIP-creditable measures is shown in Table 4. We are approving the
attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP to address the
1997 PM2.5 standards, based in part on these enforceable
commitments. See 76 FR 41562, at 41577.

       Table 4--Reductions Needed for Attainment Remaining as Commitments Based on SIP-Creditable Measures
                                      [Tons per average annual day in 2014]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        NOX             VOC        Direct PM2.5         SOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.....................  Total reductions needed              633             370              13              33
                         from baseline and
                         control strategy
                         measures and other
                         adjustments to the
                         baseline to attain.
B.....................  Reductions from baseline             504             326               4              -8
                         measures and
                         adjustments to baseline.
C.....................  Total reductions from                 59              20               8              41
                         approved measures.
D.....................  Total reductions                      70              25               1               0
                         remaining as
                         commitments (A-B-C).
E.....................  Percent of total                      11               7               8               0
                         reductions needed
                         remaining as
                         commitments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 4, the majority of the emissions reductions that
the State projects are needed for attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast by 2015 come from baseline
reductions. These baseline reductions reflect numerous adopted District
and State control measures which generally have been approved by EPA
either through the SIP process or the CAA section 209 waiver process,
in addition to the effect of the recent economic recession on

projected future inventories. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E and
Appendices A and B of the TSD. The remaining reductions needed for
attainment are to be achieved through the District's and CARB's
commitments to reduce emissions in the South Coast. These aggregate
commitments are shown in Line C of Table 3.\38\ Since the submittal of
the 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, the District and CARB have
adopted additional measures that can be credited toward their aggregate
emissions reduction commitments. The State's remaining enforceable
commitments are shown in line E of Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Enforceable control measures adopted and submitted by CARB
or the District and approved or waived by EPA may be credited
towards this aggregate commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we noted in our July 14, 2011 proposal, we cannot credit
District rules that have not been adopted, submitted to EPA, and
approved (see footnote a to Table 3, 76 FR 41562, at 41570) or certain
on-road or nonroad measures that have been given a waiver under CAA
section 209. In our July 14, 2011 proposal, we presented a table with
the State's remaining enforceable commitments (see 76 FR 41562, at
41575 (Table 7) of 70 tpd (11%) for NOX, 11 tpd (3%) for
VOC, 1 tpd (8%) for direct PM2.5, and 0 tpd (0%) for
SOX. Today, we are slightly modifying our estimate of the
State's remaining enforceable commitments for VOC. On July 15, 2011, we
published a direct final rule to approve South Coast Rules 1143
(Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi-Purpose Solvents) and 1144
(Metalworking Fluids and Direct-Contact Lubricants). See 76 FR 41744.
We received adverse comments on this action with respect to Rules 1143
and 1144, and thus withdrew the direct final rule (see 76 FR 54384,
September 1, 2011). We are responding to comments received on the
parallel proposal but have not yet finalized that action, and therefore
are adding those reductions to the State's remaining enforceable
commitment for VOC. The effect of this action is to slightly increase
the State's remaining enforceable commitment for VOC from 11 tpd to
24.5 tpd, an increase from 4% to 7%, and is reflected in Table 4 above.
This remaining commitment is still within the range of 10% for
enforceable commitments that we have historically accepted in approving
attainment demonstrations.

IV. Approval of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    We noted in our July 14, 2011 proposal that CARB had posted
technical revisions to the motor vehicle emissions budgets on June 20,
2011 (see 76 FR 41562, at 41581 and http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm) to correct data entry errors in the budget
calculations and to remove the emissions reductions attributable to the
Assembly Bill (AB) 923 program (South Coast's light and medium duty
high emitter program). In our July 14, 2011 proposal, we proposed to
approve these revised updated budgets contingent on our receiving the
SIP submittal from CARB with the revised updated budgets before our
final action on the South Coast 2007 AQMP addressing the 1997
PM2.5 standards. These revised updated budgets were
submitted by CARB as a SIP revision on July 29, 2011 (see letter, James
Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated July 29, 2011, with Attachments). We
posted these budgets (as posted by CARB on June 20, 2011) on our Web
site for adequacy on July 14, 2011 for a 30-day comment period which
ended on August 15, 2011 (see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm). We received no comments on our adequacy
posting, and have completed our adequacy review on these budgets (see
the TSD, Section J). We also discuss the basis for our approval of the
budgets in the TSD, Section J. We identify the budgets that we are
approving today in Table 5 below.
    EPA is also approving the trading mechanism in the State's
submittal for use in transportation conformity analyses by SCAG as
allowed for under 40 CFR 93.124. The trading applies only to:
     Analysis years after the 2014 attainment year.
     On-road mobile emission sources.
     Trades using vehicle NOX emission reductions in
excess of those needed to meet the NOX budget.
     Trades in one direction from NOX to direct
PM2.5.
     A trading ratio of 10 tpd NOX to 1 tpd
PM2.5.
    Clear documentation of the calculations used in the trade would be
included in the conformity analysis. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision,
Appendix A, p. A-6.
    Now that the approval of the budgets is finalized, the area's
metropolitan planning organization, the Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG) and the U.S. Department of Transportation are
required to use the revised budgets in transportation conformity
determinations. Due to the formatting of the budgets (combining
emission changes, recession impacts and reductions from control
measures), CARB will need to provide SCAG with emission reductions
associated with the control measures incorporated into the budgets for
the appropriate analysis years in future conformity determinations so
that they can include these reductions per 40 CFR 93.122. In addition,
for these conformity determinations, the motor vehicle emissions from
implementation of the transportation plan should be projected and
compared to the budgets at the same level of accuracy as the budgets in
the plan, for example emissions should be rounded to the nearest ton
(e.g. 11 tpd).

           Table 5--Summary of Updated PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursor Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the South Coast PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
                                                              [Tons per annual average day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           2012                                               2014
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Directly                                           Directly
                                                          VOC              NOX         emitted PM2.5         VOC              NOX         emitted PM2.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Coast Air Basin.............................             154              326               37              132              290               35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Final Actions and CAA Consequences of the Final Disapproval of the
Contingency Measure Provisions

A. Final Actions

    For the reasons discussed in our July 14, 2011 proposal, EPA
approves, with the exception of the contingency measure provisions,
California's SIP for attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
South Coast nonattainment area, and grants the State's request for an
extension of the attainment date to April 5, 2015. California's
PM2.5 attainment SIP for the South Coast nonattainment area
is composed of the relevant portions of the South Coast 2007 AQMP as
revised in 2011 and the South Coast-specific portions of CARB's 2007
State Strategy as revised in 2009 and 2011 that address CAA and EPA
regulations for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in
the South Coast nonattainment area.
    Specifically, EPA approves under CAA section 110(k)(3) the
following elements of the South Coast PM2.5 attainment SIP:
    1. The 2002 base year emissions inventory as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008;
    2. The reasonably available control measures/reasonably available
control technology demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1010;
    3. The reasonable further progress demonstration as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1009;
    4. The attainment demonstration and supporting air quality modeling
as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and(6) and 40 CFR
51.1007;
    5. The 2012 RFP and 2014 attainment year motor vehicle emissions
budgets, as submitted by CARB on July 29, 2011, because they are
derived from the approvable RFP and attainment demonstrations and meet
the requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A;
and CARB's trading mechanism to be used in transportation conformity
analyses as allowed under 40 CFR 93.124;
    6. SCAQMD's commitments to the adoption and implementation schedule
for specific control measures and to achieve specific aggregate
emissions reductions of direct PM2.5, NOX, VOC,
and SOX listed in Tables 1 through 5 in Appendix F of the
2011 Progress Report to the extent that these commitments have not yet
been fulfilled,; and
    7. CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, as
listed in Table B-1 on page 1 of Appendix B of the 2011 Progress Report
to the extent that these commitments have not yet been fulfilled and to
achieve aggregate emission reductions of NOX, VOC, direct
PM2.5 and SOX by 2014 sufficient to provide for
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as described in CARB
Resolution 07-28, Attachment B at p. 3-5, the 2009 State Strategy
Status Report, p. 21, and in Table 3 above.
    In addition, EPA concurs with the State's determination under 40
CFR 51.1002(c) that NOX, SOX, and VOC are
attainment plan precursors and that ammonia is not an attainment plan
precursor for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
South Coast nonattainment area.
    EPA also grants, pursuant to CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR
51.1004(a), California's request to extend the attainment date for the
South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area to April 5, 2015.
    Finally, EPA disapproves under CAA section 110(k)(3) the
contingency measure provisions in the South Coast 2007 AQMP as failing
to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1012.
We also reject the assignment of 10 tpd of NOX to the
federal government.

B. CAA Consequences of the Final Disapproval of the Contingency Measure
Provisions

    EPA is committed to working with the District, CARB and SCAG to
resolve the remaining issues with the SIP that make the current
PM2.5 attainment SIP for the South Coast nonattainment area
not fully approvable under the CAA and the PM2.5
implementation rule. However, because we are finalizing the disapproval
of the contingency measure provisions in the South Coast 2007 AQMP, the
offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) will apply in the South Coast
PM2.5 nonattainment area 18 months after the effective date
of today's final disapproval. The highway funding sanctions in CAA
section 179(b)(1) will apply in the area six months after the offset
sanction is imposed. Neither sanction will be imposed under the CAA if
California submits and we approve prior to the implementation of
sanctions, SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies identified in
our proposed action. In addition to the sanctions, CAA section
110(c)(1) provides that EPA must promulgate a federal implementation
plan addressing the deficient elements in the PM2.5 SIP for
the South Coast nonattainment area two years after January 9, 2012, the
effective date of this rule, if we have not approved a SIP revision
correcting the deficiencies within the two years.
    Because we are approving the RFP and attainment demonstrations and
the motor vehicle emission budgets, we are issuing a protective finding
under 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3) to the disapproval of the contingency
measures. Without a protective finding, final disapproval would result
in a conformity freeze under which only projects in the first four
years of the most recent conforming RTP and TIP can proceed. During a
freeze, no new RTPs, TIPs or RTP/TIP amendments can be found to
conform. See 40 CFR 93.120(a)(2). Under a protective finding, however,
final disapproval of the contingency measures will not result in a
transportation conformity freeze in the South Coast PM2.5
nonattainment area.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals and partial approvals/
partial disapprovals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because
this partial approval/partial disapproval action does not create any
new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal

inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the partial approval/partial disapproval
action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This
Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local
law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs
to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a
State rule implementing a Federal standard.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is
to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria of the
Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP under CAA section 110 and
subchapter I, part D and disapproves others, and will not in-and-of
itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it does not provide
EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate,
disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2). This rule will be effective on January 9, 2012.

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 9, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: September 30, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.

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

PART 52 [AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(397), (c)(398),
(c)(399), (c)(400), and (c)(401) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (397) A plan was submitted on November 16, 2007 by the
    Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional Material.
    (A) State of California Air Resources Board.
    (1) Proposed State Strategy for California's 2007 State
Implementation Plan, adopted on September 27, 2007.
    (2) CARB Resolution No. 07-28 with Attachments A and B, September
27, 2007. Commitment to achieve the total emissions reductions
necessary to attain the Federal standards in the South Coast air basin,
which represent 6.1 tons per day (tpd) of direct PM2.5, 38.1
tpd of SOX, 33.6 tpd of VOC and 118.2 tpd of nitrogen oxides
by 2014 for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, as described
in Resolution No. 07-28 at Attachment B, pp. 3-5, and modified by CARB
Resolution No. 09-34 (April 24, 2009) adopting the ``Status Report on
the State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan
(SIP) and Proposed Revision to the SIP reflecting Implementation of the
2007 State Strategy,'' and by CARB Resolution 11-24 (April 28, 2011)
adopting the ``Progress Report on Implementation of PM2.5
State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin
Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions.''.
    (3) Executive Order S-07-002, Relating to Approval of the State
Strategy for California's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
Federal 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 Standards, November 16, 2007.
    (398) A plan was submitted on November 28, 2007 by the Governor's
designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional Material.
    (A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Final South Coast 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, adopted on
June 1, 2007.
    (2) SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 07-9, ``A Resolution of the
Governing Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
certifying the final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2007
Air Quality Management Plan, adopting the Final 2007 Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP), to be referred to after adoption as the Final
2007 AQMP, and to fulfill USEPA Requirements for the use of emissions
reductions form the Carl Moyer Program in the State Implementation
Plan,'' June 1, 2007. Commitments to achieve emissions reductions
(including emissions reductions of 2.9 tons per day (tpd) of direct
PM2.5, 2.9 tpd of SOX, 10.4 tpd of VOC and 10.8
tpd of nitrogen oxides by 2014) as described by SCAQMD Governing Board
Resolution No. 07-9, p. 10, June 1, 2007, and modified by SCAQMD
Governing Board Resolution 11-9, p. 3, March 4, 2011, and commitments
to adopt and submit control measures as described in Table 4-2A of the
Final 2007 AQMP, as amended March 4, 2011.
    (B) State of California Air Resources Board.
    (1) CARB Resolution No. 07-41, September 27, 2007.
    (399) An amended plan was submitted on May 18, 2011 by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional Material.
    (A) State of California Air Resources Board.
    (1) Progress Report on Implementation of PM2.5 State
Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley
Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions, Appendices B and C. Release
Date: March 29, 2011.
    (2) CARB Resolution No. 11-24, April 28, 2011.
    (3) Executive Order S-11-010, ``Approval of Revisions to the Fine
Particulate Matter State Implementation Plans for the South Coast Air
Quality Management Plans for the South Coast Air Quality Management
District and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District,''
May 18, 2011.
    (400) An amended plan was submitted on May 19, 2011 by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional Material.
    (A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Revisions to the 2007 PM2.5 and Ozone State
Implementation Plan for South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley (SIP
Revisions), adopted on March 4, 2011.
    (2) SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 11-9, ``A Resolution of the
South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board (AQMD)
certifying the Addendum to Final Program Environmental Impact Report
(PEIR) for the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, (AQMP), for a revision
to the Final 2007 AQMP, to be referred to after adoption as the
Revision to the Final 2007 AQMP,'' March 4, 2011.
    (B) State of California Air Resources Board.

    (1) CARB Resolution No. 11-24, April 28, 2011. Commitment to
propose measures as described in Appendix B of the ``Progress Report on
the Implementation of the PM2.5 State Implementation Plans
(SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and
Proposed SIP Revisions.''
    (401) An amended plan was submitted on July 29, 2011 by the
    Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional Material.
    (A) State of California Air Resources Board.
    (1) 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical
Revisions to the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan
Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin
Valley Air Basins, Appendix A, page A-5 (dated June 20, 2011), adopted
July 21, 2011.
    (2) CARB Resolution No. 11-22, July 21, 2011.
    (3) Executive Order S-11-016, ``Approval of Revisions to the 8-Hour
Ozone State Implementation Plans and Technical Revisions to the
PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity
Budgets for the South Coast San Joaquin Valley Air Basin,'' July 21,
2011.

[FR Doc. 2011-27620 Filed 11-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P