[Federal Register: October 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 201)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61381-61393]
[DOCID:fr16oc08-25]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0693; FRL-8729-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: 1-Hour Ozone
Extreme Area Plan for San Joaquin Valley, CA

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve state implementation plan
revisions submitted by the State of California to meet the Clean Air
Act (CAA) requirements applicable to the San Joaquin Valley (SJV),
California 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. These requirements applied
to the SJV following its reclassification from severe to extreme for
the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard on April 16,
2004. Although EPA subsequently revoked the 1-hour ozone standard
effective June 15, 2005, the requirement to submit a plan for that
standard remains in effect for the SJV. EPA is proposing to approve the
SIP revisions for the SJV as meeting applicable CAA requirements except
for the provision addressing the reasonably available control
technology requirements that the State has withdrawn.

DATES: Comments may be submitted until November 17, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2008-0693, by one of the following methods:
    1. Agency Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. EPA prefers
receiving comments through this electronic public docket and comment
system. Follow the on-line instructions to submit comments.
    2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    3. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office of Air Planning (AIR-2),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    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 the
agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or e-mail. The agency Web site and
eRulemaking portal are anonymous access systems, 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 comment 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 at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. 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 in 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, U.S. EPA Region 9,
415-972-3957<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or http://www.epa.gov/region09/
air/actions.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' mean U.S. EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What is the history of 1-hour ozone air quality planning in
the SJV?
    B. What are the elements in the new plan?
    C. What Clean Air Act requirements apply to this extreme area 1-
hour ozone plan?
II. Review of the 2004 SIP, the SJV Portion of the Final 2003 State
Strategy and the 2008 SIP Clarification
    A. Did the SJVAPCD and ARB meet the CAA procedural requirements?
    B. Do the baseline and projected emissions inventories meet CAA
requirements?
    C. Is the air quality modeling consistent with the CAA and EPA's
modeling guidelines?
    D. Do the control measures meet CAA requirements?
    E. Does the plan show the CAA-required rate of progress?
    F. Does the plan provide for attainment by the CAA-required
deadline?
    G. Do the contingency measures meet CAA requirements?
    H. Are the motor vehicle emissions budgets approvable?
III. Summary of Proposed Actions
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What is the history of 1-hour ozone air quality planning in the SJV?

    The San Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone nonattainment area (SJV)
includes the following counties in California's central valley: San
Joaquin, part of Kern, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus and
Tulare. 40 CFR 81.305.
    Upon enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the SJV was
classified by operation of law as a serious nonattainment area with an
attainment date of no later than November 15, 1999. 56 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991). On November 15, 1994, the California Air Resources
Board (ARB) submitted ``The 1994 California State Implementation Plan
for Ozone'' (1994 SIP), a comprehensive ozone plan for the State of
California that included a local nonattainment plan developed for the
SJV by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD
or the District). On January 8, 1997, EPA approved the 1994 SIP. 62 FR
1150.
    On November 8, 2001, EPA found that the SJV had failed to attain
the 1-hour ozone standard by the serious area deadline of November 15,
1999 and reclassified the area by operation of law to severe. 66 FR
56476. In the final

reclassification action to severe, EPA explained that the State would
need to submit by May 31, 2002 a SIP revision addressing the severe
area requirements including, but not limited to, a demonstration of
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by November 15, 2005 and a rate
of progress (ROP) demonstration of creditable ozone precursor emission
reductions of at least 3 percent per year until attainment. Id.
    On October 2, 2002, EPA found that the State failed to submit by
May 31, 2002 several severe area SIP revisions for the SJV including a
demonstration of attainment and a ROP demonstration. 67 FR 61784. The
State subsequently requested a reclassification to extreme and
submitted all of the severe area requirements except for the attainment
demonstration. See 69 FR 8126 (February 23, 2004).\1\ On April 16,
2004, EPA granted the State's request to voluntarily reclassify the SJV
from a severe to an extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment area and
required the State to submit by November 15, 2004 an extreme area plan
providing for the attainment of the ozone standard as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than November 15, 2010. 69 FR 20550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The submittals included the District's ``Amended 2002 and
2005 Ozone Rate of Progress Plan for the San Joaquin Valley''
(submitted April 10, 2003 and found complete on September 4, 2003).
On July 10, 2003, we found adequate for transportation conformity
purposes the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) in this plan.
Letter, Jack P. Broadbent, EPA Region 9 to Catherine Witherspoon,
ARB, July 10, 2003. A table attached to the letter summarized our
adequacy determination. Our notice of adequacy for these budgets was
published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2003 at 68 FR 43724
and was effective 15 days later, on August 8, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What are the elements in the new plan?

    The SJVAPCD adopted the ``Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration
Plan'' on October 8, 2004 and amended it on October 20, 2005 to, among
other things, substitute for the original chapter a new ``Chapter 4:
Control Strategy.'' The State submitted the plan (with the exception of
Chapter 8 \2\) and amendment on November 15, 2004 and March 6, 2006,
respectively. See letters from Catherine Witherspoon, ARB, to Wayne
Nastri, EPA, November 15, 2004 and March 6, 2006. The plan and
amendment, collectively, will be referred to as the ``2004 SIP'' in
this proposed rule. The 2004 SIP addresses CAA requirements for extreme
1-hour ozone areas, including emission inventories, modeling, control
measures, contingency measures, and ROP and attainment demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Chapter 8 ``California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress
Report and Plan Review'' was included in the plan to meet a State
requirement to report every three years on the area's progress
toward meeting California's air quality standards. Nothing in the
chapter was intended to address federal Clean Air Act requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2004 SIP relies in part on the ``Final 2003 State and Federal
Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan,'' which
identifies ARB's regulatory agenda to reduce ozone and particulate
matter in California and includes defined statewide control measures to
be reflected in future SIPs and provisions specific to air quality
plans for the San Joaquin Valley. On October 23, 2003, ARB adopted the
``Final 2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State
Implementation Plan,'' which consists of two elements: (1) The Proposed
2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation
Plan (released August 25, 2003); and (2) ARB Board Resolution 03-22
which approves the Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy with the
revisions to that Strategy set forth in Attachment A. On January 9,
2004, ARB submitted to EPA the ``Final 2003 State and Federal Strategy
for the California State Implementation Plan.'' Letter from Catherine
Witherspoon, ARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, January 9, 2004.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On February 13, 2008, ARB withdrew from EPA consideration
specified portions of the ``Final 2003 State and Federal Strategy
for the California State Implementation Plan'' as they relate to the
2003 SIP for the South Coast Air Basin. These withdrawals do not
affect the 2003 Strategy as it relates specifically to the San
Joaquin Valley. Letter from James N. Goldstene, ARB, to Wayne
Nastri, EPA, February 13, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this proposed rule we refer to the two documents comprising the
``Final State and Federal Strategy for the California State
Implementation Plan'' after the withdrawal of the South Coast portions,
collectively, as the ``Final 2003 State Strategy'' or individually as
the ``State Strategy'' and ``ARB Resolution 03-22'', respectively.
    On August 21, 2008, the SJVAPCD adopted ``Clarifications Regarding
the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan'' (2008 SIP
Clarification). The State submitted the 2008 SIP Clarification on
September 5, 2008. Letter from James N. Goldstene, ARB, to Wayne
Nastri, EPA, with enclosures, September 5, 2008. The 2008 SIP
Clarification provides updates to the 2004 SIP related to RACT, control
measures adopted by the SJVAPCD, the rate of progress demonstration,
and contingency measures.

C. What Clean Air Act requirements apply to this extreme area 1-hour
ozone plan?

    The requirements for extreme 1-hour ozone areas are found in
section 182 of the CAA and the general planning and control
requirements for nonattainment plans are found in sections 110 and 172.
These requirements are discussed in Section II of this proposed rule.
EPA has issued a General Preamble describing our preliminary views on
how the Agency intends to review SIPs submitted to meet the CAA's
requirements for 1-hour ozone plans. ``General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). EPA has also issued other guidance documents
related to 1-hour ozone plans which we cited as necessary when
discussing our evaluation of the 2004 SIP.
    In an April 30, 2004 final rule, EPA designated and classified most
areas of the country under the 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) promulgated in 40 CFR 50.10. 69 FR 23858. On
April 30, 2004, EPA also issued a final rule entitled ``Final Rule to
Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase
1'' (Phase 1 Rule). 69 FR 23951. Among other matters, this rule revoked
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV (as well as in most other areas of
the country), effective June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at
23996 and 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005). The Phase 1 Rule also set forth
anti-backsliding principles to ensure continued progress toward
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by identifying which 1-hour
requirements remain applicable in an area after revocation of the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS. Among the requirements not retained was the
requirement to implement contingency measures pursuant to CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for failure to make reasonable further progress
(RFP) toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS or for failure to attain
that NAAQS. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and 70 FR 30592 (May 26,
2005).
    On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Rule. South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). Subsequently, in
South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1295 (DC Cir.
2007) in response to several petitions for rehearing, the court
clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those
parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. With respect
to the challenges to the anti-backsliding provisions of the rule
(codified in 40 CFR 51.905), the court vacated several provisions that
would have allowed states to remove from the SIP or to not adopt
several 1-hour obligations once

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked, among them, contingency measures to
be implemented pursuant to CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).
    The provisions in 40 CFR 51.905(a)-(c) remain in effect and areas
must continue to meet those anti-backsliding requirements for the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS. However, the contingency measure provision noted
previously, which is specified in 51.905(e), was vacated by the court.
As a result, states must continue to meet the obligation for 1-hour
ozone contingency measures.

II. Review of the 2004 SIP, the SJV Elements of the Final 2003 State
Strategy and the 2008 SIP Clarification

A. Did the SJVAPCD and ARB meet the CAA procedural requirements?

1. What are the applicable CAA provisions?
    CAA section 110 requires SIP submissions to be adopted by the state
after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA has promulgated
specific requirements for SIP submissions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F.
2. How does the plan address these provisions?
    The District provided the requisite notice and public comment
periods prior to adoption of the 2004 SIP and 2008 SIP Clarification.
The State provided the requisite notice and public comment period prior
to adoption of the 2004 SIP, Final 2003 State Strategy and 2008 SIP
Clarification. See January 9, 2004, November 15, 2004 and March 6, 2006
letters from Catherine Witherspoon, ARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, with
enclosures and September 5, 2008 letter from James. N. Goldstene to
Wayne Nastri, with enclosures.
3. Does the plan meet the CAA procedural requirements for SIP
submissions?
    The submittal packages for the 2004 SIP, Final 2003 State Strategy
and 2008 SIP Clarification include evidence of public notice and
hearing, District and ARB responses to public comments, and evidence of
District and ARB adoption. Based on our review of these materials, we
find that the procedural requirements of CAA section 110 and 40 CFR
part 51, subpart F have been met.
4. Are the plan submittals complete?
    CAA section 110(k)(1) requires EPA to determine whether a plan is
complete within 60 days of receipt and any plan that has not been
determined to be complete or incomplete within 6 months shall be deemed
complete by operation of law. EPA's completeness criteria are found in
40 CFR part 51, subpart V.
    The 2004 SIP, comprised of the original and subsequent amendment,
was deemed complete by operation of law on May 15, 2005 and September
6, 2006. On February 18, 2004, we determined the Final 2003 State
Strategy to be complete. Letter from Deborah Jordan, EPA, to Catherine
Witherspoon, CARB, February 18, 2004. We found the 2008 SIP
Clarification complete on September 23, 2008. Letter from Deborah
Jordan, EPA, to James N. Goldstene, ARB, September 23, 2008.

B. Do the baseline and projected emission inventories meet CAA
requirements?

1. What are the applicable CAA provisions?
    CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) require nonattainment areas to
submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources, in accordance with guidance provided by
EPA. The inventory is to represent weekday emissions during the ozone
season. General Preamble at 13502. EPA guidance for 1-hour ozone SIP
emission inventories includes, in addition to the General Preamble:
``Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Carbon
Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone, Volume I: General Guidance for
Stationary Sources,'' EPA--450/4-91-016; and ``Procedures for Emission
Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources,'' EPA--450/5-91-026d
Revised.
2. How does the plan address these provisions?
    Chapter 3 of the 2004 SIP presents the baseline and projected
emission inventories. This chapter also discusses the methodology used
to determine 1999 emissions and identifies the growth and control
factors used to project emissions for the 2000 baseline inventory and
the 2008 and 2010 projected year inventories. The plan presents weekday
summer inventories for 2000, 2008 and 2010 for all major source
categories. Emissions are calculated for the two major ozone
precursors--oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC)--as well as for the less significant precursor, carbon
monoxide (CO). 2004 SIP at Table 3-1. Motor vehicle emissions were
based on estimates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provided by the
regional transportation planning agencies and the California Department
of Transportation. The plan uses ARB's EMission FACtor (EMFAC) 2002,
version 2.2, to calculate the emission factors for cars, trucks and
buses. On April 1, 2003, we approved EMFAC 2002 for use in SIP
development. 68 FR 15720.
3. Does the plan meet the CAA provisions for the emission inventories?
    We have determined that the emission inventories in the 2004 SIP
were comprehensive, accurate, and current at the time the SIP was
submitted. Accordingly, we propose to approve the emissions inventories
in the 2004 SIP as consistent with the CAA and applicable EPA
guidelines.

C. Is the air quality modeling consistent with the CAA and EPA's
modeling guidelines?

1. What are the applicable CAA provisions and EPA's guidelines?
    Areas classified as extreme for the 1-hour ozone standard such as
the SJV must demonstrate attainment ``as expeditiously as practicable''
but not later than November 15, 2010 as specified in CAA section
181(a). For purposes of demonstrating attainment, CAA section
182(c)(2)(A) requires extreme areas to use photochemical grid modeling
or an analytical method EPA determines to be as effective.
    EPA guidance identifies the features of a modeling analysis that
are essential to obtain credible results.\4\ The photochemical grid
modeling analysis is performed for days when the meteorological
conditions are conducive to the formation of ozone. For purposes of
developing the information to put into the model, the state must select
days in the past with elevated ozone levels that are representative of
the ozone pollution problem in the nonattainment area and a modeling
domain that encompasses the nonattainment area. The state must then
develop both meteorological data describing atmospheric conditions for
the selected days and an emission inventory to evaluate the model's
ability to reproduce the monitored air quality values. Finally, the
state needs to verify

that the model is properly simulating the chemistry and atmospheric
conditions through diagnostic analyses and model performance tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA has issued the following guidance regarding air quality
modeling used to demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS:
``Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model,''
EPA-450/4-91-013 (July 1991); ``Guidance on Use of Modeled Results
to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS,'' EPA-454/B-95-007
(June 1996); ``Guidance for the 1-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas
that Rely on Weight-of-Evidence for Attainment Demonstrations, Mid-
Course Review Guidance'' (March 28, 2002); and ``Guidance for
Improving Weight-of-Evidence Through Identification of Additional
Emission Reductions Not Modeled'' (Nov 99). Copies of these
documents may be found on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
scram and in the docket for this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once these steps are satisfactorily completed, the model can be
used to generate future year air quality estimates to support an
attainment demonstration. A future-year emissions inventory, which
includes growth and controls through the attainment year, is developed
for input to the model to predict air quality in the attainment year.
    For the 1-hour ozone standard, the modeled attainment test compares
model-predicted 1-hour daily maximum ozone concentrations in all grid
cells for the attainment year to the level of the NAAQS. For the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, a predicted concentration above 0.124 parts per million
(ppm) indicates that the area is expected to exceed the standard in the
attainment year and a prediction at or below 0.124 ppm indicates that
the area is expected to attain the standard.
    Attainment is demonstrated when all predicted concentrations inside
the modeling domain are at or below the NAAQS or at an acceptable upper
limit above the NAAQS permitted under certain conditions by EPA's
guidance. When the predicted concentrations are above the NAAQS, a
weight of evidence determination, which incorporates other analyses
such as air quality and emissions trends, may be used to address the
uncertainty inherent in the application of photochemical grid models.
2. How does the plan address these provisions?
    EPA recommended that states use the Urban Airshed Model (UAM)
version IV as the ozone model of choice for the grid-point modeling
required by the CAA for 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations.\5\
Other models are allowed if the state shows that they are
scientifically valid and they perform (i.e., are just as reliable) as
well as, or better than, UAM IV. California selected the Comprehensive
Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) based on slightly better
performance for the SJV than the other tested models. Details on the
model and its selection can be found in Appendix D to the 2004 SIP. The
meteorological modeling was based on a hybrid approach, using the Meso-
scale Model 5 (MM5) and Calmet models, because of the ability of this
modeling system to reproduce the measured design value near the Fresno
monitoring site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA has not recommended a model for attainment
demonstrations for the 8-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information on how the CAMX modeling meets EPA guidance is
summarized here and detailed in the State's submittals. 2004 SIP at
Chapter 5 and Appendix D. The air quality modeling domain extends from
the Oregon border in the north to Los Angeles County in the south, and
from the Pacific Ocean in the west to Nevada in the east.
    EPA's Guideline on the use of photochemical grid models recommends
that areas model three or more episodes, including the types of weather
conditions most conducive to ozone formation. The final photochemical
grid modeling submitted by California focused on the CAMx modeling for
one several day episode, July 27 to August 2, 2000. This episode
represents high measured ozone, with a peak measured concentration of
151 parts per billion (ppb) at Bakersfield on August 2, 2000. The
episode was typical of the worst case meteorology (i.e., the highest
potential for ozone formation) of episodes in the San Joaquin Valley.
    The CAMx model was run using the MM5/CALMET meteorological
processor with State emission inventories for the 2000 base year and
with projected emissions representing grown and controlled emissions
for the attainment year. The projected 2010 emissions inventory was
developed for modeling simulations and included the effects of
projected growth and control measures, as discussed in section II.B.
above.
    The CAMx simulation for July 30, with the emission inventory for
the year 2010, was used to develop targets for reduction of VOC and
NOX in the attainment year.
3. Does the air quality modeling meet EPA's modeling guidelines?
    EPA has established the following guidelines for model performance:
unpaired peak ratio 0.80-1.2, normalized bias +/-15%, and gross error
less than 35%. The model performance is presented in Appendix D to the
2004 SIP for the Fresno and Bakersfield areas, representing areas of
highest 1-hour ozone levels in the SJV and shows that the CAMx model
predicts ozone within the quality limits set by EPA guidance on most
days for most subregions of the modeling domain. On those days for
which a subregion had peak measured ozone concentrations above 125 ppb,
the model performance meets the EPA criteria.
    We conclude that the modeling is consistent with the CAA and EPA
modeling guidance; therefore, we propose to approve the modeling
analysis that underlies the attainment demonstration in the 2004 SIP.
We discuss the attainment demonstration in more detail later in this
proposed rule. See also ``Technical Support Document for the Extreme
One-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan Modeling for the San Joaquin Valley
Nonattainment Area,'' EPA Region 9, September 2008, found in the docket
for this proposed rule.

D. Do the control measures meet CAA requirements?

1. What are the applicable CAA provisions?
    The CAA section 172(c)(1) requires nonattainment area plans to
provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control
measures (RACM) including reasonably available control technology
(RACT). EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM
requirement in the General Preamble at 13560 and a memorandum entitled
``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measure Requirement and
Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,''
John Seitz, Director, OAQPS to Regional Air Directors, November 30,
1999. In summary, EPA guidance requires that states, in addressing the
RACM requirement, should consider all potential measures for source
categories in the nonattainment area to determine whether they are
reasonably available for implementation in that area and whether they
would advance the area's attainment date.
    Under the CAA, RACT is required for major VOC sources and for all
VOC source categories for which EPA has issued Control Techniques
Guideline (CTG) documents. In addition, EPA has issued Alternative
Control Techniques (ACT) documents to help states in making RACT
determinations. CAA sections 172(c)(1), 182(a)(2)(A), 182(b)(2), and
183(a) and (b). CAA section 182(f) requires that RACT also apply to
major stationary sources of NOX. In extreme areas, such as
the SJV, a major source is one that emits or has the potential to emit
10 tons of VOC or NOX per year. CAA section 182(e).
    The CAA also requires that SIPs ``shall include enforceable
emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or
techniques * * * as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as
may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment * * * by the
applicable attainment date. * * *'' CAA section 172(c)(6). CAA section
110(a)(2)(A) contains almost identical language.

    Finally, CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires that extreme areas
submit transportation control measures (TCMs) sufficient to offset any
growth in emissions from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips,
and to provide (along with other measures) the reductions needed to
meet ROP. EPA interprets this CAA provision to allow areas to meet the
requirement by demonstrating that emissions from motor vehicles decline
each year through the attainment year. General Preamble at 13522.
2. How does the plan address these provisions?
a. RACM
    To determine which measures would be feasible for the SJV, the
District looked at measures implemented in other areas (including the
South Coast Air Basin, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Houston-
Galveston area), documents produced by ARB, as well as measures
suggested by the public at workshops. The District then screened the
identified measures and rejected those that affected few or no sources
in the SJV, 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 1-hour ozone
standard by the deadline of 2010. 2004 SIP at section 4.2.1.
    Based on this evaluation, the District developed an expeditious
rule adoption schedule listing 21 measures involving adoption of eight
new rules and revisions to over 20 existing rules. 2004 SIP, Table 4-1.
Since submittal of the SIP in 2004, the District has completed action
on all of these rules and submitted all except one of the adopted rules
to EPA for approval. 2008 SIP Clarification, Table 1 and Table 1
below.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The current set of the District's adopted regulations is
available at: http://www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. The
current status of EPA approval of the District's rules is posted at:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/r9sips.nsf/
Agency?ReadForm&count=500&state=California&cat=San+Joaquin+Valley+Uni
fied+APCD-Agency-Wide+Provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the District's efforts, the eight San Joaquin Valley
Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RPTAs) also conducted a RACM
evaluation for transportation sources. This evaluation, described in
section 4.6.3. of the 2004 SIP, resulted in extensive local government
commitments to implement programs to reduce auto travel and improve
traffic flow. 2004 SIP at section 4.6 and Appendix C. The local
governments also provide reasoned justifications for any measures that
they did not adopt. See 2004 SIP at Appendix C.
    The 2004 SIP relies on the Final 2003 State Strategy to address
mobile and area source categories not under the District's
jurisdiction. 2004 SIP at section 4.7. Table I-1 in the State Strategy
shows the impressive list of both mobile and area source measures that
have been adopted by California between 1994 and 2003, along with the
mobile source rules that have been adopted by EPA during this period.
Table I-2 lists proposed new State measures, most of which have already
been adopted.\7\ This list of new State measures was developed through
a public process intended to identify and refine new emission
reductions strategies for California. State Strategy at ES-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See chapter 3 (page 38) of the ``Air Resources Board's
Proposed State Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation
Plan,'' Revised Draft (Release date: April 26, 2007) for a list of
adopted State measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. RACT
    The 2004 SIP includes a brief section 4.2.5 discussing the RACT
obligation and specific source categories where further analysis and
potential future controls may be required in order to ensure that RACT
levels of control are applied to sources down to the 10 tons per year
(tpy) level. The District concluded that only a few categories would
need additional work, since the District's existing rules already
applied a stringent degree of control to sources with relatively low
levels of emissions.
    Subsequently, the District adopted, on August 17, 2006, and the
State submitted on January 31, 2007, an 8-hour ozone RACT SIP
addressing sources down to the 25 tpy size. In submitting the 2008 SIP
Clarification, the State formally withdrew the RACT portion of the 2004
SIP, specifically section 4.2.5, stating that the District would fill
the resulting 1-hour ozone RACT gap with the revised 8-hour ozone RACT
SIP now under further development. The District intends to address
sources down to the 10 tpy level of emissions in this revised 8-hour
RACT SIP. 2008 SIP Clarification, page 3. Because the State has
withdrawn this portion of the 2004 SIP and has not yet submitted a
revised RACT SIP to address the extreme area requirements, we are not
acting on RACT in this action.
c. Enforceable Limitations and Other Control Measures
i. Adopted Regulations
    The 2004 SIP's modeling analysis determined that attainment of the
1-hour ozone standard required reducing 2000 baseline emissions from
556.8 tons per day (tpd) NOX and 443.5 tpd VOC to 343.5 tpd
NOX and 314.4 tpd VOC. 2004 SIP at 3-7 through 3-11 and 5-9
through 5-12 and ``Proposed 2004 State Implementation Plan for Ozone in
the San Joaquin Valley,'' September 28, 2004, Air Resources Board Staff
Report (ARB Staff Report for the 2004 SIP) at Table III-6.
    As shown in Table 3 below, of the 213.3 tpd NOX and
129.1 tpd VOC needed for attainment, approximately 160 tpd of
NOX and 78.4 tpd of VOC reductions come from rules and
regulations that were already adopted when the plan was submitted in
2004.
ii. Commitments
    The 2004 SIP contains both State and District commitments to adopt
control measures to achieve specified emissions reductions. The Final
2003 State Strategy, adopted prior to the 2004 SIP, includes an
enforceable commitment to reduce NOX emissions in the SJV by
10 tpd by 2010.\8\ State Strategy at I-24 through I-26. Possible
measures to achieve these reductions are described and listed in the
State Strategy at I-14 through I-26 and ARB Resolution 03-22,
Attachment A. The State Strategy also states that beyond its emission
reduction commitment, new commitments to achieve further VOC \9\ and
NOX reductions would be needed for the future SJV 1-hour
ozone plan (which the SJVAPCD and ARB subsequently adopted as the 2004
SIP) and would be considered as part of that plan. State Strategy at I-
26. To that end, the 2004 SIP incorporates the Final 2003 State
Strategy as it applies to the SJV and includes an additional commitment
by the State to achieve by 2010 emissions reductions of 10 tpd
NOX and 15 tpd VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The State Strategy makes clear that this commitment was
intended for immediate inclusion in the 2003 PM-10 plan for the San
Joaquin Valley and for later inclusion in the 1-hour ozone plan for
the SJV. State Strategy at I-23 and I-26.
    \9\ The State uses the term ``reactive organic gases'' (ROG) in
its documents. For the purposes of this proposed rule, VOC and ROG
are interchangeable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Final 2003 State Strategy identifies possible control
measures that could deliver these reductions, the State's commitment is
only to achieve these NOX and VOC emission reductions in the
aggregate by 2010. Thus, the State's total enforceable

commitments in the 2004 SIP are to achieve 20 tpd NOX and 15
tpd VOC emission reductions in the aggregate by 2010. See State
Strategy at I-7 through I-9 and I-26; ARB Board Resolution 04-29,
October 28, 2004; ARB Staff Report for the 2004 SIP at 29-30; 2004 SIP
at section 4.7 (including Table 4-3 which duplicates Table I-2 in the
State Strategy).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In these documents the State's commitment is sometimes
referred to as 20 tpd NOX and sometimes as 10 tpd
NOX. The 20 tpd reference is to ARB's commitment for 10
tpd NOX in the Statewide Strategy and ARB's additional
commitment for 10 tpd NOX in the 2004 SIP at section 4.7
and ARB Board Resolution 04-29. See also ARB Staff Report for the
2004 SIP at 29. The 10 tpd reference is to ARB's additional
commitment for 10 tpd NOX in the 2004 SIP at section 4.7
and ARB Resolution 04-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2004 SIP, the District commits to adopt specific rules by
specified dates (quarter and year), to submit the rules within one
month of adoption to ARB for submittal to EPA, and to achieve from each
measure the specified reductions in 2010. 2004 SIP at Table 4-1 and
SJVAPCD Resolution No. 5-10-12 (October 20, 2005) p. 4, item 9. This
information is updated in Table 1 of the 2008 SIP Clarification which
shows not only the original commitment in the 2004 SIP but also the
date on which the District adopted the rule associated with each
commitment and the actual emissions reductions achieved by each rule. A
summary of the information found in Table 1 in the 2008 SIP
Clarification is presented in our Table 1. Table 1 below also gives the
date the rule was submitted to EPA or the date on which EPA approved
the rule into the SIP.

  Table 1--San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan ``New Measure''
                                                   Commitments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Achieved
    Rule , description and        2004 SIP        emission          Local          Submittal date or
      commitment ID from 2004 SIP         commitment      reductions       adoption        approval cite/date
                                          (2010-tpd)      (2010-tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              NOX Control Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9310 Fleet rule-School buses (C)......             0.1             1.6         9/21/06  12/29/06
9510, 3180 Indirect Source Mitigation              4.0             4.0        12/15/05  12/29/06
 (D).
4307 Small Boilers (2-5 MMBTU) (E)....             1.0             5.1         4/20/06  72 FR 29887 (5/30/07)
4352 Solid fuel boilers (G)...........             0.0             0.0         5/18/06  72 FR 29887 (5/30/07)
4702 Stat. IC engines (H).............             8.0            16.8         1/18/07  73 FR 1819 (1/10/08)
4309 Commercial Dryers (I)............             1.0             0.7        12/15/05  72 FR 29887 (5/30/07)
New Rule 4308--Water Heaters 0.075 (N)             0.2             0.8        10/20/05  72 FR 29887 (5/30/07)
4103 Open Burning (Q).................             1.1             1.7         5/17/07  ........................
4703 Sta. Gas Turbines (S)............             0.6             1.9         8/17/06  12/29/06
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NOX Totals........................            16.0            32.6
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA-Approved NOX Reductions...........            10.2            23.4
NOX Reductions Not Approved by EPA....             5.8             9.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              VOC Control Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule  and Description:
    4409 Oil & Gas Fug. (A)...........             4.7             5.1         4/20/05  71 FR 14653 (3/23/06)
    4455 Ref. & Chem. Fug. (B)........             0.2             0.3         4/20/05  71 FR 14653 (3/23/06)
    4694 Wineries (F).................             0.7             0.8        12/15/05  6/16/06
    4565 Composting/Biosolids (J).....             0.1             0.3         3/15/07  8/24/07
    4612 Automotive Coating                        0.1             1.0         9/20/07  3/7/08
     (incorporates Rule 4602) (K).
    4570 CAFO Rule (L)................            15.8            17.7         6/15/06  10/5/06
    4662 Org. Solvent Degreasing (M)
    4663 Org. Sol. Cleaning (M)
    4603 Metal Parts/Products (M)
    4604 Can and Coil Coating (M).....             1.3             3.1         9/20/07  3/7/08
    4605 Aerospace Coating (M)
    4606 Wood Products Coating (M)
    4607 Graphic Arts (M)
    4612 Automotive Coating (M)
    4653 Adhesives (M)
    4684 Polyester Resin Operation (M)
    4401 Steam-Enhanced Oil-well (O)..             1.4             0.3        12/14/06  5/8/07
    4651 Soil Decontamination (P).....            <0.5             0.0         9/20/07  3/7/08
    4103 Open Burning (Q).............             2.9             3.9         5/17/07  --
    4682 Polymeric Foam Mfg. (R)......             0.1             0.1         9/20/07  3/7/08
    4621 & 4624 Gasoline storage &                 0.9             1.9        12/20/07  3/7/08
     trans. (T & U).
        VOC totals....................            28.2            34.5
EPA-Approved VOC Reductions...........             4.9             5.2
VOC Reductions Not Approved by EPA....            23.3            29.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the emission reductions associated with the rules
listed in Table 1 above, the District also commits to achieve an
additional 5 tpd NOX and 5 tpd VOC reductions in aggregate
by

2010 from long-term measures. 2004 SIP at Table 5-1.
d. TCMs To Offset Growth in Motor Vehicle Emissions Under 182(d)(1)
    The 2008 SIP Clarification provides a demonstration that emissions
from motor vehicles in the San Joaquin Valley decline each year from
2000 to 2011. This demonstration is reproduced in Table 2 below. 2008
SIP Clarification at 8. The emissions derive from the emissions
inventory used in the modeling analysis for the 2004 SIP, and so are
calculated using EMFAC2002, version 2.2, and the same transportation
activity projections used in the 2004 SIP.

                                                  Table 2--Baseline Motor Vehicle Emissions, 2000-2011
                                                 [San Joaquin Valley, Summer Planning, in tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Year                              00      01      02      03      04      05      06      07      08      09      10      11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC.....................................................     115     107     100      93      88      82      77      72      67      63      59      54
NOX.....................................................     223     218     211     201     192     184     176     166     157     148     137     127
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Does the plan meet the CAA provisions for control measures?
a. RACM
    As described above, the District evaluated a range of potentially
available measures for inclusion in its 2004 SIP and committed to adopt
those it found to be feasible for attaining the 1-hour standard. The
process and the criteria the District used to select certain measures
and reject others are consistent with EPA's RACM guidance. We also
describe above the measure evaluation process undertaken by the RPTAs
and the local jurisdictions. This process is also consistent with EPA's
RACM guidance. Based on our review of results of these RACM analyses,
the State Strategy, and the resulting commitments to adopt and
implement controls, we propose to find that there are, at this time, no
additional reasonably available measures that would advance attainment
of the 1-hour ozone standard in the SJV. Therefore, we also propose to
find that the 2004 SIP, together with the Final 2003 State Strategy,
provides for the implementation of RACM as required by CAA section
172(c)(1). This proposed finding does not affect the District's
continuing obligation under the CAA to implement RACT for its major
sources of VOC and NOX and sources covered by an EPA CTG
document.
b. RACT
    As discussed above, the State has withdrawn the RACT portion of the
2004 Plan with the intent to fill the resulting 1-hour ozone RACT gap
with the revised 8-hour ozone RACT SIP now under further development by
the District. The District intends that this revised RACT SIP will,
among other things, address sources down to the 10 tpy level of
emissions as required for extreme areas. We agree with the District and
the State that this approach is an efficient way to deal with the
remaining RACT issues. See Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA to Seyed
Sadredin, SJVAPCD, September 9, 2008.
c. Enforceable Limitations and Other Control Measures
    As stated above, measures already adopted by the District and State
provide the majority of emission reductions needed to demonstrate
attainment. The balance of the needed reductions is in the form of
enforceable commitments by the District and ARB. EPA believes,
consistent with past practice, that the CAA allows approval of
enforceable commitments that are limited in scope where circumstances
exist that warrant the use of such commitments in place of adopted
measures.\11\ Once EPA determines that circumstances warrant
consideration of an enforceable commitment, EPA considers three factors
in determining whether to approve the enforceable commitment: (a) Does
the commitment address a limited portion of the statutorily-required
program; (b) is the state capable of fulfilling its commitment; and (c)
is the commitment for a reasonable and appropriate period of time.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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 nonimplementation 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.
    \12\ 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 Houston-Galveston ozone
SIP. BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et al., 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir.
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that circumstances here warrant the consideration of
enforceable commitments. As discussed above, the bulk of emission
reductions needed for attainment comes from regulations already fully
adopted by the District and the State. These previously adopted
measures include ARB regulations governing area and mobile sources and
SJVAPCD rules governing stationary sources.
    Moreover, as shown above and discussed further below, the 2008 SIP
Clarification demonstrates that the District has fulfilled its
commitments in the 2004 SIP to achieve the identified emission
reductions from specific rules and to achieve an additional 5 tpd VOC
and 5 tpd NOX reductions in the aggregate from long-term
measures.
    As a result of District's and ARB's previous efforts, the vast
majority of sources in the SJV are already subject to stringent,
adopted rules and it is increasingly difficult to develop regulations
for the remaining universe of uncontrolled sources. Although the State
is continuing its efforts to increase the stringency of existing
controls on mobile sources and consumer products, the diverse nature of
these source categories makes them difficult to regulate. As a result,
rule development places an increasing burden on the State

to analyze advanced technologies and develop increasingly complex
control approaches, and several years may be required to complete the
tasks prerequisite to successful regulation. We, therefore, believe it
is appropriate to allow an additional short period of time in order for
them to determine which sources should be regulated and how.
    Finally, the SJV does not rely on these enforceable commitments to
meet the required rate of progress milestones. The 2008 SIP
Clarification demonstrates achievement of the required ROP without the
need for any reductions from commitments. See discussion in section
II.E. below.
    Having concluded that the circumstances warrant consideration of
enforceable commitments, we consider below the three factors in
determining whether to approve the submitted commitments.
    i. The commitments address a limited portion of the 2004 SIP. Table
1 in the 2008 SIP Clarification and Table 1 above show that all of the
District's commitments in Table 4-1 of the 2004 SIP have been converted
to adopted rules, all but one has been submitted to EPA, and many have
been approved by EPA. These tables demonstrate that the rules the
District has adopted pursuant to these commitments will achieve 32.6
tpd NOX and 34.5 tpd VOC. These reductions amount to 16.6
tpd NOX and 6.3 tpd VOC more than the District originally
committed to achieve in the 2004 Plan and are not only sufficient to
meet all of its original emission reduction commitments from specified
measures but also to satisfy the District's long-term measure
commitment to achieve additional 5 tpd NOX and 5 tpd VOC by
2010.
    The EPA-approved rules in Table 1 account for 23.4 tpd
NOX and 5.2 tpd VOC. Table 3 below shows that the reductions
from commitments needed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are 17.7 tpd
NOX (8.3%) and 43.1 tpd VOC (33.4%).

 Table 3--Commitment Portion of the 2004 SIP Reductions in Tons per Day
                                for 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      NOX         VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 baseline emissions.........................       556.8       443.5
2010 attainment target..........................       343.5       314.4
Reductions needed to attain.....................       213.3       129.1
Reductions from baseline measures adopted by 9/        160.0        78.4
 02 \13\........................................
Reductions needed from commitments in 2004 SIP..        53.3        50.7
Reductions achieved from EPA-approved rules \14\        35.6         7.6
Reductions needed to attain from commitments....        17.7        43.1
Percent of reductions needed to attain from             8.3%      33.4%
 commitments (row 3)............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: ARB Staff Report for the 2004 SIP, Table III-6; 2008 SIP
  Clarification, Table 1.

    Of the 17.7 tpd NOX commitments, 9.2 tpd are from
measures already adopted by the District but not yet acted on by EPA.
Similarly, of the 43.1 tpd VOC commitments, 29.3 tpd are from measures
already adopted by the District. This leaves only 8.5 tpd
NOX and 13.8 tpd VOC (or approximately 3% NOX and
11% VOC) reductions that are needed for attainment from the State's
commitments. The State has committed to achieve 20 tpd NOX
and 15 tpd VOC which is more than is needed for attainment in 2010.
Given the difficulty of controlling the State's sources and the near
term adoption and implementation dates, we believe the portion of
reductions from enforceable commitments in the 2004 SIP is acceptable
and the first factor is satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The 2004 SIP at Table 5-1 includes 2010 baseline inventory
numbers which reflect control measures adopted through September
2002. The ARB Staff Report for the 2004 SIP at Table III-6 refers to
the measures adopted as of September 2002 as the adopted measures.
Thus, for the 2004 SIP, measures adopted as of September 2002 are
considered to be the baseline adopted measures.
    \14\ Includes the updated VOC and NOX emissions
reductions from the ``Achieved Emission Reductions'' column of Table
1 above and in the 2008 SIP Clarification and 2.4 tpd VOC and 12.2
tpd of NOX from measures adopted after September 2002,
but prior to the adoption of the 2004 SIP by the District and State,
and which have since been approved by EPA. See ARB Staff Report for
the 2004 SIP at Tables III-6 and III-7, 68 FR 51187, 68 FR 52510, 69
FR 60962, 69 FR 28061, 70 FR 28826, 69 FR 30006, 30026-30027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. The State and District are capable of fulfilling their
commitments. As discussed above, the District has already adopted the
rules needed to fulfill the commitments made in its 2004 SIP and the
only commitment that remains to be fulfilled is that of the State to
achieve 20 tpd NOX and 15 tpd VOC reductions by 2010. The
2004 SIP at section 4.7 and State Strategy at I-7 through I-9 and I-23
through I-26 identify the State's development, adoption and
implementation schedule for achieving its commitment.
    Since the development of the 2004 SIP, the State has in fact
adopted many controls that have the potential to contribute to meeting
this obligation. Previous ARB regulatory achievements are listed in
chronological order in a table in chapter 3 (page 38) of the ``Air
Resources Board's Proposed State Strategy for California's 2007 State
Implementation Plan,'' Revised Draft (Release date: April 26, 2007).
The controls typically represent the most stringent regulations yet
enacted in the Country and include In-Use Diesel Agricultural Engine
Requirements, Consumer Product Lower Emission Limits, Zero Emission Bus
Rule Amendments, etc. Finally, the State has an ongoing rulemaking
agenda for 2008 posted at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008calfin.pdf.
    We believe that this consistent record of achievement shows that
the State will be able to meet its enforceable commitments to achieve
20 tpd NOX and 15 tpd VOC by 2010. We, therefore, conclude
that the second factor is satisfied.
    iii. The commitments are for a reasonable and appropriate period of
time. The State is not obligated to fulfill its emission reduction
commitments until 2010. This schedule is reasonable given the type of
measures that remain to be pursued, e.g., retrofit controls for
existing heavy-duty off-road diesel equipment. 2003 State Strategy,
Measure OFF-RD CI-1. These types of measures typically require
substantial time to develop, adopt and implement. Therefore, the
State's schedule is reasonable and appropriate, and we conclude that
the third factor is satisfied.
    iv. Conclusion. For the above reasons, we believe that the three
factors EPA considers in determining whether to approve enforceable
commitments are satisfactorily addressed with respect to the District's
and the State's commitments. We are therefore proposing to approve the
State's enforceable commitment in the 2004 SIP, ARB Board Resolution
04-29 and

Final 2003 State Strategy to achieve 20 tpd NOX and 15 tpd VOC
reductions by 2010. We also propose to approve the District's
enforceable commitments in the 2004 SIP to adopt specific rules by
specified dates to achieve in 2010 the reductions in the column labeled
``Achieved Emission Reductions'' in Table 1 in the 2008 SIP
Clarification (and Table 1 above). Final approval of these commitments
would make the commitments enforceable by EPA and by citizens.
d. TCMs To Offset Growth in Motor Vehicle Emissions Under 182(d)(1)
    Additional information submitted in the 2008 SIP Clarification and
reproduced in Table 2 above show that on-road mobile source emissions
of VOC and NOX decline steadily from 2000 to 2011. Because
emissions decline each year for both VOC and NOX, the plan
need not include TCMs to offset growth; therefore, we propose to find
that this CAA requirement is met.

E. Does the plan show the CAA-required rate of progress?

1. What are the applicable CAA provisions?
    CAA section 172(c) requires nonattainment area plans to provide for
reasonable further progress (RFP) which is defined in section 171(1) as
such annual incremental reductions in emissions as are required in part
D or may reasonably be required by the Administrator in order to ensure
attainment of the relevant NAAQS by the applicable date.
    CAA sections 182(c)(2) and (e) require that serious and above area
SIPs include ROP quantitative milestones that are to be achieved every
3 years after 1996 until attainment. For ozone areas classified as
serious and above, section 182(c)(2) requires that the SIP must provide
for reductions in ozone-season, weekday VOC emissions of at least 3
percent per year net of growth averaged over each consecutive 3-year
period. This is in addition to the 15 percent reduction over the first
6-year period required by CAA section 182(b)(1) for areas classified as
moderate and above. The CAA requires that these milestones be
calculated from the 1990 inventory after excluding, among other things,
emission reductions from ``[a]ny measure related to motor vehicle
exhaust or evaporative emissions promulgated by the Administrator by
January 1, 1990 and emission reductions from certain federal gasoline
volatility requirements.'' CAA section 182(b)(1)(B)-(D). EPA has issued
guidance on meeting 1-hour ozone ROP requirements. See General Preamble
at 13516 and ``Guidance on the Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan and the
Attainment Demonstration,'' EPA-452/R-93-015, OAQPS, EPA, February 18,
1994 (corrected).
    CAA section 182(c)(2)(C) allows for NOX reductions which
occur after 1990 to be used to meet the post-1996 ROP emission
reduction requirements, provided that such NOX reductions
meet the criteria outlined in the CAA and EPA guidance. The criteria
require that: (1) The sum of all creditable VOC and NOX
reductions must meet the 3 percent per year ROP requirement; (2) the
substitution is on a percent-for-percent of adjusted base year
emissions for the relevant pollutant; and (3) the sum of all
substituted NOX reductions cannot be greater than the
cumulative NOX reductions required by the modeled attainment
demonstration. See General Preamble at 13517 and ``NOX
Substitution Guidance,'' OAQPS, EPA, December 1993.
    Our guidance in the General Preamble states that by meeting the
specific ROP milestones discussed above, the general RFP requirements
in CAA section 172(c)(2) will also be satisfied. General Preamble at
13518.
2. How does the plan address these provisions?
    Chapter 7 of the 2004 SIP, updated by Table 2 in the 2008 SIP
Clarification, provides a demonstration that the SJV meets both the
2008 and 2010 ROP milestones.\15\ We have summarized this ROP
demonstration in Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ On January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150, 1172), we approved the ROP
demonstrations for the 1996 and 1999 milestones in the serious area
1-hour ozone SIP for the SJV, which was submitted in November 1994
and revised on July 12, 1996. Following reclassification of the area
to severe, ROP demonstrations were prepared and submitted for the
2002 and 2005 milestones as part of the severe area SIP. The
District prepared and submitted to EPA milestone compliance reports,
as required by CAA section 182(g)(1) and (2), demonstrating
achievement of the 2002 and 2005 milestones. See 2004 SIP at section
7.6.2 and letter from Scott Nestor, SJVAPCD, to Catherine
Witherspoon, ARB, March 30, 2006, with attachment (``San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin Rate of Progress Milestone Compliance Demonstration
for 2005 the 1-hr Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards'').

           Table 4--San Joaquin Rate of Progress Demonstration
                     [Summer planning tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Base year        Milestone year
                                  --------------------------------------
                                       1990         2008         2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            VOC Calculations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 1990 Baseline VOC.............        633.2        633.2        633.2
B. CA Pre-1990 MV standards        ...........        120.1        123.8
 adjustment......................
C. Adjusted 1990 baseline VOC in   ...........        513.1        509.4
 the milestone year (Line A-Line
 B)..............................
D. Cumulative VOC reductions       ...........        261.7        209.4
 needed to meet milestone........
E. Target level of VOC needed to   ...........        251.4        219.0
 meet ROP requirement (Line C-
 Line D).........................
F. Projected level (baseline) of   ...........        369.4        362.7
 VOC in milestone year with
 adopted controls only...........
G. VOC ROP shortfall (Line F-Line  ...........        118.0        143.7
 E)..............................
H. VOC ROP shortfall (% of         ...........        23.0%        28.2%
 adjusted baseline)..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            NOX Calculations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 1990 Baseline NOX.............        805.1        805.1        805.1
B. CA Pre-1990 MV standards        ...........        114.0        116.6
 adjustment......................
C. Adjusted 1990 baseline NOX in   ...........        691.1        688.5
 the milestone year (Line A-Line
 B)..............................
D. Projected level (baseline) of   ...........        411.0        384.5
 NOX in milestone year with
 adopted controls only...........
E. Change in NOX since 1990 (Line  ...........        280.1        304.0
 C-Line D).......................
F. Change in NOX since 1990 (% of  ...........        40.5%        44.2%
 adjusted baseline)..............
G. VOC ROP shortfall.............  ...........        23.0%        28.2%

H. % Surplus NOX reductions after  ...........        17.5%        16.0%
 offsetting VOC ROP shortfall
 available for contingency
 measures (Line F-Line G)........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because there are insufficient VOC reductions to meet the
milestones, the ROP demonstration relies on NOX
substitution, consistent with EPA's guidance, to show that the area
meets the emission reduction requirements for 2008 and 2010. The
demonstration does not depend on reductions from any measures that are
in the 2004 SIP \16\ or on reductions from any measures that are not
creditable under the terms of section 182(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The ROP demonstration relies on ``the emission control
program as it existed when the Valley's 2004 SIP was submitted * *
*.'' 2008 SIP Clarification at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Does the plan meet the CAA provisions for rate of progress?
    The 2008 SIP Clarification follows EPA's guidance on addressing the
pre-1990 motor vehicle program adjustments, using the pre-1990
California motor vehicle exhaust and evaporative standards in lieu of
the national motor vehicle control program.\17\ Because the 2004 SIP
and the 2008 SIP Clarification demonstrate that sufficient emission
reductions have or will be achieved to meet the 2008 and 2010 ROP
milestones, we propose to approve the ROP provisions in these
documents. As stated above, if the ROP milestones are met, we deem the
general RFP requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) to also have been
met. Therefore, we also propose to approve the ROP provisions as
meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See ``How to calculate non-creditable reductions for motor
vehicle programs in California as required for reasonable further
progress (RFP) SIPs,'' EPA, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Transportation and Regional Program Division, September 6,
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Does the plan provide for attainment by the CAA-required deadline?

1. What are the applicable CAA provisions?
    One-hour ozone nonattainment areas classified as extreme under CAA
section 181(b)(3) must demonstrate attainment ``as expeditiously as
practicable'' but not later than the date specified in CAA section
181(a), November 15, 2010. CAA Section 182(c)(2)(A) requires serious,
severe and extreme areas to use photochemical grid modeling or an
analytical method EPA determines to be as effective.
2. How does the plan address these provisions?
    The 2004 SIP's air quality modeling identified the SJV's ``carrying
capacity'' or 2010 attainment target as 343.5 tpd NOX and
314.4 tpd VOC. 2004 SIP at section 5.6; ARB Staff Report for the 2004
SIP at section III.C. See also Table 3 above. We discuss the modeling
in section II.C. above. The ``carrying capacity'' represents the
maximum level of emissions that can be emitted in the SJV without
causing exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard. The EPA-approved
rules and the commitments in the 2004 SIP as updated by the 2008 SIP
Clarification and the remaining State commitments for the SJV in the
2003 State Strategy reduce the 2000 projected baseline emissions (556.8
tpd NOX and 443.5 tpd VOC) to these levels by the 2010
attainment deadline for extreme areas. These levels represent a 38%
NOX and 29% VOC decrease in emissions from the 2000
baseline.
3. Does the plan meet the CAA provisions for attainment?
    The 2004 SIP provides an attainment demonstration that shows
sufficient reductions will be achieved to attain by the CAA deadline of
November 15, 2010. Table 5 provides a summary of the 2004 SIP
attainment demonstration. This attainment demonstration is based on air
quality modeling that is consistent with the CAA and EPA modeling
guidance. See section II.C. of this proposed rule.

  Table 5--2004 SIP Attainment Demonstration Summary as Updated by 2008
                            SIP Clarification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 NOX (tpd)    VOC (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Baseline.................................        556.8        443.5
2010 Attainment Target........................        343.5        314.4
                                               -------------------------
    Total Reductions Needed to Attain in 2010.        213.3        129.1
                                               =========================
Reductions from 2004 Baseline Measures, pre-9/        160.0         78.4
 02...........................................
Reductions from 2004 EPA-Approved Rules.......         35.6          7.6
Reductions from Remaining District and State           29.2         44.3
 Commitments..................................
                                               -------------------------
    Total Reductions Achieved from Approved           224.8        130.3
     Rules and Commitments....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen from Table 5, the total reductions achieved from
EPA-approved rules and the commitments in the 2004 SIP as updated by
the 2008 SIP Clarification are greater than the total reductions needed
to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 2010.
    The 2004 SIP attainment reductions are not ``backloaded'' but
rather derive from ambitious State and District rule development
projects to adopt or amend new regulations to tighten controls
expeditiously on existing sources and to regulate a few previously
uncontrolled sources. Moreover, both agencies typically set tight
compliance schedules for amended and newly adopted rules,

requiring full compliance in most cases within one year or less and the
District has been able to achieve considerably more reductions than the
2004 SIP anticipated.
    Attainment reductions also come from the benefits of mobile source
fleet turnover to meet increasingly stringent Federal and State
emission standards. California now has in place ambitious programs to
accelerate this turnover.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The State and District have a variety of regulatory and
incentive programs to accelerate the retrofit or replacement of
existing sources including the District's school bus fleet
regulation (Rule 9310), which is given specific emission reductions
in the 2004 SIP. The 2004 SIP does not claim emission reduction
credit for incentive programs and from the recently adopted State
in-use off-road diesel vehicles rule (available at: http://
www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf), ARB's various
incentive programs (described at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ba/
fininfo.htm#grants), and the District's incentive programs
(described at: http://www.valleyair.org/Grant_Programs/
GrantPrograms.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to conclude that the 2004 SIP's demonstration of
attainment meets the requirements of CAA sections 172 and 181 that
areas classified as extreme demonstrate attainment ``as expeditiously
as practicable'' but no later than November 15, 2010.

G. Do the contingency measures meet CAA requirements?

1. What are the applicable CAA provisions?
    Sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the CAA require that SIPs
contain contingency measures that will take effect without further
action by the state or EPA if an area fails to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable date or fails to meet ROP milestones. The Act does not
specify how many contingency measures are needed or the magnitude of
emission reductions that must be provided by these measures. However,
EPA provided initial guidance interpreting the contingency measure
requirements of 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) in the General Preamble at
13510. Our interpretation is based upon the language in sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) in conjunction with the control measure
requirements of sections 172(c), 182(b) and 182(c)(2)(B), the
reclassification and failure to attain provisions of section 181(b) and
other provisions. In the General Preamble, EPA indicated that states
with moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas should include
sufficient contingency measures so that, upon implementation of such
measures, additional emission reductions of up to 3 percent of the
emissions in the adjusted base year inventory (or such lesser
percentage that will cure the identified failure) would be achieved in
the year following the year in which the failure is identified. The
states must show that the contingency measures can be implemented with
minimal further action on their part and with no additional rulemaking
actions. In subsequent guidance, EPA stated that contingency measures
could be implemented early, i.e., prior to the milestone or attainment
date.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Memorandum from G.T. Helms, EPA, to EPA Air Branch
Chiefs, Regions I-X, entitled ``Early Implementation of Contingency
Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,''
August 13, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. How does the plan address these provisions?
    Table 2 in the 2008 SIP Clarification provides an updated ROP
demonstration that shows that, after meeting the VOC ROP milestones for
2008 and 2010 with NOX substitution, there are still
creditable NOX reductions for both the 2008 and 2010
milestones in excess of the 3 percent sufficient to satisfy the
contingency measure requirement. See also Table 4 in this proposed
rule. Table 2 in the 2008 SIP Clarification includes reductions from
measures adopted before September 2002 and does not rely on any of the
measures adopted after September 2002, such as those in Table 1 in the
2008 SIP Clarification (and Table 1 above).
    In addition, Table 3 in the 2008 SIP Clarification, which is
reproduced as Table 2 above, shows that onroad fleet turnover will
continue to deliver substantial reductions in 2011, i.e., an additional
10 tpd NOX and 5 tpd VOC beyond the reductions shown in
Tables 1 and 2 in the 2008 SIP Clarification. These reductions are
available to serve as additional contingency reductions in 2011.
3. Does the plan meet the CAA requirements for contingency measures?
    We find that there are sufficient excess NOX reductions
shown in Table 2 of the 2008 SIP Clarification and Table 4 above to
satisfy the contingency measure requirement for the milestone year
2008. These reductions are above and beyond those needed for ROP for
2008 and occur prior to the year the milestone demonstrations will be
made, 2009.
    For the attainment year, 2010, the requirement is to show that
there are contingency measures that will provide continued ROP, i.e., 3
percent reductions from the pre-1990 adjusted baseline, if attainment
is not achieved. Consistent with the ROP demonstration, an additional 3
percent in the attainment year equates to approximately 15.3 tpd of VOC
or 20.7 tpd of NOX with NOX substitution. These
contingency measure reductions would be required by 2011. Table 2 above
shows that there are 10 tpd of additional reductions in 2011 beyond the
2010 attainment. Table 5 above shows that there are 11.5 tpd of excess
reductions not needed for attainment in 2010. In addition, Tables 2 and
5 show that there are excess VOC reductions of approximately 6 tpd.
    Thus, we believe that there are sufficient excess reductions to
satisfy the contingency measure requirement for the attainment year
which are above and beyond attainment for 2010 and will be achieved
prior to the year attainment would be determined, 2011.
    As discussed above, the use of excess reductions from already
adopted measures to meet the CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) is
consistent with EPA policy and has been approved by EPA in numerous
SIPs. See 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).
The key is that the CAA requires extra reductions that are not relied
on for ROP or attainment and that are in the demonstrations to provide
a cushion while the plan is being revised. Nothing in the CAA precludes
a state from implementing such measures before they are triggered. A
recent court ruling upheld this approach. See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575
(5th Cir. 2004). 70 FR 71611, 71651. Thus we propose to approve the
contingency measure provisions in Tables 2 and 3 of the 2008 SIP
Clarification as meeting the contingency measure requirements in CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).

H. Are the motor vehicle emissions budgets approvable?

1. What are the applicable CAA provisions?
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans, programs and
projects in nonattainment or maintenance areas that are funded or
approved under title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C.
Chapter 53) must conform to the applicable SIP. In short, a
transportation plan and program are deemed to conform to the applicable
SIP if the emissions resulting from the implementation of that
transportation plan and program are less than or equal to the motor
vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) established in the control strategy
SIPs for the attainment year, ROP years, maintenance year and other
analysis years. See, generally, 40 CFR part 93.

    In addition to meeting the criteria for attainment, as a control
strategy SIP, this ROP and attainment plan must contain MVEBs that, in
conjunction with emissions from all other sources, are consistent with
attainment. A MVEB is the total emissions from on-road vehicles
projected to the attainment year and consistent with the attainment
demonstration. The budget must have been developed using the latest
planning assumptions and consistent with the control measures in the
attainment plan. All of the criteria by which we determine whether a
SIP's MVEBs are adequate for transportation conformity purposes are
outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). We have described our process for
determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in the preamble to
revisions to EPA's conformity regulations. 68 FR 38974 (June 30, 2003)
and 69 FR 40004 (July 1, 2004).
2. How does the plan address these provisions?
    The MVEBs for the SJV were developed using emission factors
generated using ARB's EMFAC2002 model, version 2.2 (April 2003) and
using the latest assumptions regarding VMT. EMFAC2002 was approved by
EPA on April 1, 2003, 68 FR 15720, for use in SIPs and transportation
conformity analyses. EMFAC2002 produces emissions for a wide range of
motor vehicles (passenger cars, trucks, motorcycles, buses and motor
homes) for calendar years out to 2040. The MVEBs were developed for the
ROP and attainment years of 2008 and 2010, respectively. The MVEBs are
for both VOC and NOX as precursors to ozone formation, and
were applicable for the SJV upon the effective date of the MVEB
adequacy finding.
    The 2004 SIP includes county-by-county subarea MVEBs for 2008 and
2010 for VOC and NOX. The 2004 SIP budgets are summarized in
the 2004 SIP at Table 3-4. Additional details regarding the budgets are
presented in Appendix A to the 2004 SIP.
3. Does the plan meet the CAA provisions for MVEBs?
    On February 7, 2005, we found adequate for transportation
conformity purposes the MVEBs in the 2004 SIP. Letter from Deborah
Jordan, EPA to Catherine Witherspoon, ARB, February 7, 2005. A table
attached to the letter summarized our adequacy determination. Our
notice of adequacy for these budgets was published in the Federal
Register on February 15, 2005, at 70 FR 7734 and was effective 15 days
later, on March 2, 2005.
    We are now proposing to approve the VOC and NOX MVEBs
contained in the 2004 SIP (and in Table 5 below) for transportation
conformity purposes. We propose to approve the budgets because we
conclude that they are consistent with and clearly related to the
emission inventory and control measures identified in the 2004 SIP, and
that the 2004 SIP as a whole demonstrates timely attainment with the 1-
hour ozone standard and the required rate of progress. We also propose
to approve the individual county level subarea budgets for VOC and
NOX, as shown in Table 5 below, consistent with 40 CFR
93.124(d), which allows for a nonattainment area with more than one
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to establish subarea emission
budgets for each MPO. Note that if an individual MPO lapses, then the
remaining MPOs in the SJV cannot make new conformity
determinations.\20\ If approved, the 2008 and 2010 MVEBs must be used
for transportation conformity purposes. As mentioned earlier, the
county subarea motor vehicle emissions budgets that we are proposing to
approve are listed in Table 5 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ CAA section 176(c) states that conformity applies to SIPs
in nonattainment and maintenance areas, rather than individual
metropolitan planning areas within a single state. When subarea
budgets area created for each MPO, the sum of the subarea budgets
equals the total amount of emissions the area can have from the
transportation sector and still attain and maintain the NAAQS. When
one subarea lapses, then the other MPOs cannot show that their
planned transportation activities would conform to the SIP for the
whole area until the lapse is resolved. See ``Companion Guidance for
the July 1, 2004, Final Transportation Conformity Rule: Conformity
Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance
Areas for Existing and New Air Quality Standards'' (EPA 420-B-04-
012).

    Table 5--Motor Vehicle Emissions Subarea Budgets in the 2004 SIP
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          VOC                 NOX
             County              ---------------------------------------
                                    2008      2010      2008      2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno..........................      15.8      13.0      33.7      27.7
Kern (part).....................      11.5       9.6      32.7      27.2
Kings...........................       2.5       2.1       6.2       5.4
Madera..........................       3.9       3.3       8.4       7.2
Merced..........................       5.0       4.0      11.4       9.1
San Joaquin.....................       9.3       7.7      22.4      17.9
Stanislaus......................       8.5       7.0      17.4      14.0
Tulare..........................       8.5       6.9      18.8      15.3
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Total.......................      65.0      53.6     151.0     123.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we are proposing to approve these 1-hour ozone budgets into
the SIP, it should be noted that we anticipate that these motor vehicle
emissions budgets will be used in few, if any, future transportation
conformity determinations. Because EPA has revoked the 1-hour ozone
standard, transportation conformity determinations are no longer
required for that air quality standard. Additionally, while these
budgets have been used in the initial conformity determinations in the
SJV for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, these budgets only serve that
purpose until motor vehicle emissions budgets are found adequate or are
approved for the 8-hour ozone standard.

III. Summary of Proposed Actions

    A. EPA is proposing to approve pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3)
the following elements of the 2004 SIP and the 2008 SIP Clarification:
    (1) The emission inventories as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1);

    (2) the rate of progress demonstration as meeting the requirements
of CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2);
    (3) the attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of
182(c)(2)(A) and 181(a);
    (4) the District's commitments in the 2004 SIP to adopt specific
rules by specified dates to achieve in 2010 the reductions in the
column labeled ``Achieved Emission Reductions'' in Table 1 in the 2008
SIP Clarification as meeting the requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6);
    (5) the contingency measures as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9); and
    (6) the VOC and NOX MVEBs for transportation conformity
purposes as meeting the requirements of CAA section 176(c).
    B. EPA is proposing to approve pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3)
section 4.7 in the 2004 SIP and the provisions of the Final 2003 State
Strategy and ARB Board Resolution 04-29 that relate to aggregate
emission reductions in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6).
    C. EPA is proposing to approve pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3)
the 2004 SIP, the Final 2003 State Strategy and the 2008 SIP
Clarification as meeting the RACM requirements of CAA section 172(c)
only.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action merely proposes to approve a State-adopted attainment plan for
the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and does not impose any additional
requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this
proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this proposed rule does not impose
any additional enforceable duty, it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
plan is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law. This proposed action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve a State adopted ozone
attainment plan and does not alter the relationship or the distribution
of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Executive Order
12898 establishes a Federal policy for incorporating environmental
justice into Federal agency actions by directing agencies to identify
and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority and low-income populations. Today's action
involves a proposed approval of a State adopted ozone attainment plan.
It will not have disproportionately high and adverse effects on any
communities in the area, including minority and low-income communities.
    This proposed action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant. The requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. This proposed action does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, National
parks, Nitrogen oxides, Volatile organic compounds, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: October 7, 2008.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E8-24416 Filed 10-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 204)]
[Notices]
[Page 60047-60048]
[DOCID:fr23oc07-65]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 17f-1(g), SEC File No. 270-30, OMB Control No. 3235-0290.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
     Rule 17f-1(g) (17 CFR 240.17f-1(g)) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78q(f)) (``Act'') Requirements for
reporting and inquiry with respect to missing, lost, counterfeit, or
stolen securities.
    Rule 17f-1(g), under the Act, requires that all reporting
institutions (i.e., every national securities exchange, member thereof,
registered securities association, broker, dealer, municipal securities
dealer, registered transfer agent, registered clearing agency,
participant therein, member of the Federal Reserve System, and bank
insured by the FDIC) maintain and preserve a number of documents
related to their participation in the Lost and Stolen Securities
Program (``Program'') under Rule 17f-1. The following documents must be
kept in an easily accessible place for three years, according to
paragraph (g): (1) Copies or all reports of theft or loss (Form X-17F-
1A) filed with the Commission's designee; (2) all agreements between
reporting institutions regarding registration in the Program or other
aspects of Rule 17f-1; and (3) all confirmations or other information
received from the Commission or its designee as a result of inquiry.
    Reporting institutions utilize these records and reports (a) to
report missing, lost, stolen or counterfeit securities to the database,
(b) to confirm inquiry of the database, and (c) to demonstrate
compliance with Rule 17f-1. The Commission and the reporting
institutions' examining authorities utilize these records to monitor
the incidence of thefts and losses incurred by reporting institutions
and to determine compliance with Rule 17f-1. If such records were not
retained by reporting institutions, compliance with

Rule 17f-1 could not be monitored effectively.
    The Commission estimates that there are 25,628 reporting
institutions (respondents) and, on average, each respondent would need
to retain 33 records annually, with each retention requiring
approximately 1 minute (33 minutes or .55 hours). The total estimated
annual burden is 14,095.4 hours (25,628 x .55 hours = 14,095.4).
Assuming an average hourly cost for clerical work of $22.00, the
average total yearly record retention cost for each respondent would be
$12.10. Based on these estimates, the total annual cost for the
estimated 25,628 reporting institutions would be approximately
$310,099.
    Rule 17f-1(g) does not require periodic collection, but does
require retention of records generated as a result of compliance with
Rule 17f-1. Under Section 17(b) and (f) of the Act, the information
required by Rule 17f-1(g) is available to the Commission and Federal
bank regulators for examinations or collection purposes. Rule 0-4 of
the Act deems such information to be confidential. Please note that an
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number.
    Comments should be directed to (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief

Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: October 17, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-20794 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 72500]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25757]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4644-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Virginia; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-4644-DR), dated March 11, 2022,
and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on October 28, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Mark K.
O'Hanlon, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Charles M. Maltbie III as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-25757 Filed 11-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P