Technical Support Document

Proposed Approval 

of Clean Air Act Section 172(c)(9) Contingency 

Measures

—

San Joaquin Valley State Implementation Plan for 

Attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 Standards

Air Division

U.S. EPA Region 9

August 15, 2013
For further information on this technical support document, please contact:

Frances Wicher

Office of Air Planning (AIR-2)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, California 94105

(415) 972-3957

wicher.frances@epa.gov

Documents referenced in this technical support document may be found in the docket for this 

rulemaking, docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0534, which may be found at 

www.regulations.gov. Documents that are not available in an electronic format may be found at 

the address above.
Table of Contents

i

A. Background 1

1. The San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 State Implementation Plan 1

2. The Contingency Measure Provisions in the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plan 2

B. The Submitted SJV Contingency Measure SIP 6

C. Completeness Determination 7

D. CAA Requirements for Contingency Measures 13

E. Evaluation of the Submitted SJV Contingency Measure SIP 14

1. Calculation of One-Year’s Worth of Reasonable Further Progress 14

2. Contingency Measures for the 2012 Reasonable Further Progress Milestone 14

3. Contingency Measures for the 2015 Attainment Date 18

a. Existing Regulatory Measures 18

i. Contingency Measures for Reducing NOx Emissions 18

ii. Contingency Measures for Reducing SOx Emissions 19

iii. Contingency Measures for Reducing Direct PM2.5 Emissions 20

iv. Summary of Attainment Contingency Emission Reductions from Regulatory 

Measures 21

b. Incentive Programs 22

i. The California Submittal 24

ii. Applicable Incentive Program Guidelines and Projects 26

iii. The Four Integrity Elements 29

iv. The District’s Enforceable Commitments 42

c. Substitution of Direct PM2.5 Reductions for NOx Reductions 44

d. Summary of Attainment Contingency Emission Reductions 45

e. EPA’s Proposed Action on the Attainment Contingency Measures 46
EPA- Region 9 Page 1

Technical Support Document

Proposed Approval 

of Clean Air Act Section 172(c)(9) Contingency Measures 

—

San Joaquin Valley State Implementation Plan for Attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 Standards

This document provides supporting information and analysis for EPA’s proposed rule to 

approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted on July 3, 2013 by the State of 

California. This SIP submission addresses Clean Air Act nonattainment area contingency 

measure requirements for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 national ambient air quality 

standards in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV). We refer to this SIP submission in this TSD and 

related Federal Register notices as the “Contingency Measure SIP.”

A. Background 

1. The San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 State Implementation Plan

On July 18, 1997, EPA established new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

for PM2.5, particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, including annual standards of 

15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations, and 24-hour (daily) standards of 65 μg/m3based on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations. See 62 FR 36852 and 40 CFR § 50.7. 

In 2005, EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) in California as nonattainment for 

the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. See 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005) and 40 CFR 

81.305.1The SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area is located in the southern half of California’s central 

valley and includes all or part of eight counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, 

Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and the valley portion of Kern. The local air district with primary 

responsibility for developing the SIP to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS in this area is the San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or “District”).

California has made numerous SIP submittals to address the SJV’s nonattainment 

designation for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The two principal ones are the SJVUAPCD’s “2008 

PM2.5 Plan,” submitted on June 30, 2008, and the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) 

“State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan” (“2007 State Strategy”), 

 

1 EPA has also designated the San Joaquin Valley as nonattainment for the more stringent 24-hour PM2.5 

NAAQS of 35 μg/m3, which EPA promulgated on October 17, 2006 and codified at 40 CFR § 50.13 (74 FR 58688 

(November 13, 2009)). In this preamble, all references to the PM2.5 NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, are to the 

1997 24-hour PM2.5 standards of 65 μg/m3 and annual standards of 15 μg/m3as codified in 40 CFR § 50.7.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 2

submitted on November 16, 2007 and revised in 2009 and 2011 through CARB’s “2009 State 

Strategy Status Report”2and “2011 Progress Report.”3

On November 9, 2011, EPA partially approved and partially disapproved the District’s 

2008 PM2.5 Plan and the revised 2007 State Strategy (collectively the “SJV PM2.5 SIP”). See 76 

FR 69896 (November 9, 2011). EPA’s partial disapproval of the SJV PM2.5 SIP was based on 

our determination that its contingency measure provisions failed to meet the requirements of 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR § 51.1012. See 76 FR 41338 at 41357 to 

41359 (July 13, 2011) and 76 FR 69896 at 69918 to 69919 and 69924. 

EPA’s partial disapproval of the SJV PM2.5 SIP triggered mandatory sanctions clocks 

under CAA section 179(b) and an obligation on EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) under CAA section 110(c) within two years. See 76 FR 69896 at 69924. The first 

sanction, the offset sanction under CAA section 179(b)(2), became effective in the SJV area 18 

months after the effective date of EPA’s final disapproval, i.e., on July 9, 2013. See 40 CFR 

52.31(d)). The second sanction, the highway funding sanction under CAA section 179(b)(1), will 

become effective 24 months after the effective date of EPA’s final disapproval, i.e., on January 

9, 2014. However, concurrent with our proposed full approval of the Contingency Measure SIP, 

we are issuing an interim final determination that will stay the offset sanction and defer the 

application of the highway funding sanction. See “Interim Final Determination to Stay and Defer 

Sanctions; San Joaquin Valley,” signed August 15, 2013. Final approval of the Contingency 

Measure SIP will terminate the sanctions clocks and the FIP clock triggered by EPA’s partial 

disapproval.

2. The Contingency Measure Provisions in the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plan

Contingency measures in the SJV PM2.5 SIP were described in Section 9.2.2 of the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, on page 29 of the CARB Staff Report on the Plan,

4

and Appendix A of the CARB 

Resolution 08-28 adopting the Plan. Updated information on both the RFP and attainment 

contingency measures was provided in the 2011 Progress Report and the CARB Progress Report 

supplement.5See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix A, p. 2, Appendix C, Table C-1, and CARB

Progress Report supplement, Attachment 2.

The contingency measures in the SJV PM2.5 SIP consisted of several types: a 

commitment by the SJVUAPCD to encourage CARB to expedite implementation of mobile 

source measures; surplus reductions in the RFP demonstration; post-2014 emission reductions; a 

 

2 CARB, “Status Report on the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and 

Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy,” dated March 24, 2009, adopted 

April 24, 2009.

3 CARB, “Progress Report on Implementation of PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South 

Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions,” dated March 29, 2011 and adopted April 28, 

2011.

4 CARB, “Staff Report, Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 Plan,” Release Date: May 7, 2008.

5 Letter dated May 18, 2011 from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Office, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, 

Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA–Region 9, with attachments. 
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 3

contingency provision in an adopted rule; reductions from incentive funds; and reductions of 

specifically-identified implemented rules that are not otherwise relied on in the attainment and 

RFP demonstrations.

EPA evaluated each of the contingency measures in the SJV PM2.5 SIP and found that 

several met CAA requirements, several could potentially be approvable as contingency measures 

if additional information was provided; and several failed to meet minimum CAA requirements.

A summary of our findings regarding these contingency measures is given in Tables A-1 and A2. Our full evaluation can be found in the Final TSD for the SJV PM2.5 SIP6

, pp. 126 to 134 and 

in our proposed action on the SIP at 76 FR 41338 at 41357 to 41359 (July 13, 2011). Overall, we 

determined that the approvable contingency measures did not provide sufficient SIP-creditable 

emission reductions for contingency measure purposes and disapproved both the attainment and 

2012 RFP milestone contingency measures on that basis. Id.

EPA did not evaluate the provisions in the SJV PM2.5 SIP that addressed contingency 

measures for failure to meet the 2009 RFP milestone. Instead, EPA found that the area had met 

its 2009 RFP milestone year emissions targets. See Final TSD for SJV PM2.5 SIP, p. 120 – 121

and 76 FR 41338 at 41357 – 41359. Accordingly, EPA concluded that contingency measures for 

failure to meet the 2009 RFP benchmark no longer had any meaning or effect under the CAA

and therefore required no action by EPA. Id. 

 

6 Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, “Final Technical Support Document and Responses to Comments, 

Final Rulemaking Action on the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State Implementation Plan,” September 30, 2011.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 4

Table A-1

Summary of Approvability of Contingency Measures from the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan

Measure

RFP or 

Attainment 

Contingency 

Measure?

Approvable 

as a 

Contingency 

Measure?

Comments

Tons per Annual average Day

Year Direct 

PM2.5

NOx SOx

Request CARB to 

expedite 

implementation of 

mobile source controls

Both No

Requires additional 

rulemaking, no short term 

reductions 

N/A N/A N/A

Ozone Nonattainment 

Area Fee

2012 RFP 

milestone/ 

Attainment

No

Reductions are not SIP 

creditable (see Incentive 

funds—currently not SIP 

creditable)

Not quantified

Incentives Funds –

currently SIP 

creditable

Both Yes Not quantified

Incentive Funds –

currently not SIP 

creditable

Both No Reductions are not SIP 

creditable Not quantified

Excess Reductions in 

RFP Demonstration RFP Yes 2012 0 19.7 5

Post Attainment Year 

Reductions Attainment Yes 2015 0.0 21 3
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 5

Table A-1 (Continued)

Summary of Approvability of Contingency Measures from the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan

Measure

RFP or 

Attainment 

Contingency 

Measure?

Approvable 

as a 

Contingency 

Measure?

Comments

Tons per Annual average Day

Year Direct 

PM2.5

NOx SOx

Revisions to 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4307

- Boilers, Steam 

Generators, and 

Process Heaters - 2.0 

MM BTU/hr to 5.0 

MMBTU/hr

2012 RFP 

milestone/ 

Attainment

No

Reductions assumed in 

RFP and attainment 

demonstrations

2012 N/A N/A N/A

2015 N/A N/A N/A

Revisions to 

SJVAPCD Rule 4702 -

I/C Engines - Phase 2

Attainment No Rule not adopted 2015 – –– –

Contingency provision 

in Rule 4901 Attainment Yes 2015 1.6 Not quantified

Source: Final TSD for SJV PM2.5 SIP, p. 135
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 6

Table A-2

Summary of Emission Reductions from Contingency Measures in the SJV 

PM2.5 SIP

(tons per annual average day)

Direct PM2.5 NOx SOx

2012 RFP contingency reductions (-2.9) 18 5

Attainment contingency reductions 1.6 21 3

1-year’s worth of RFP 2.5 31.6 0.2

Source: Final TSD for SJV PM2.5 SIP, p. 136

B. The Submitted SJV Contingency Measure SIP

On July 3, 2013, CARB submitted the Contingency Measure SIP as a revision to the 

California State Implementation Plan together with its supporting documentation. The July 3, 

2013 submission included the following documents:

 SJVUAPCD, “Quantifying Contingencies for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan” (dated June 20, 

2013);

 Letter dated July 3, 2013 from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 

submitting the Contingency Measure SIP; 

 CARB Resolution 13-30 (June 27, 2013) adopting the Contingency Measure SIP; 

 CARB, “Staff Report San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Contingency Measures Update,” 

undated.

 Letter dated June 21, 2013 from Samir Sheikh, Director of Strategies and Incentives, 

SJVUAPCD, to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB submitting the adopted 

Contingency Measure SIP for CARB review and approval; 

 SJVUPACD Governing Board Resolution No. 13-6-18 approving the Contingency 

Measure SIP; and

 Memorandum dated June 20, 2013 from Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director/APCO, 

SJVUAPCD to SJVUAPCD Governing Board, re: Item Number 11: Quantification of 

Contingency Reductions for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.

On July 24, 2013, the District clarified its intent that EPA review, as support 

documentation for the Contingency Measure SIP, additional materials related to incentive 

programs that the District had submitted to EPA under separate cover. See e-mail dated July 24, 
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 7

2013 from Samir Sheikh, SJVUAPCD, to Kerry Drake, EPA Region 9, “RE: Per our 

conversation earlier.” These supplemental materials include: 

 SJVUAPCD Rule 9610, “State Implementation Plan Credit for Emission Reductions 

Generated through Incentive Programs,” adopted June 20, 2013; 

 SJVUAPCD, Rule 9610 Final Staff Report (including appendices), dated June 20, 2013; 

 SJVUAPCD, “2013 Annual Demonstration Report,” dated June 2013 (including 

associated electronic “Data Sheet”);

 CARB, “Carl Moyer Program: Guideline Criteria for On-Road and Off-Road Projects,” 

dated July 2013; 

 CARB, “San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Proposed Rule 9610, 

Responses to U.S. EPA’s Request to Address ‘Integrity Elements’ in the Proposition 1B: 

Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program Guidelines,” draft, revised June 6, 2013; 

 CARB, “Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program, Final 

Guidelines for Implementation,” adopted February 28, 2008 (selected excerpts); 

 CARB, “Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program, Final 2010 

Guidelines for Implementation,” adopted March 25, 2010 (selected excerpts); and 

 CARB, “The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines,” approved April 28, 2011 (selected 

excerpts). 

On August 6, 2013, CARB submitted additional technical support for its PM2.5 to NOx

conversion analysis. See Memorandum dated August 13, 2013 from Scott Bohning, EPA Region 

9 to File for docket EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0534, San Joaquin Valley action; Subject: 

Contingency precursor effectiveness ratio using additional information.

The Contingency Measure SIP consists of (1) the District’s demonstration that actual 

emission levels in the SJV in 2012 were below the milestone year targets identified in the SJV 

PM2.5 SIP and approved by EPA for the 2012 RFP year; and (2) identification of contingency 

measures that provide 2015 emission reductions not relied on for RFP or attainment that are 

approximately equivalent to one-year’s worth of RFP. The District’s calculation of 2015 

emission reductions in the Contingency Measure SIP includes: reductions from contingency 

measures that we previously identified as SIP-creditable in our 2011 action on the SJV PM2.5

SIP, a revised calculation of emission reductions from the District’s woodburning control 

measure (Rule 4901) based on updated air quality and emissions data, emission reductions 

resulting from the District’s implementation of incentive programs, and substitution of excess 

direct PM2.5 reductions for NOx reductions.

C. Completeness Determination

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is 

complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also provides that any plan that we have not 

affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of 
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 8

law six months after the date of submittal. A completeness review allows us to determine if the 

submittal includes all the necessary items and information we need to act on it.

We make completeness determinations using criteria we have established in 

40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. These criteria fall into two categories: administrative information 

and technical support information. The administrative information provides documentation that 

the state has followed basic administrative procedures during the SIP-adoption process and thus 

we have a legally-adopted SIP revision in front of us. The technical support information provides 

the information we need to determine the impact of the proposed revision on attainment and 

maintenance of the air quality standards.

We notify a state of our completeness determination by letter unless the submittal became 

complete by operation of law. A finding of completeness is not an approval of the SIP submittal 

nor does it indicate that the submittal is approvable. It does start the 12-month clock we have to 

act on the SIP submittal. See CAA section 110(k)(2).

CARB submitted 2 hard copies and an electronic copy of the SJV Contingency Measure 

SIP and its supporting documentation on July 3, 2013. Additional supporting information was 

provided on July 24 and August 6, 2013. We have reviewed the submission and additional 

supporting information against the completeness criteria in Appendix V and have determined 

that the SIP submission is complete. See Table B-1. See also, Letter dated August 12, 2013 from 

Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9 to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, 

California Air Resources Board. 
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 9

Table C-1a

Completeness Checklist – Administrative Materials

San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP

Completeness Criterion Met? Comments

(a) Submittal letter from 

Governor/designee requesting EPA 

approval of the SIP revision

Y Letter dated July 3, 2013 from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, California Air 

Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

CARB is the governor’s designee for the purposes of SIP submittals. See CA Health 

and Safety Code section 39602. 

(b) Evidence of adoption of the SIP 

revision in final form including date 

of adoption

Y SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 13-6-18: In the Matter of Authorizing 

Submittal of the “Quantification of Contingency Reductions for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan” 

to EPA, June 20, 2013.

CARB Resolution 13-30, San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Contingency Measure Update, 

June 27, 2013.

(c) Evidence of State/District legal 

authority to adopt and implement the 

SIP revision

Y SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 13-6-18: California H&SC 40001(a)/40702

CARB Resolution 13-30: CARB: California H&SC 41650(a)

(d1) Copy of actual rule/plan Y The document “Quantification of Contingency Reductions for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

(SJVUAPCD) dated June 20, 2013 is included in the submittal

(d2) Rule changes indicated by 

underline/cross-out

N/A SIP revision does not incorporate any rules into SIP. 

(e) Evidence that the adoption met all 

state procedural requirements

Y See items (f) and (g) below.

(f) Copy of public notice including 

the date of publication

Y San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Notice of Public Hearing 

on “Quantification of Contingency Reductions for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan,” Hearing 

date: June 20, 2013, posted to SJVUAPCD’s website (http://www.valleyair.org/

Workshops/ postings/2013/6-20-13-R9601/R9610_NPH.pdf) on May 16, 2013.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 

10

Table C-1a

Completeness Checklist – Administrative Materials

San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP

Completeness Criterion Met? Comments

(g) Certification that the hearing was 

held in accordance with the public 

notice and state and EPA 

requirements

Y SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 13-6-18, pp. 2 and 3.

CARB Resolution 13-30, p. 3.

(h) Compilation of public comments 

& agency response

Y No public comments received except from EPA (see docket).

Table C-1b

Completeness Checklist – Technical Support

San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP (per Appendix V, Section 2.2)

Completeness Criterion Met? Comment

(a) Identification of all regulated 

pollutants identified

Y “Quantification of Contingency Reductions for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan,” p. 2.

(b) Affected sources & attainment 

status identified

Y SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 13-6-18, p 1.

(c) Rule/plan emissions impact Y “Quantification of Contingency Reductions for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan,” p. 9.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 

11

Table C-1b

Completeness Checklist – Technical Support

San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP (per Appendix V, Section 2.2)

Completeness Criterion Met? Comment

(d) Demonstration that attainment, 

RFP & other required demonstration

are protected if plan is approved

Y Demonstration that the 2012 RFP milestone is met: “Quantification of Contingency 

Reductions for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan,” p. 2.

Demonstration of non-interference with attainment demonstration: See “Quantification 

of Contingency Reductions for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan,” pp. 4 and 7 (reductions used to 

meet the attainment contingency measure requirements are not included in the SIPapproved attainment demonstration).

(e) Modeling support as appropriate Y “Quantification of Contingency Reductions for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan,” Appendix A 

and Letter dated July 3, 2013 from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, California 

Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, p. 

2. State is relying on previously submitted and approved AQ modeling.

(f) Reliance on continuous emission 

reductions

N/A Not applicable. SIP submittal contains no emission limitations.

(g) Evidence of emission limits & 

other needed requirements 

N/A Not applicable. SIP submittal contains no emission limitations.

(h) Compliance/enforcement strategy N/A CARB, “Carl Moyer Program: Guideline Criteria for On-Road and Off-Road 

Projects,” dated July 2013; CARB, “San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Proposed Rule 9610, Responses to U.S. EPA’s Request to Address ‘Integrity 

Elements’ in the Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program 

Guidelines,” draft, revised June 6, 2013; and SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

Resolution 13-6-18.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 

12

Table C-1b

Completeness Checklist – Technical Support

San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP (per Appendix V, Section 2.2)

Completeness Criterion Met? Comment

(i) Special economic/technological 

justifications per EPA policy or 

explanation of why such justification 

not necessary

N/A No special economic/technological justifications needed under applicable EPA policy
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 13

D. CAA Requirements for Contingency Measures

Under CAA section 172(c)(9), all PM2.5 attainment plans must include contingency 

measures to be implemented if an area fails to meet RFP (RFP contingency measures) and 

contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date (attainment contingency measures). See 40 CFR § 51.1012. The 

purpose of contingency measures is to continue progress in reducing emissions while the SIP is 

being revised to meet the missed RFP milestone or correct continuing nonattainment.

The principle requirements for contingency measures are:

 Contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that are ready 

to be implemented quickly upon failure to meet RFP or failure of the area to meet the 

standard by its attainment date.

 The SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for the contingency measures, specify a 

schedule for implementation, and indicate that the measures will be implemented 

without further action by the state or by EPA. In general, EPA will expect all actions 

needed to affect full implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days after 

EPA notifies the state of a failure.

 The contingency measures should consist of other control measures for the area that 

are not included in the control strategy for the SIP.

 EPA recommends that the measures provide for emission reductions equivalent to 

approximately one year of reductions needed for RFP calculated as the overall level 

of reductions needed to demonstrate attainment divided by the number of years from 

the base year to the attainment year.

See 72 FR 20586, 20643 (April 25, 2007).

The April 16, 1992 General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498, 13512) provides the following guidance on 

contingency measures which continues to be applicable:

States must show that their contingency measures can be implemented without further 

action on their part and with no additional rulemaking actions such as public hearings or 

legislative review. In general, EPA will expect all actions needed to affect full implementation of 

the measures to occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the State of its failure.

Contingency measures can include both Federal, state and local measures already 

scheduled for implementation or already implemented. The CAA requires contingency measures 

that provide for additional emission reductions that are not relied on for RFP or attainment and 

are not included in these demonstrations. In other words, contingency measures are intended to 

achieve reductions over and beyond those relied on in the RFP and attainment demonstrations. 

Nothing in the CAA precludes a state from implementing such measures before they are 

triggered. See, e.g., LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding contingency 

measures that were previously required and implemented where they were in excess of the 

attainment demonstration and RFP SIP). EPA has approved numerous SIPs under this 

interpretation. See, for example, 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997) (direct final rule approving an 

Indiana ozone SIP revision); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997) (final rule approving an Illinois 
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 14

ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) (direct final rule approving a Rhode Island 

ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001) (final rule approving District of Columbia, 

Maryland, and Virginia ozone SIP revisions); and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001) (final rule 

approving a Connecticut ozone SIP revision). 

E. Evaluation of the Submitted SJV Contingency Measure SIP

1. Calculation of One-Year’s Worth of Reasonable Further Progress

As discussed in the previous section, a SIP’s contingency measures should provide for 

emission reductions approximately equivalent to one year of reductions needed to demonstrate 

RFP. One year’s worth of RFP is determined by dividing the emission reductions from base year 

levels that are needed for attainment by the number of years between the base year (2005) and 

the attainment year (2014). We reproduce our calculation to determine one-year’s worth of RFP 

for the SJV PM2.5 SIP in Table E-1 below.

Table E-1

Reductions Needed from Contingency Measures

(tons per annual average day)

Direct PM2.5 NOx SOx

A 2005 baseline 86.0 575.4 26.4

B 2014 attainment level 63.3 291.2 24.6

C

Emission reductions 

needed for attainment

(line A-line B)

22.7 284.2 1.8

D

One year’s worth of RFP

(line C divided by 9)

2.5 31.6 0.2

Source: Final TSD for the SJV PM2.5 SIP, Table I-1, p. 131.

2. Contingency Measures for the 2012 Reasonable Further Progress Milestone

The Contingency Measure SIP includes a demonstration that emissions of direct PM2.5, 

NOx, and SOx in 2012 were all below the corresponding 2012 RFP milestone year emissions 

targets that EPA approved as part of the SJV PM2.5 SIP. See Contingency Measure SIP, p. 2 and 

Table E-2 below. To make this demonstration, the District used the emission inventory from the 

2011 Progress Report, adjusted to remove uncreditable reductions, and compared it to the SIPapproved 2012 RFP milestone year targets. Based on this comparison, the District concluded that 

it met its approved 2012 RFP milestone year targets and, accordingly, that RFP contingency 

measures for this milestone year are no longer needed. Id.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 15

Table E-2

2012 RFP Milestone Compliance Demonstration 

in the Contingency Measure SIP

Approved RFP 

Level

Actual 2012 

emissions

RFP benchmark 

met?

Direct PM2.5 71 70 Yes

NOx 336 336 Yes

SOx 20 20 Yes

Source: Contingency Measure SIP, p. 2.

The RFP demonstration that EPA approved as part of its action on the SJV PM2.5 SIP

(reproduced in Table E-3 below) is based on the demonstration in the 2011 Progress Report. The 

RFP demonstration in the 2011 Progress Report relied in part on uncreditable/erroneous emission 

reductions. EPA removed these reductions before approving the final RFP demonstration. See 

Final TSD for SJV PM2.5 SIP at p. 123. Table E-4 lists these uncreditable/erroneous emission 

reductions. These reductions continue to be uncreditable.

Table E-3

Approved RFP Demonstration for the 2012 Milestone

(tons per annual average day)

Direct 

PM2.5

NOx SOx

Benchmark emissions level 68 354 25

Projected controlled emissions level 70 328 20

Currently uncreditable reductions from Rules 

9410, 9510, and 4320 (Table &3)

0 8.2 0

Corrections to estimated reductions from Rule 

4692 (Table &3)

0.9 0 0

Revised projected controlled emissions level

(approved RFP target levels)

71 336 20

Emissions above/below benchmark emissions 

level +3 -18 -5

Percent below benchmark emissions level +4% -5% -20%

Source: Final TSD for the SJV PM2.5 SIP, Table H-3, p. 122.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 16

Table E-4

Adjustments to Control Measures Reductions for the 2012 Milestone RFP 

Demonstration

(tons per annual average day)

Rule NOx

Direct 

PM2.5

Explanation 

Rule 9410 – Employer Based 

Trip Reduction Program 0.3 0

Rule 9410 is not SIP approved; 

therefore, reductions from this rule are 

not currently creditable for SIP 

purposes.

Rule 9510 – Indirect Source 

Review 6.3 0

Reductions from Rule 9510 are not 

currently SIP creditable. See EPA’s 

approval of the rule at 76 FR 26609 

(May 9, 2011).

Rule 4320 – AERO for 

Boilers 1.6 0

NOx reductions from Rule 4320 are not 

currently SIP creditable. See EPA’s 

approval of the rule at 76 FR 16696 

(March 25, 2011).

Rule 4692 – Commercial 

Charbroiling 0 0.9

Reductions from Rule 4692 that were 

included in CARB’s RFP demonstration 

were incorrectly calculated.

Total Adjustment 8.2 0.9

Source: Final TSD for the SJV PM2.5 SIP, Table H-4, p. 123

The emission inventory used in the SJV PM2.5 SIP’s RFP demonstration is expressed in 

tons per annual average day, which is an appropriate metric for measuring progress for the 

annual PM2.5 standard.7The inventory in the 2011 Progress Report, used in the Contingency 

Measure SIP to demonstrate that the 2012 RFP targets have been met, is the most current annual 

average day inventory available for the SJV and, therefore, the most appropriate inventory to use 

for this demonstration. 

In March of this year, California submitted a winter average day inventory as part of the 

District’s 2012 PM2.5 Plan for attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

8

In general, a

 

7

SIP inventories are also expressed in average summer day and average winter day metrics. Summer day 

inventories are most commonly used in SIPs addressing the ozone NAAQS because they reflect conditions during 

the summer when the highest ozone levels typically occur. Winter day inventories are most commonly used in SIPs 

addressing the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because they reflect conditions during the season when 24-hour PM2.5

standard violations typically occur. 

8

SJVUAPCD, 2012 PM2.5 Plan, December 20, 2012, Appendix B. 
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 17

winter day inventory is not directly comparable to an annual day inventory because of the strong 

seasonal pattern of emissions from certain categories (e.g., residential woodburning, agricultural 

equipment). We can, however, review the winter day inventory in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to 

determine if a finding that the SJV has met the 2012 RFP milestone targets is consistent with this 

inventory. Table E-5 compares the annual average day inventory from the 2011 Progress Report 

with the winter average day from the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. As can be seen from Table E-6, the total 

average winter day inventory from the 2012 PM2.5 Plan is lower than the total annual average 

day inventory from the SJV PM2.5 SIP for all pollutants.

Table E-5

Comparison of 2012 Inventories from 

the CARB Progress Report Supplement and 2012 PM2.5 Plan

CARB Progress Report Supplement–

Attachment 1

Annual Average Day

2012 PM2.5 Plan – Appendix B

Winter Average Day

Direct PM2.5 68 67.1

NOx 326 309.4

SOx 20 9.4

Historically, the average winter day inventories of direct PM2.5 and NOx in the SJV have 

been higher than the corresponding average annual day inventories. See Table E-6 which shows 

the winter day and annual day inventories from the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. Given this, an average 

annual day inventory developed using the same methodologies and data as the winter average 

day inventory in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan would most likely be lower than that winter day inventory. 

The fact that the most recently-developed average winter day inventory (from the 2012 PM2.5

Plan) is lower than the annual average day inventory used by the District to demonstrate that the 

2012 RFP milestone has been met adds support to the District’s finding that the SJV area met its

2012 milestone.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 18

Table E-6

Comparison of 2012 Baseline Annual Average and Winter Average Day

Emission inventories from the SJV 2008 PM2.5Plan

Annual Average Day Winter Average Day

Direct PM2.5 77.0 79.1

NOx 424.4 428.4

SOx 23.8 23.1

Source: SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B.

As shown on Table 2 in the Contingency Measure SIP (reproduced in Table E-2 above), 

controlled emissions levels for direct PM2.5, NOx, and SOx were at or below the benchmarks for 

2012. EPA, therefore, proposes to find that the SJV met its 2012 RFP milestone targets. Based 

on this proposed finding, EPA also proposes to find that the RFP contingency measure 

requirement for the 2012 RFP milestone year is now moot as applied to the SJV.

The sole purpose of RFP contingency measures is to provide continued progress if the 

area fails to meet its RFP goal. Failure to meet the 2012 milestone year target would have 

required California to implement RFP contingency measures and to revise the SJV PM2.5 SIP to 

assure that the plan still provided for attainment by the attainment date of April 5, 2015. In this 

case, however, the Contingency Measure SIP demonstrates that actual emission levels in 2012 

met the approved 2012 RFP milestone year targets for all three regulated pollutants (direct PM2.5, 

NOx, and SOx). Accordingly, RFP contingency measures for 2012 no longer have meaning or 

purpose, and the requirement for them is now moot.

3. Contingency Measures for the 2015 Attainment Date

a. Existing Regulatory Measures

i. Contingency Measures for Reducing NOx Emissions

The SJV PM2.5 SIP which EPA partially approved and partially disapproved in November 

2011 identified as contingency measures the 21 tpd of NOx emissions that accrue in 2015 from 

the continuing implementation of existing CARB mobile source measures. See CARB Progress 

Report supplement, Attachment 2. See also 76 FR 41359 (Table 10) and Final TSD for SJV

PM2.5 SIP, p. 135. These mobile source reductions are from SIP-approved or otherwise SIPcreditable adopted measures. See Final TSD for SJV PM2.5 SIP, p. 100-105. They are also

surplus to the reductions relied upon to demonstrate attainment because they occur in 2015 (after 
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 19

implementation of all control measures necessary for expeditious attainment).

9

The Contingency 

Measure SIP also identifies these same mobile source emissions reductions as attainment 

contingency measures, and EPA agrees that these emission reductions qualify for approval as 

attainment contingency measures.

ii. Contingency Measures for Reducing SOx Emissions

The SJV PM2.5 SIP identified as contingency measures the 3 tpd of SOx emission 

reductions that are surplus to SJV’s attainment needs. See CARB Progress Report supplement, 

Attachment 2. The calculation of the amount of available surplus SOx reductions in the SJV 

PM2.5 SIP’s attainment demonstration is shown in Table E-7. CARB attributed these reductions

to baseline measures and recently-adopted regulations but does not otherwise identify the 

measures generating the reductions. Id.

Evaluation of the SOx reduction in the baseline (Table E-7, line C) show that they are 

principally from mobile sources and are attributable to CARB’s Low Sulfur Diesel regulations

which lowered the allowable level of sulfur in on-road and off-road diesel fuel from 500 ppm to 

15 ppm. The low sulfur limit was fully effective by September 1, 2006.10 EPA approved CARB’s 

diesel fuel regulations, including the 15 ppm sulfur limit in 2010. See 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 

2010). 

Creditable reductions from the control strategy are from several District rules. These 

rules, their credited SOx reductions, and the date and cite of EPA’s action approving each rule 

are listed in Table E-8.

The Contingency Measure SIP also identifies these SOx reductions from State and 

District rules and regulations as attainment contingency measures, and EPA agrees that these 

measures provide 3 tpd of SOx reductions that are not relied on for RFP or attainment and, 

therefore, qualify for approval as attainment contingency measures.

 

9 Consistent with CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR § 51.1007(b), the SJV PM2.5 SIP provides for the 

implementation of all control measures needed for attainment as expeditiously as practicable and no later than the 

beginning of the year prior to the attainment date (i.e., by January 2014) (76 FR 69916 to 69917).

10 Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 5, Article 2, section 2281 (“Sulfur Content 

of Diesel Fuel”) (operative August 4, 2005).
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 20

Table E-7

Surplus SOx Reductions in the SJV PM2.5 SIP

for Attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS

SOx

tons per average day

A 2005 baseline 26.4

B Reductions from baseline measures 1.0

C Creditable reductions from the control strategy 3.6

D Controlled 2014 level (line A – line B – line C) 21.8

E Attainment target level 24.6

F

Excess reductions available as contingency measures 

(line E – line D)

2.8

Source: Line C: Final TSD for the SJV PM2.5 SIP, Table F-4, p. 94; Lines A, B, and E from Table F-9, p. 101.

Table E-8

SJVUPACD Rules Controlling SOx Emissions

SJVUAPCD Rule Approved Reductions

(tpd)

4103 - Open Burning 77 FR 214 (January 4, 2012) 0.05

4306 - Boilers - Phase 3 & 4320 - Advanced 

Emission reductions for Boilers, Steam 

Generators and Process Heaters

(> 5 MMBtu/hr)

Rule 4306: 75 FR 1715 

(January 13, 2010)

Rule 4320: 76 FR 16696 

(March 25, 2011)

1.92

4354 - Glass Melting Furnaces1 76 FR 53640 (August 29, 

2011) 1.62

4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood 

Burning Heaters

74 FR 57907 (November 10, 

2009) 0.02

Total SO2 Reductions from Approved Measures 3.61

Source: Final TSD for the SJV PM2.5 SIP, Tables F-3 and F-4, pp. 92 and 94 

1EPA approved the District’s May 21, 2011 revision to this rule at 78 FR 6740 (January 31, 2013). The revision 

did not affect the expected emission reductions from this rule. See SJVUAPCD, Final Staff Report, Amendments 

to Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces), June 20, 2011, p. 7.

iii. Contingency Measures for Reducing Direct PM2.5 Emissions

The District’s Rule 4901–Wood Burning Fireplace and Wood Burning Heaters (revised 

October 16, 2008), includes a contingency provision in section 5.6.5. This contingency
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 21

provision, if implemented, would lower the level for mandatory curtailment of wood burning 

from a forecasted 24-hour PM2.5 level of 30 μg/m3 to a forecasted level of 20 μg/m3. This lower 

curtailment level would result in more “No Burn” days and therefore more PM2.5 and NOx

emission reductions from residential wood burning. We approved the October 2008 revision of 

Rule 4901, including the contingency provision, into the California SIP on November 10, 2009

at 74 FR 57907.

In our 2011 action on the SJV PM2.5 SIP, we found the contingency provision in section 

5.6.5 of Rule 4901 met CAA requirements for contingency measures, and we stated that the 

District had preliminarily quantified the emission reductions expected from this contingency 

provision at 1.6 tpd (annual average) of direct PM2.5 emission reductions. See 76 FR 41338, 

41358 (July 13, 2011).

In the Contingency Measure SIP, the District updated its estimate of emission reductions 

from the contingency provision in Rule 4901, using measured air quality data from 2009 through 

2012 to assess the number of mandatory curtailment days that would occur at the 20 μg/m3

threshold. See Contingency Measure SIP, pp. 5-6. The revised estimates are 3.12 tpd of direct 

PM2.5 and 0.32 tpd of NOx. Id. We have reviewed the District’s methodology for calculating 

these revised estimates and find it appropriate for determining the reductions from Rule 4901’s 

contingency provision.

iv. Summary of Attainment Contingency Emission Reductions from Regulatory 

Measures

Reductions from regulatory measures provided in the SJV PM2.5 SIP that EPA previously 

identified as creditable toward meeting the attainment contingency measure requirement are 

summarized in Table E-9 below.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 22

Table E-9

Reductions from Regulatory Measures that are 

Creditable toward Contingency Measures

Tons per annual average day – 2015

Direct 

PM2.5

NOx SOx

CARB mobile source control program — 21 —

Surplus reductions in the attainment 

demonstration — — 3

Rule 4901 contingency provision 3.1 0.3 —

Total 3.1 21.3 3

b. Incentive Programs

The Contingency Measure SIP states that NOx and PM2.5 emission reductions to be 

achieved through the implementation of specific incentive programs in the San Joaquin Valley 

are available for contingency measure purposes in 2015. See Contingency Measure SIP at 7 – 9. 

The incentive programs identified in the Contingency Measure SIP for this purpose are as 

follows: the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer 

Program), implemented through a partnership between CARB and local air districts; the 

Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program (Prop 1B), also implemented 

through a partnership between CARB and local air districts; and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program (EQIP), implemented by NRCS. See id. We are proposing to approve 4.15 

tpd of NOx reductions and 0.10 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions from specific Carl Moyer Program 

and Prop 1B projects, as identified in the Contingency Measure SIP and in this proposed rule, for 

purposes of satisfying the contingency measure requirement for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

The CAA explicitly provides for the use of economic incentives as one tool for states to 

use to achieve attainment of the NAAQS. See, e.g., CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) (requiring that 

each SIP “include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or 

techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or 

appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of [the Act]”); see also section 172(c)(6), 

183(e)(4). Economic incentive programs (EIPs) use market-based strategies to encourage the 

reduction of emissions from stationary, area, and/or mobile sources in an efficient manner. EPA 

has promulgated regulations for statutory EIPs required under section 182(g) of the Act and has 
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 23

issued guidance for discretionary EIPs.11 See 59 FR 16690 (April 7, 1994) (codified at 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart U) and “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,” U.S. EPA, 

Office of Air and Radiation, January 2001 (EPA-452/R-01-001) (“2001 EIP”). Where a State 

relies upon a discretionary EIP in a SIP submission, EPA evaluates the programmatic elements 

of the EIP to determine whether the resulting emission reductions are quantifiable, surplus, 

enforceable and permanent. See 2001 EIP at Section 4.1. These four fundamental “integrity 

elements,” which apply to all EIPs and other incentive/voluntary measures relied on for SIP 

purposes, are designed to ensure that such programs and measures satisfy the applicable 

requirements of the Act. See id.; see also “Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source 

Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans (SIPs),” October 24, 1997 (“1997 

VMEP”); “Incorporating Voluntary Stationary Source Emission Reduction Programs Into State 

Implementation Plans – Final Policy,” January 19, 2001; “Incorporating Emerging and 

Voluntary Measures in a State Implementation Plan (SIP),” September 2004 (“2004 Emerging 

and Voluntary Measures Policy”); “Guidance on Incorporating Bundled Measures in a State 

Implementation Plan,” August 16, 2005; and “Roadmap for Incorporating Energy 

Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and Programs into State and Tribal Implementation 

Plans,” July 2012.

EPA has generally defined the four fundamental integrity elements for discretionary EIPs 

and other incentive/voluntary measures as follows:

1. Quantifiable: emissions and emission reductions are quantifiable if someone can reliably 

and replicably measure or determine them;

2. Surplus: Emission reductions are surplus if they are not otherwise required by or 

assumed in a SIP-related program (e.g., an attainment or reasonable further progress plan 

or a transportation conformity demonstration), any other adopted State air quality 

program, a consent decree, or a federal rule designed to reduce emission of a criteria 

pollutant or its precursors (e.g., a new source performance standard or federal mobile 

source requirement);

3. Enforceable: emission reductions and other required actions are enforceable if they are 

independently verifiable; program violations are defined; those liable can be identified; 

the State and EPA may apply penalties and secure appropriate corrective action where 

applicable; citizens have access to all emissions-related information obtained from 

participating sources; and the required reductions/actions are practicably enforceable 

consistent with EPA guidance on practical enforceability. 

4. Permanent: emission reductions are permanent if the State and EPA can ensure that the 

reductions occur for as long as they are relied upon in the SIP. 

See 2001 EIP at Section 4.1, 1997 VMEP at pp. 6-7, and 2004 Emerging and Voluntary 

Measures Policy at pp. 3-4. The District’s Rule 9610 (as adopted June 20, 2013) contains 

definitions that are generally consistent with EPA’s definitions of these terms. See Rule 9610 at 

 

11 A “discretionary economic incentive program” is “any EIP submitted to the EPA as an implementation 

plan revision for purposes other than to comply with the statutory requirements of sections 182(g)(3), 182(g)(5), 

187(d)(3), or 187(g) of the Act.” 40 CFR § 51.491.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 24

section 2.8 (definition of “enforceable”); section 2.18 (definition of “permanent”); section 2.23 

(definition of “quantifiable”); and section 2.27 (definition of “surplus”). 

We are evaluating the incentive-based emission reductions in the Contingency Measure 

SIP in accordance with these fundamental integrity elements as applied, in particular, to 

discretionary “financial mechanisms EIPs” and “voluntary mobile source emission reduction 

programs” (VMEPs). See 2001 EIP at Section 8.0 (describing “financial mechanism EIP” as a 

mechanism that indirectly reduces emissions by increasing costs for high emitting activities –

e.g., through fees/taxes on emissions and subsidies targeted at promoting pollution-reducing 

activities or products) and 1997 VMEP at p. 3 (describing “VMEP” as a mobile source strategy 

that complements existing regulatory programs through voluntary, nonregulatory changes in 

local transportation sector activity levels or changes in in-use vehicle and engine fleet 

composition). A discretionary EIP or VMEP submission must be accompanied by sufficient 

technical support for EPA to determine that the statutory criteria for approval are met – e.g., 

procedures designed to compare projected emission reductions with actual emissions reductions 

achieved; State commitments to monitor, assess, and report on program implementation and 

actual emission reductions achieved; and procedures for the State to remedy emission reduction 

shortfalls in a timely manner. See 2001 EIP at Section 5.0 and 1997 VMEP at pp. 6, 7. The State 

must also demonstrate that it has adequate personnel and program resources to implement the 

program and that the EIP or VMEP does not interfere with other requirements of the Act. See id.

and 2001 EIP at Section 11.0. With respect to VMEPs, EPA has generally limited the amount of 

emission reductions allowed in a SIP to 3 percent of the total projected future year emission 

reductions required to attain the relevant NAAQS, and with respect to any particular SIP 

submittal to demonstrate attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or progress toward

attainment (RFP), 3 percent of the specific statutory requirement. See 1997 VMEP at p. 5.

i. The California Submittal

The Contingency Measure SIP states that a total of 10.9 tpd of NOx reductions and 0.44 

tpd of PM2.5 reductions, to be achieved in 2015 through implementation of the Carl Moyer 

Program, Prop 1B, and EQIP, are available for contingency measure purposes and that these 

emission reductions exceed the 4.15 tpd of NOx reductions and 0.10 tpd of direct PM2.5

reductions needed to satisfy the contingency measure requirement for 2015. See Contingency 

Measure SIP at 7. To support the District’s conclusion that these NOx and direct PM2.5 reductions 

from incentive programs are quantifiable, surplus, enforceable and permanent, the Contingency 

Measure SIP cites specified requirements in proposed SJVUAPCD Rule 9610, a regulation 

adopted by the District on June 20, 2013 to establish administrative processes and criteria for 

documenting emission reductions achieved through incentive programs for CAA SIP purposes. 

See id. at pp. 7, 8 (citing Proposed SJVUAPCD Rule 9610, section 7.0, and related support 

documents). According to the District, the 4.15 tpd of NOx reductions and 0.10 tpd of direct 

PM2.5 reductions from incentive programs that it is relying upon to satisfy the attainment 

contingency measure requirement (for 2015) satisfy the requirements of section 7.0 of proposed 

Rule 961012 and, therefore, qualify for SIP credit under the CAA.

 

12 The Contingency Measure SIP references “proposed” Rule 9610 because the rule was not yet adopted at 

the time the District was developing the Contingency Measure SIP. Rule 9610, as adopted by the SJVUAPCD 

Governing Board on June 20, 2013, is substantively unchanged from the proposed rule that the District made 
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 25

EPA is not proposing at this time to act on Rule 9610 itself. To the extent the 

Contingency Measure SIP relies upon emission reductions that are quantified and tracked 

pursuant to the requirements of Rule 9610, however, EPA has reviewed relevant provisions of 

the rule and related support documents, consistent with the District’s intent. See e-mail dated 

July 24, 2013 from Samir Sheikh, SJVUAPCD, to Kerry Drake, EPA Region 9, “RE: Per our 

conversation earlier.” Under section 7.0 of Rule 9610, each SIP submission in which the District 

relies on projections of emission reductions from incentive programs to satisfy a CAA SIP 

requirement must include a demonstration that each applicable incentive program guideline 

continues to provide for “SIP-creditable emission reductions” – i.e., emission reductions that are 

quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, and permanent, as those terms are defined in Rule 9610. See

Rule 9610, section 7.0 and section 2.25 (definition of “SIP-Creditable Emission Reduction”). In 

addition, each such SIP submission must include an enforceable commitment that: (1) identifies 

incentive program guidelines used to generate projected SIP-creditable emission reductions; (2) 

identifies emission reductions “projected to be achieved through the use of secured or reasonably 

anticipated incentive program funding” and estimated numbers of projects and willing 

participants; (3) is specifically adopted by the District as part of the SIP and accounted for in 

subsequent annual demonstration reports; and (4) states that “if either the District or EPA finds 

that there is a SIP shortfall for a particular year, the District will adopt and submit to EPA, by 

specified dates, substitute rules and measures that will achieve equivalent emission reductions as 

expeditiously as practicable and no later than any applicable implementation deadline in the 

Clean Air Act or EPA’s implementing regulations.” See Rule 9610, sections 7.1 through 7.4. 

Consistent with these criteria, the Contingency Measure SIP contains the State’s 

demonstration that specified portions of the following Prop 1B and Carl Moyer Program 

guidelines provide for emission reductions that are quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, and 

permanent13: 

1. “Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program, Final 2010 Guidelines 

for Implementation,” adopted March 25, 2010; 

2. “Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program, Final Guidelines for 

Implementation,” adopted February 28, 2008; and 

3. “The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines,” approved April 28, 2011.

 

available for public comment on May 21, 2013, and section 7.0 of the adopted rule is identical to the text in the 

proposed rule. Unless otherwise noted, all references to Rule 9610 herein are to the rule as adopted June 20, 2013.

13 The District’s Board Resolution adopting the Contingency Measure SIP broadly identifies “the incentive 

program guidelines identified in Section 3.1 of Rule 9610, the 2013 Draft Annual Demonstration Report, and the 

Manual of Procedures to quantify SIP-creditable emission reductions relied upon to satisfy the PM2.5 contingency 

measure requirement for 2015 in the amount of 4.15 tons per day (tpd) of NOx reductions and 0.10 tpd of PM2.5

reductions...,” and the Contingency Measure SIP similarly identifies the Carl Moyer Program, Prop 1B, and EQIP 

(NRCS) in their entirety as the basis for the District’s claimed NOx and PM2.5 emission reductions. See SJVUAPCD 

Board Resolution No. 13-6-18 at p. 3 and Contingency Measure SIP at 7. In this proposed rule, however, EPA is 

evaluating only a subset of these guidelines (i.e., specified portions of those Carl Moyer Program and Prop 1B 

guidelines identified herein), as the Contingency Measure SIP does not contain adequate technical documentation 

for EPA to fully evaluate all of the incentive programs referenced in the SIP submission.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 26

See “San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Proposed Rule 9610, Responses to U.S. 

EPA’s Request to Address ‘Integrity Elements’ in the Proposition 1B: Goods Movement 

Emission Reduction Program Guidelines,” draft revised June 6, 2013, transmitted to EPA via email dated June 10, 2013 from Elizabeth Yura, CARB, to Andy Steckel, EPA Region 9, RE: 

Draft Deliberative - Prop 1B Documentation. 

In addition, the Contingency Measure SIP contains an enforceable commitment by the 

District: (1) to “account for” the District’s claimed 4.15 tpd of NOx reductions and 0.10 tpd of 

PM2.5 reductions “in annual demonstration reports pursuant to the requirements of Rule 9610”; 

and (2) if there is a shortfall in emission reductions from these incentive programs, to “adopt and 

submit to EPA substitute rules and measures that will achieve equivalent emission reductions as 

expeditiously as practicable and no later than any applicable implementation deadline in the 

CAA or EPA’s implementing regulations, by no later than December 31, 2016.” See 

SJVUAPCD Board Resolution No. 13-6-18 at p. 3. 

Finally, information provided to support the Contingency Measure SIP demonstrates that 

the District has adequate personnel and program resources to implement the Carl Moyer Program 

and Prop 1B programs. See, e.g., “The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines” (approved April 28), 

Chapter 3 (“Program Administration”); “2011 Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission 

Reduction Program, Final 2010 Guidelines for Implementation” (adopted March 25, 2010) at 

Chapter III (“Local Agency Project Proposal”); and letter dated January 2, 2013 from James 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Seyed Sadredin, Air Pollution Control Officer, 

SJVUAPCD, enclosing “Incentive Program Review Report, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District Fiscal Years 2006-07 through 2009-10.” We note that the 4.15 tpd of NOx

reductions and 0.10 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions attributed to the Carl Moyer Program and Prop 

1B in 2015 for contingency measure purposes each amount to less than 2 percent of the total 

projected emission reductions of each pollutant needed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

SJV.

14

We discuss below our evaluation of these elements of the Contingency Measure SIP.

ii. Applicable Incentive Program Guidelines and Projects

The Contingency Measure SIP states that it relies on incentive-based emissions 

reductions to be achieved from “already-executed, legally binding contracts” rather than on 

projections of future funding and participation rates. See Contingency Measure SIP at pp. 7, 8. 

According to the 2013 Annual Demonstration Report and associated “Data Sheet,”15 on-road 

vehicle replacement projects16 that have been funded through the Prop 1B program and off-road 

 

14 The SJV PM2.5 SIP projects the total amounts of emission reductions needed to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS, 

from a 2005 base year to a 2014 attainment year, are as follows: 284.2 tpd of NOx reductions; 22.7 tpd of direct 

PM2.5 reductions; and 1.8 tpd of SOx reductions. See 76 FR 69896, 69923 (Table 4, line A) and Final TSD for SJV 

PM2.5 SIP, p. 113 (Table G-2, line C). Thus, the incentive program reductions identified in the Contingency Measure 

SIP amount to approximately 1.5 percent of the NOx reductions and 0.4 percent of the direct PM2.5 reductions 

needed for timely attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.

15 Available at http://www.valleyair.org/MOP/docs/9610ProjectDataforPublicUNLOCKED8-7-13.xlsx

16 Section 2.19 of Rule 9610 defines the term “project” as follows: “for purposes of this rule, actions taken 

to reduce emissions through incentive programs, as contracted between the Grantee and the District, NRCS, or
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 27

vehicle replacement projects that have been funded through the Carl Moyer Program are 

expected to achieve NOx and direct PM2.5 emission reductions in amounts adequate to cover the 

incentive-based emission reductions claimed by the District in the Contingency Measure SIP 

(i.e., the 4.15 tpd of NOx reductions and 0.10 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions claimed for 2015). 

These funded projects are subject to the three specific incentive program guidelines identified 

above: (1) “Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program, Final 2010

Guidelines for Implementation,” adopted March 25, 2010; (2) “Proposition 1B: Goods 

Movement Emission Reduction Program, Final Guidelines for Implementation,” adopted 

February 28, 2008; and (3) “The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines,” approved April 28, 2011.17

Specifically, the Data Sheet identifies 1243 “on-road vehicle replacement” projects 

funded through the Prop 1B program that have a “project life” ending on or after January 1, 2016 

and therefore will continue to achieve emission reductions at least through the end of 2015. 18

Collectively, these 1243 funded projects are projected to achieve 3.78 tpd of NOx reductions and 

0.15 tpd of PM reductions in 2015.19 These totals are consistent with the emission reduction 

estimates for 2015 provided in Table 18 of the 2013 Annual Demonstration Report, which

identifies the total reductions, in tpd, of NOx, particulate matter (PM) and “reactive organic 

gases” (ROGs)20 that the District expects will be achieved by Prop 1B projects related to on-road 

trucks between 2009 and 2020. See 2013 Annual Demonstration Report at p. 40, Table 18 (“SIPCreditable Incentive-Based Emission Reductions for On-Road Trucks”). Additionally, the Data 

Sheet indicates that 853 of these 1243 projects subject to Prop 1B funds have a project life 

ending after December 31, 2016 and will, therefore, continue to generate emission reductions 

 

CARB using incentive program guidelines at the time of contracting. Such actions include, but are not limited to, 

replacements, retrofits, new purchases, new practices, and repower.”

17 In the absence of specific identification of the applicable guidelines in the Contingency Measure SIP (see 

n. 3, supra), EPA focused its evaluation on specified portions of these three guidelines because they contain 

program criteria that adequately support the incentive-based emission reductions relied upon in the Contingency 

Measure SIP. In any future SIP that relies on incentive-based emission reductions quantified pursuant to the 

requirements of Rule 9610, we expect the District will identify the specific types of projects relied upon to generate 

the emission reductions and the specific incentive program guidelines that apply to those projects, together with a 

detailed demonstration that those guidelines (or relevant portions thereof) satisfy the four fundamental integrity 

elements, as discussed herein and identified in Attachment A and Attachment B to this TSD. In subsequent annual 

demonstration reports, the District must then specify the individual projects relied upon to achieve those emission 

reductions. See Rule 9610, section 4.5.

18 In the Data Sheet, these Prop 1B projects are listed under the following columns: (1) Component: “OnRoad Prop 1B”; (2) Component Option: “Vehicle Replacement” or “Vehicle Replacement 2 for 1”; and (3) 

Applicable Guideline: “Prop 1B 2008” and “Prop 1B 2010.” EPA has compiled these Prop 1B projects into a 

separate document which identifies each project by its unique “project identification” code and information 

regarding the emission reductions it will achieve over its lifetime, in tons. See Attachment A (“Prop 1B: On-Road 

Vehicle Replacement projects achieving emission reductions through 2015”). 

19 For each individual project, EPA calculated the NOx and PM emission reductions (in tons per day), 

respectively, by dividing each of the “NOx Lifetime Reduced Adjusted Percent Operation (tons)” and “PM Lifetime 

Reduced Adjusted Percent Operation (tons)” figures by the corresponding “Project Life” (in days). The sum of the 

NOx emission reductions for all identified projects is 3.78 tpd, and the sum of the PM reductions for all identified 

projects is 0.15 tpd. See Memorandum dated July 22, 2013 from Idalia Perez to File.

20 California uses the term “reactive organic gases” (ROGs) to refer generally to volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) as defined in 40 CFR § 51.100(s).
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 28

through at least the end of 2016. See Attachment A (“Prop 1B: On-Road Vehicle Replacement 

projects achieving emission reductions through 2015”) and Memorandum dated July 22, 2013

from Idalia Perez to File. These funded projects are expected to achieve 2.35 tpd of NOx

reductions and 0.09 tpd of PM reductions in 2016. See id. and 2013 Annual Demonstration 

Report at p. 40, Table 18. 

Similarly, the Data Sheet identifies 675 “off-road vehicle replacement” projects funded 

through the Carl Moyer Program that have a “project life” ending on or after January 1, 2021 and 

therefore will continue to achieve emission reductions well past the end of 2015.21 Collectively, 

these 675 funded projects are projected to achieve 1.23 tpd of NOx reductions and 0.06 tpd of 

PM reductions in 2015.22 These totals are consistent with the emission reduction estimates for 

2015 provided in Table 13 of the 2013 Annual Demonstration Report, which identifies the total 

reductions, in tpd, of NOx, PM and ROGs that the District expects will be achieved by Carl 

Moyer Program projects related to off-road vehicle replacement between 2009 and 2020. See 

2013 Annual Demonstration Report at p. 37, Table 13 (“SIP-Creditable Incentive-Based 

Emission Reductions for Off-Road Compression-Ignition Equipment Replacement Claimed 

Pursuant to Section 3.1”). All of these projects are expected to continue achieving ERs through 

at least 2021. See Attachment B (“Carl Moyer Program: Off-Road Vehicle Replacement projects 

achieving emission reductions through 2015”) and Memorandum dated July 22, 2013 from Idalia 

Perez to File.

Although Chapter 9 of the 2011 Carl Moyer Program guideline contains several 

provisions allowing for case-by-case determinations,

23 we understand that the District’s 2015 

emission reduction estimates for Carl Moyer projects in Table 13 of the 2013 Annual 

Demonstration Report do not rely on any projects subject to case-by-case determinations, as such 

determinations are not eligible for SIP credit unless reviewed through a public process and 

submitted to EPA as part of a SIP submission meeting the requirements of Rule 9610.24

 

21 In the Data Sheet, these Carl Moyer Program projects are listed under the following columns: (1) 

Component: “Off-Road”; (2) Component Option: “Vehicle Replacement”; and (3) Applicable Guideline: “Carl 

Moyer 2011.” EPA has compiled these Carl Moyer Program projects into a separate document which identifies each 

project by its unique “project identification” code and information regarding the emission reductions it will achieve

over its lifetime, in tons. See Attachment B to this TSD (“Carl Moyer Program: Off-Road Vehicle Replacement 

projects achieving emission reductions through 2015”).

22 For each individual project, EPA calculated the NOx and PM emission reductions (in tons per day), 

respectively, by dividing each of the “NOx Lifetime Reduced Adjusted Percent Operation (tons)” and “PM Lifetime 

Reduced Adjusted Percent Operation (tons)” figures by the corresponding “Project Life” (in days). The sum of the 

NOx emission reductions for all identified projects is 1.23 tpd, and the sum of the PM reductions for all identified 

projects is 0.06 tpd. See Memorandum dated July 22, 2013 from Idalia Perez to File.

23 See, e.g., “The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines,” approved April 28, 2011, Chapter 9 (Off-Road 

Equipment Replacement) at section C.1(C)(5) (“Project Life”). 

24 Rule 9610 specifically prohibits the use of any case-by-case determination to quantify emission 

reductions for SIP purposes “unless such determination is reviewed through a public process and submitted to EPA 

in accordance with Section 7.0 [of Rule 9610].” See Rule 9610 at section 3.2.2; see also 2013 Annual 

Demonstration Report at 11. Neither the 2013 Annual Demonstration Report nor the Contingency Measure SIP 

specifically identifies any case-by-case determination for EPA review.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 29

iii. The Four Integrity Elements

We have evaluated specific portions of the three incentive program guidelines identified 

above (the 2008 and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines25 and 2011 Carl Moyer Program guideline26) and 

believe, with one exception, that they provide for emission reductions that are quantifiable, 

surplus, enforceable, and permanent consistent with the requirements of the CAA as interpreted 

in EPA policy.27 The one exception is the option for the State to grant a longer project life on a 

case-by-case basis “if an applicant provides justifying documentation.” See, e.g., “The Carl 

Moyer Program Guidelines,” approved April 28, 2011, Chapter 9 (Off-Road Equipment 

Replacement) at section C.1(C)(5) (“Project Life”). This option to grant a longer project life on a 

case-by-case basis provides the State with broad discretion to extend the duration of emission 

reductions claimed from an equipment replacement project without any EPA oversight or public 

process. Because these case-by-case determinations could undermine the integrity of the program 

(e.g., by undermining EPA’s ability to limit SIP credit to the period during which the emission 

reductions are “surplus” to other requirements), EPA cannot grant SIP credit for emission 

reductions from projects subject to such a determination unless the District submits the 

individual determination for EPA review and approval through the SIP process. With the limited 

exception of these provisions regarding case-by-case determinations,

28 the portions of the 

identified program guidelines that we have reviewed establish clear criteria that enable the 

District to quantify the emission reductions attributed to specified projects with a reasonable 

level of accuracy; verify that those emission reductions are “surplus” in accordance with section 

2.27 of Rule 961029; enforce the conditions of program grants to ensure that contracted emission 

reductions are achieved; and monitor the continuing implementation of program grants to ensure 

that emission reductions are “permanent” throughout the life of each project. We describe our 

evaluations in more detail below.

 

25 See “Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program, Final Guidelines for 

Implementation,” adopted February 28, 2008 (relevant excerpts available on EPA’s docket for this rulemaking) and 

“Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program, Final 2010 Guidelines for Implementation,” 

adopted March 25, 2010 (relevant excerpts available on EPA’s docket for this rulemaking).

26 See “The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines,” approved April 28, 2011 (relevant excerpts available on 

EPA’s docket for this rulemaking).

27 EPA has reviewed only the identified portions of these three incentive program guidelines for the 

purpose of determining whether the Contingency Measure SIP satisfies the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) 

and is not, at this time, proposing to reach any conclusion regarding other portions not specifically addressed in this 

TSD.

28 EPA understands that none of the Carl Moyer Program projects relied upon in the Contingency Measure 

SIP are subject to case-by-case determinations. See Section b.ii above (“Applicable Incentive Program Guidelines 

and Projects”).

29 Section 2.27 of Rule 9610 defines the term “surplus” as follows: “for purposes of this rule, emission 

reductions are surplus when they are not otherwise required by any federal, state, or local regulation, or other legal 

mandate, and are in excess of the baseline emission inventories underlying a SIP attainment demonstration.” 
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 30

Prop 1B Overview

California voters approved Proposition 1B in November 2006, authorizing the 

Legislature to appropriate $1 billion in bond funding to the Air Resources Board (ARB) to 

reduce air pollution emissions and health risks from freight movement along California’s priority 

trade corridors. See “Proposition 1B Program: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program, 

Final 2013 Guidelines for Implementation,” adopted January 25, 2013, at pp. 1-12.

30 The State 

bills that created the Program are codified in the California Health and Safety Code, section 

39625 et seq. By statute, the Program can only fund emission reductions not otherwise required 

by law or regulation. CARB awards grants following the program guidelines to fund projects 

proposed by local agencies, including the SJVUAPCD, that are involved in freight movement or 

air quality improvements associated with goods movement activities. CARB staff developed the 

initial Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program Guidelines for 

Implementation (Guidelines) in consultation with stakeholders, including: air districts, 

metropolitan planning organizations, port authorities, shipping lines, railroad companies, 

trucking companies, harbor craft owners, freight distributors, terminal operators, local port 

community advisory groups, community interest groups, and airports. When the CARB

Governing Board adopted the initial Guidelines in 2008, the Board directed CARB staff to 

reassess those Guidelines following each appropriation of funding. Updates to the Guidelines are 

based on evaluating advances in technology, changes in equipment costs, regulatory actions, 

demand for Program funds, and other new information that influences the design of project 

specifications. The process involves the release of a concept paper and workshops to obtain 

feedback from stakeholders. See id.

Prop 1B Enforceable 

Specific funding criteria established in the Prop 1B program guidelines ensure that 

emission reductions claimed for these projects will be independently verifiable and practicably 

enforceable consistent with EPA policy. The CARB Governing Board holds a noticed public 

hearing to consider recommendations for funding local agency projects. The Board’s funding 

decisions become legally enforceable by CARB through executed grant agreements between

CARB and the selected local agencies. The requirements for these grant agreements are in: 

 Section II.D.10, Local Agency Project Grant Agreement, of the 2008 guidelines.

 Section II.E.10, Local Agency Grant Agreement, of the 2010 guidelines.

These sections include requirements that the local agency complete equipment project 

pre-inspections and post-inspections. This requirement ensures that equipment information 

provided by the project owner is consistent with actual operating equipment and that the existing 

equipment is in working condition. Additional requirements for pre-inspections including 

verification of usage and requirements for photographic confirmation of the equipment are in: 

 

30 Available at

http://www.arb.ca.gov/bonds/gmbond/docs/prop_1b_goods_movement_2013_program_guidelines_for_implementat

ion.pdf
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 31

 Section III.D.8, Equipment Project Contracts, of the 2008 guidelines.

 Section IV.A.10, Equipment Project Pre-Inspections, of the 2010 guidelines.

Prop 1B funding is obligated by the SJVUPACD for each project by contracts between 

the District and the equipment owner. The requirements for these contracts, which are legally 

enforceable by the SJVUAPCD, are in:

 Section III.D.10, Equipment Project Contracts, of the 2008 guidelines.

 Section IV.A.11, Equipment Project Contracts, of the 2010 guidelines.

These sections of the Prop 1B guidelines include general requirements for recordkeeping, 

reporting, audits and other verification mechanisms that all project contracts must contain, 

including provisions requiring equipment owners to agree to the installation and use of an 

electronic monitoring device at any time during the contract term. Contract non-performance 

provisions per these sections of the guidelines specify some of the actions that would constitute a 

breach of contract as well as remedies for non-performance, including cancellation of the 

contract and recovery of all or a portion of Program funds. 

Additional requirements specific to truck replacements are in:

 2008 Prop 1B guidelines, Appendix A, Trucks Serving Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards, 

and Appendix B, Other Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks, Section C, Recordkeeping 

Requirements, Section D, Annual Reporting Requirements, and Section E, Ongoing 

Evaluation and Audits.

 2010 Prop 1B guidelines, Appendix A, Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks, Section E, PostInspection, Section F, Recordkeeping Requirements, and Section G, Annual Reporting 

Requirements.

Annual reporting requirements for heavy duty diesel replacement projects in these 

portions of the Prop 1B guidelines include but are not limited to: 

 Current odometer reading, including the date read.

 Certification of annual California VMT since last report.

 Certification of the required percent operation in California.

 Certification of at least 50 percent of travel within the four California trade corridors as 

well as provide the percentage of annual VMT in the Central Valley trade corridor.

Finally, failure to comply with the terms of a project contract may result in:

 Recovery of all or a portion of Program funds. 

 Other fiscal penalties on equipment owners based on the severity of the nonperformance. 

 Cancellation of the contract. 

 A ban on the equipment owner’s ability to participate in future State incentive programs.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 32

 Prohibiting a specific piece of equipment from participating in another State incentive 

program. 

These provisions are in:

 2008 Prop 1B guidelines, Section IV.G, Equipment Project Non-Performance.

 2010 Prop 1B guidelines, Section VI.I, Equipment Project Non-Performance.

These criteria for on-road vehicle replacement projects funded through the 2008 and 2010 

Prop 1B guidelines ensure that actions required of grantees are independently verifiable; program 

violations are defined; those liable can be identified; and the District may apply penalties and 

secure appropriate corrective action where applicable. Additionally, the District has submitted an 

enforceable commitment to (1) account for its claimed emission reductions through annual 

demonstration reports pursuant to Rule 9610, and (2) adopt and submit substitute rules and 

measures in the event of a shortfall in emission reductions. See Section iv below (“The District’s 

Enforceable Commitments”). These commitments, which will become federally enforceable 

upon EPA’s approval of the Contingency Measure SIP, ensure that citizens and EPA will have 

access to all emissions-related information obtained from the sources. We find these provisions 

adequate to meet the enforceability criterion as defined in EPA guidance and in section 2.8 of 

SJVUAPCD Rule 9610.

Prop 1B Quantifiable

The Prop 1B Program Guidelines direct CARB staff to develop and make publicly 

available a “Project Benefits Calculator” to determine the emission reductions achieved by 

funded projects. See 2008 and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines, Section II.C.2.b, Project Benefits 

Calculator. According to the “directions” document for this Project Benefits Calculator 

(“Directions Document”),31 emission factors for diesel heavy duty trucks are based on in-use 

testing of Class 7 and Class 8 diesel trucks. See Directions Document at p. 7. The emission 

factors are the same ones used for California’s On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use) 

Regulation and used in EMFAC2011, which EPA has approved for use in California SIPs and 

transportation conformity demonstrations (78 FR 14533, March 6, 2013). The publicly available 

Project Benefits Calculator uses vehicle miles traveled, which must be recorded and reported as 

explained above in the “Prop 1B Enforceable” section, together with emission factors obtained 

from the On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use) Regulation, to determine emissions. See 

Directions Document at pp. 4-7. Existing vehicle usage is based on vehicle activity data for the 

past two years. See 2008 Prop 1B guidelines, Appendices A and B, Section F, Application 

Information; 2010 Prop 1B guidelines, Appendix A, Section C, Application Information.

 

31 See “Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program, Directions: Benefits Calculators,” 

March 17, 2011, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/bonds/gmbond/docs/prop_1b_goods_movement_2008-

09_calculator_directions.pdf.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 33

Using engine-specific inputs obtained from the Annual Demonstration Report Data Sheet 

and the “Project Benefits Calculator” for the Prop 1B 2010 Guidelines,

32 we calculated the 

“lifetime” NOx and PM emission reductions for a specific replacement engine and confirmed that 

the resulting totals are consistent with the emission reduction totals provided for this engine in 

the Data Sheet. Specifically, we obtained information about Project C-14625-A (unit 1) from the 

Data Sheet, such as the model year and fuel type of the old engine and the gross vehicle weight 

rating (GVWR) for the old and new engines (see Table E-10 below), and entered those data into 

the “data input” tab in the Project Benefits Calculator. Based on these inputs, the “lifetime” 

emission reductions calculated by the Project Benefits Calculator for this unit are 9.42 tons of 

NOx and 0.33 tons of PM, consistent with the “lifetime” emission totals in the Data Sheet.33 We 

then adjusted these emission reduction totals to account for the percentage of its operations that 

the engine spends within the San Joaquin Valley (20%), which results in 1.88 tons of NOx and 

0.07 tons of PM. Accordingly, the “lifetime” emission reductions for this particular engine are 

1.88 tons of NOx and 0.07 tons of PM. See Data Sheet, row 3515 at column N (“NOx Lifetime 

Reduced Adjusted Percent Operations (tons)”) and column P (“PM Lifetime Reduced Adjusted 

Percent Operations (tons)”).34

Table E-10

Project Information for Prop 1B Sample Calculation

Project Identification C-14625-A

Unit Number 1

Applicable Guideline Prop 1B 2010

Implementation Date (First Year of 

Operation) 11/01/12

Component Option Vehicle Replacement

Drayage Status No

Old Engine Year 1997

Old GVWR 52000

Annual Miles (VMT) 99699

Fuel Type Baseline Diesel

New GVWR 50000

 

32 Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/bonds/gmbond/docs/prop_1b_goods_movement_2008-

09_trucks_calculator.xlsx

33 The Project Benefits Calculator calculates the “lifetime” emission reduction in pounds, which we then 

multiplied by 0.0005 (1 ton per 2000 pounds) to obtain the equivalent tonnage. 

34 We divided these lifetime emission reductions totals by the “project life” (in days) to obtain the SIPcreditable emission reductions for this engine on a ton per day basis. See n. 19, supra.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 34

Table E-10

Project Information for Prop 1B Sample Calculation

Project Identification C-14625-A

NOx Cert Values 0.2

Project Life (years) 5

Percent Operation SJV 20

By providing for well-established, publicly available emission factors and calculation 

methods and requiring that grantees record and report activity data to the District on an annual 

basis, the 2008 and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines ensure that emission reductions from on-road 

vehicle replacement projects funded through these guidelines can be determined using reliable 

and replicable methods. We find these provisions adequate to meet the criterion for emission 

reductions to be “quantifiable,” as defined in EPA guidance and in section 2.23 of SJVUAPCD 

Rule 9610. As the inputs needed for the Project Benefits Calculator have changed over the years 

(e.g. the Calculator for the 2010 guidelines requires “NOx Cert Levels” which the previous 

version of the Calculator did not), we expect that future Annual Demonstration Reports will 

include all of the needed inputs for past and future Calculators, to ensure that the public can 

quantify the emission reductions for any given Prop 1B project. 

Prop 1B Surplus

Prop 1B Guidelines explicitly state that “Local agencies shall certify that the local agency 

project would achieve emission reductions not otherwise required by law or regulation,” which 

means that “the emission reductions are not required pursuant to any local, State, or federal law, 

rule, or regulation; any requirements imposed by the California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA); or any requirements imposed by a legal instrument such as a legal settlement or 

consent decree (collectively referred to as ‘law or regulation’).” See Section III.B.1, Legal 

Restrictions, of the 2008 and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines. 

Recordkeeping, reporting and application requirements described above in the “Prop 1B 

Enforceable” and “Prop 1B Quantifiable” sections ensure that historic and future emission 

estimates correctly represent emissions occurring in the San Joaquin Valley. Pre-inspection 

requirements discussed above in the “Prop 1B Enforceable” section ensure that the unit to be 

replaced is still in useable form and thus would not have been replaced by normal fleet turnover. 

These requirements ensure that emission reductions from normal fleet turnover that have already

been accounted for in the future baseline emission inventories underlying a SIP attainment 

demonstration are not treated as surplus. 

These provisions ensure that emission reductions attributed to On-Road Vehicle 

Replacement projects funded through the Prop 1B 2008 and 2010 guidelines are not required by 

any existing regulation or other legal mandate and are not accounted for in the future baseline 

inventories underlying a SIP. We find these provisions adequate to meet the criterion for 
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 35

emission reductions to be “surplus,” as defined in EPA guidance and in section 2.27 of 

SJVUAPCD Rule 9610.

Prop 1B Permanent

For Prop 1B truck replacement projects, two key types of requirements ensure that 

emission reductions are “permanent” for the life of the project: (1) requirements to demonstrate 

that both replaced (old) and replacement (new) equipment are used similarly in the San Joaquin 

Valley, and (2) requirements to document the destruction of the replaced equipment. The Prop 

1B guidelines require that the local agency ensure that old equipment is scrapped. The following 

sections delineate the procedures that must be implemented for all replacement projects, which 

include specifics of how the units shall be destroyed and documentation requirements to 

demonstrate that the unit replaced was destroyed:

 Section III.D.13, Equipment Project Scrap Requirements, of the 2008 guidelines.

 Section IV.A.14, Equipment Project Scrap Requirements, of the 2010 guidelines.

Additional scrapping requirements specific to each project option are in Section D, Scrap 

Requirements, of Appendix A of the 2010 guidelines. The information in these tables for the 

2010 guidelines is included in Section III.D.13 for the 2008 guidelines. 

Recordkeeping and reporting requirements discussed in the “Prop 1B Enforceable” 

section above (e.g., requirements to certify that at least 50 percent of travel is within the four 

California trade corridors and to provide the percentage of annual VMT in the Central Valley 

trade corridor) provide further documentation of the emission reductions from a Prop 1B truck 

replacement project which occur in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Finally, both the 2008 and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines require that each equipment project 

contract identify a “term of contract,” i.e., the project completion time plus the “equipment 

project life.” See 2008 Prop 1B guideline at section III.D.10 (“Equipment project contracts”) and 

2010 Prop 1B guideline at section IV.A.11 (“Equipment project contracts”). The term 

“equipment project life” is specifically defined in both guidelines as “the length of time an 

equipment owner is obligated (under an equipment project contract) to maintain and operate the 

bond-funded equipment according to the requirements of the Program.” See 2008 and 2010 Prop 

1B guidelines at table 1.4 (definitions). These contract provisions enable EPA and the public to 

evaluate the duration for which the District attributes emission reductions to a particular project 

and to determine whether that duration adequately covers the period for which the reductions are 

relied upon in a SIP. We find these provisions adequate to meet the criterion for emission 

reductions to be “permanent,” as defined in EPA guidance and in section 2.18 of SJVUAPCD 

Rule 9610.

Carl Moyer Program Overview

The Carl Moyer Program funds the incremental cost of cleaner-than-required sources of 

air pollution (e.g diesel engines) and has provided over $680 million in State and local funds to

reduce emission from over 24,000 engines in its first 12 years. See “The Carl Moyer Program 
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 36

Guidelines,” approved April 28, 2011, at Chapter 1 (“Program Overview”).35 CARB adopted the 

first set of Carl Moyer Program Guidelines in early 1999, and legislation (Assembly Bill (AB) 

1571) enacted in 1999 formally established the statutory framework for the program (Health & 

Safety Code § 44275, et seq). Multiple changes have been made since the original guidelines 

were developed, and CARB continues to update the program guidelines, following public 

processes, in response to legislative and regulatory changes and to ensure that emission 

reductions funded through the Carl Moyer Program are “real, surplus, quantifiable, and 

enforceable” consistent with the underlying statutory mandates. CARB is required to make 

proposed changes to the Guidelines available to the public at least 45 days prior to final adoption 

and is required to hold one public meeting to consider public comments before final adoption of 

any changes. The Carl Moyer Program is implemented through a partnership between CARB and 

local air districts. CARB manages program funds and distributes them to participating air 

districts for program implementation each year; develops and revises guidelines, protocols, and 

criteria for covered projects; and determines methodologies used for evaluating project costeffectiveness. Air districts follow the Moyer Guidelines to select, fund, and monitor projects in 

their areas. The Guidelines describe requirements for administrative procedures, eligibility 

criteria for projects in different source categories, cost-effectiveness criteria, and reporting 

practices. See id.

Chapter 9 of the 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Off-Road Equipment 

Replacement, describes the minimum requirements for mobile, self-propelled off-road 

compression-ignition (Off-Road CI) and large spark-ignition (LSI) equipment replacement 

projects funded through Carl Moyer Program grants. Below we describe how this chapter, in 

conjunction with program-wide requirements, ensures that the emission reductions generated 

from Off-Road CI engine replacements meet EPA’s four integrity criteria. Chapter 9 states that 

“All provisions regarding the in-use regulations described in Chapters 7 and 8: Off-Road 

Compression-Ignition Equipment and Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Equipment also apply in 

this chapter.” As such, we also evaluate provisions in chapters 7 and 8 that inform our 

assessment of Off-Road CI engine replacement projects funded through Carl Moyer in light of 

the four integrity elements. We are not evaluating LSI equipment replacement projects at this 

time.

 

35Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2011gl/2011cmpgl_3_27_13.pdf
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 37

Moyer Program Enforceable

Specific funding criteria established in the 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines ensure 

that emission reductions claimed for Off-Road CI engine replacement projects will be 

independently verifiable and practicably enforceable consistent with EPA policy. According to 

the Moyer Guidelines, once the SJVUAPCD has selected a project for funding through the 

Moyer Program, the District must execute contracts with the grantees who will receive funds 

under the Program. See 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines at Chapter 3, Section Z.1. The 

requirements for these contracts, which are legally enforceable by CARB and the SJVUAPCD, 

are contained in Chapter 3, Section Z, Minimum Contract Requirements, of the 2011 Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines. Section Z includes general requirements for recordkeeping, annual 

reporting, post-inspection, audits and other verification mechanisms that all project contracts 

must contain and also identifies specific types of “Repercussions for Nonperformance” that the 

District must include in each contract to address contract non-performance. Chapter 3, Section 

FF, Nonperforming Projects, discusses specific steps that the District must take with respect to 

“nonperforming project grantees” to ensure that emission reductions are achieved. Provisions in 

these sections of the guidelines specify some of the actions that would constitute a breach of 

contract as well as remedies for non-performance, including cancellation of the contract and 

recovery of all or a portion of Program funds.

Pre-inspections are also required for funded projects in Chapter 3 Section AA.1 of the 

guidelines. This requirement ensures information provided by the project owner is consistent 

with actual operating equipment and that the existing equipment is in working condition. 

Additional requirements for pre-inspections including verification of usage and requirements for 

photographic confirmation of the equipment are in Chapter 3 Section AA, Project PreInspection, of the guidelines.

In addition to the requirements for all projects funded through the Moyer program, 

Chapter 9 of the guidelines includes specific provisions that further ensure the emission 

reductions from Off-Road CI engine replacement projects funded pursuant to these guidelines 

are verifiable. The guidelines require that the grantee demonstrate that it owned and operated the 

old equipment in California for the previous two years (see Chapter 9, Section C.2(E)) and to 

verify the operational status of the equipment being replaced by providing two years of usage 

documentation (see Chapter 9, section C.2(F).) To verify the usage of the new equipment, the 

guidelines require that new replacement equipment have an installed and fully operational hour 

meter or that fuel logs or purchase receipts of fuel be kept. (see Chapter 9, Section C.3.(I).) 

These criteria for Off-Road CI engine replacement projects funded through the 2011 Carl 

Moyer Program Guidelines ensure that actions required of grantees are independently verifiable; 

program violations are defined; those liable can be identified; and the State and District may 

apply penalties and secure appropriate corrective action where applicable. Additionally, the 

District has submitted an enforceable commitment to (1) account for its claimed emission 

reductions through annual demonstration reports pursuant to Rule 9610, and (2) adopt and 

submit substitute rules and measures in the event of a shortfall in emission reductions. See 

Section iv below (“The District’s Enforceable Commitments”). These commitments, which will 

become federally enforceable upon EPA’s approval of the Contingency Measure SIP, ensure that 

citizens and EPA will have access to all emissions-related information obtained from the sources. 
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 38

We find these provisions adequate to meet the enforceability criterion as defined in EPA 

guidance and in section 2.8 of SJVUAPCD Rule 9610.

Moyer Program Quantifiable

Appendix C of the Moyer Guidelines contains the formulas used to determine annual 

emissions and annual emission reductions based on usage information, including options for 

using hours of operation, fuel consumption and miles traveled to determine annual usage. 

Appendix D, Tables for Emission Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness Calculations, of the 

Guidelines has tables containing the data needed to calculate the emission reductions of projects 

using formulas in Appendix C. Tables D-10 through D-12 contain the data needed to calculate 

emission reductions for Off-Road Diesel Projects, including Off-Road CI engine replacement 

projects. The data in these tables is based on certified emission standards and Tier designation 

for the engine from engine emission standards adopted by CARB and U.S. EPA through a public 

process. (See Chapter 7, Section D.1.(C).). The actual standards, in grams per kilowatt-hour 

(g/kW-hr), may be found in California Code of Regulations, title 13, sections 2449, et seq. The 

activity data reporting requirements discussed in the “Moyer Project Enforceability” section 

above, the formulas in Appendix C, Chapter 9 of the 2011 Moyer guidelines, and the supporting 

chapters provide for well-established, publicly available emission factors and calculation 

methods that ensure that emission reductions from Off-Road CI engine replacement projects 

funded pursuant to these guidelines can be determined using reliable and replicable methods.

Appendix C and Appendix D of the 2011 Carl Moyer Program guideline provide the 

methodology for calculating emission reductions from potential projects, using hours of 

operation, fuel consumption or miles traveled as activity factors. In Table E-11 below, we have 

calculated the emission reductions attributed to project C-8464-A (using project-specific 

information obtained from the Annual Demonstration Report Data Sheet). 

Table E-11

Project Information for Moyer Sample Calculation

Project Identification C-8464-A

Component Off-Road

Primary Function Agricultural Tractor

Project Life (years) 10

Applicable Guideline Carl Moyer 2011

Percent Operation SJV 100

NOx Lifetime (tons) 14.56

PM Lifetime (tons) 0.59

Annual Hours 700

Old Engine Year 1974
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 39

Table E-11

Project Information for Moyer Sample Calculation

Old Horsepower 282

Old Tier Uncontrolled

New Engine Year 2013

New Horsepower 350

New Tier 4A

Formula C-6 in Appendix C (see Appendix C at p. C-5) is used to calculate annual 

emissions within the San Joaquin Valley based on hours of operation: 

Emission = EF * hp * LF* Activity * Percent Operation in the San Joaquin Valley * 

(1/907,200)

where

Emission = tons per year calculated independently for both the existing and replacement 

engines

EF = Emission Factor in grams per brake horsepower-hour, obtained from Table D-11 for

the existing engine and Table D-12 for the replacement engine (see Appendix D at 

pp. D-12 and D-13)

hp = horsepower of the engine

LF = Load Factor, obtained from Table D-10 (Appendix D at p. D-10)

Activity = hours per year

First, because the primary function of the engine is “agricultural tractor,” the load factor 

is 0.7 (see Table D-10, Appendix D at p. D-10). Second, because the existing uncontrolled 

engine has a model year between 1970 and 1979, and a horsepower greater than 120, the existing 

engine’s emission factors in g/bhp-hr are 11.16 for NOx and 0.396 for PM10 (see Table D-11, 

Appendix D at p. D-12). Finally, because the replacement engine has a horsepower between 300 

and 750 and is certified to Tier 4 Phase-In/Alternate NOx standards, the replacement engine’s 

emission factors in g/bhp-hr are 1.29 for NOx and 0.008 for PM10 (see Table D-12, Appendix D 

at p. D-14). Using these inputs, we calculate the NOx emissions from the existing engine as 

follows:

NOx Emission (existing) = 11.16 (g/bhp-hr) * 282 (bhp)* 0.7 * 700 (hrs)* 1 * 

(tons /907,200 g)

NOx Emission (existing) = 1.700 tons/year
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 40

Similarly, we calculate the NOx emissions for the replacement engine to be 0.244 

tons/year. The difference between these two emissions is the annual surplus emission reduction 

for the project (see Formula C-13, Appendix C at p. C-12):

Annual emission reductions = 1.70 tons/year – 0.24 tons/year = 1.456 tons/year. 

Since the lifetime of the project is ten years, the lifetime NOx emission reductions are 

14.56, consistent with the lifetime NOx reduction total for this project in the Data Sheet. A 

similar calculation using the PM10 emission factors yields a lifetime emission reduction of PM10

of 0.59 tons consistent with the lifetime PM10 reduction total for this project in the Data Sheet. 

See Data Sheet, row 1932 at column N (“NOx Lifetime Reduced Adjusted Percent Operations 

(tons)”) and column P (“PM Lifetime Reduced Adjusted Percent Operations (tons)”).36

By providing for well-established, publicly available emission factors and calculation 

methods and requiring that grantees record and annually report activity data to the District, the 

2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines ensure that emission reductions from Off-Road CI engine 

replacement projects funded through these guidelines can be determined using reliable and 

replicable methods. We find these provisions adequate to meet the criterion for emission 

reductions to be “quantifiable,” as defined in EPA guidance and in section 2.23 of SJVUAPCD 

Rule 9610. 

Moyer Program Surplus

Chapter 2 of the Moyer Guidelines specifies that emission reductions “must not be 

required by any federal, state or local regulation, memorandum of agreement/understanding, 

settlement agreement, mitigation requirement, or other legal mandate” (see Chapter 2, Section 

A). The guidelines also state that “rule approval date (or the promulgation date of a federal 

regulation) represents the cutoff date by which a Carl Moyer Program project contract must be 

fully executed, without needing to consider the rule in evaluating the surplus nature of the 

project’s emission reductions. After that date, the new rule must be considered in the evaluation 

of a project’s eligibility” (see Chapter 2, Section B). 

Chapter 9 requires that the replacement equipment is functionally equivalent to new 

equipment to help ensure that new equipment is surplus. The guidelines require that replacement 

equipment serve the same function and perform the same work as the old equipment (see Section 

C.3.(B)) and documentation must be provided to verify this (see Section C.3.(D)). Additionally, 

the guidelines require that the horsepower rating for the replacement engine not be greater than 

125 percent of the original manufacturer rated hp (baseline hp) for the old (existing) equipment 

engine (see Section C.3.(D)). These requirements are designed to ensure that the new equipment 

is replacing an existing (higher-polluting) piece of equipment that is currently being used, instead 

of expanding a fleet.

For projects subject to California’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, Chapter 

9 specifies that “no emission reductions achieved from a funded program can count towards a 

fleet’s regulatory requirements for the duration of the project life” (see Section C.7.(C)). If 

 

36 We divided these lifetime emission reductions totals by the “project life” (in days) to obtain the SIPcreditable emission reductions for this engine on a ton per day basis. See n. 22, supra.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 41

subject to this regulation, the guidelines require that the grantee submit data to determine if old 

equipment or equipment to be repowered is registered in the Off-road In-Use regulations 

reporting system (see Section C.2.(D)). Additionally, Sections C.7.(E) through C.7.(G) specify 

years through which funding is available based on the compliance deadline in the In-Use OffRoad Diesel Vehicle Regulation. 

Recordkeeping and reporting requirements described above in the “Moyer Project 

Enforceability” and “Moyer Project Quantifiable” sections ensure that historic and future 

emission estimates correctly represent emissions occurring in the San Joaquin Valley. Preinspection requirements described in the “Moyer Project Enforceability” section ensure that the 

unit to be replaced is still in useable form and thus would not have been replaced by normal fleet 

turnover. These requirements ensure that emission reductions from normal fleet turnover that 

have already been accounted for in the future baseline emission inventories underlying a SIP 

attainment demonstration are not treated as surplus. 

These provisions ensure that emission reductions attributed to Off-Road CI engine 

replacement projects funded pursuant to the 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines are not 

required by any existing regulation or other legal mandate and are not accounted for in the future 

baseline inventories underlying a SIP. We find these provisions adequate to meet the criterion for 

emission reductions to be “surplus,” as defined in EPA guidance and in section 2.27 of 

SJVUAPCD Rule 9610. 

Moyer Program Permanent

For Carl Moyer Off-Road CI engine replacement projects, two key types of requirements 

ensure that emission reductions are “permanent” for the life of the project: (1) requirements to 

demonstrate that both replaced (old) and replacement (new) equipment are used similarly in the

San Joaquin Valley, and (2) requirements to document the destruction of the replaced equipment. 

The post inspection requirements of Moyer include a requirement that the “District must verify 

that the existing (old) engine is destroyed and rendered permanently unusable and irreparable.”

See Chapter 2, Section BB. In addition to the program-wide requirements for scrapping in 

Moyer, Section C.4.(C) of Chapter 9 further requires that the old equipment must be destroyed 

within 60 days of being replaced. 

Recordkeeping and reporting requirements discussed in the “Moyer Project 

Enforceability” section above (e.g., the requirement that the grantee demonstrate that it owned 

and operated the old equipment in California for the previous two years) provide further 

documentation of the emission reductions from an Off-Road CI engine replacement project that 

occur in the San Joaquin Valley.

Finally, the 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines require that each contract executed 

with a grantee identify a “contract term” which must include two time frames – “project 

completion” and “project implementation” – to ensure that the District and CARB can fully 

enforce the contract during the life of the Carl Moyer Program-funded project. See 2011 Carl 

Moyer Program Guidelines at Chapter 3, Section Z.5 (“Contract Term”). These contract 

provisions enable EPA and the public to evaluate the duration for which the District attributes 

emission reductions to a particular Off-Road CI engine replacement project and to determine 

whether that duration adequately covers the period for which the reductions are relied upon in a 
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 42

SIP. We find these provisions adequate to meet the criterion for emission reductions to be 

“permanent,” as defined in EPA guidance and in section 2.18 of SJVUAPCD Rule 9610.

iv. The District’s Enforceable Commitments

We have evaluated the Board commitments submitted as part of the Contingency 

Measure SIP and find that they establish clear obligations on the District’s part to monitor, 

assess, and report on program implementation and actual emission reductions achieved and to 

remedy any emission reduction shortfalls in a timely manner, consistent with EPA policy. 

Specifically, Board Resolution No. 13-6-18 contains two key components designed to ensure that 

the 4.15 tpd of NOx reductions and 0.10 tpd of PM2.5 reductions claimed in the District’s 

Contingency Measure SIP are enforceable under the CAA. 

Commitment to monitor, assess, and report on emission reductions achieved

The first key component is a commitment to “account for” these emission reductions “in 

annual demonstration reports pursuant to the requirements of Rule 9610.” SJVUAPCD Board 

Resolution No. 13-6-18 at p. 3. Rule 9610 specifically requires the District to submit to EPA, no 

later than August 31 of each year, an “annual demonstration report” that includes the following 

elements: (1) identification of SIP-creditable emission reductions generated through incentive 

programs implemented in the preceding year(s), summarized by pollutant, years that the 

emission reductions occur (project life), cost effectiveness, funding amount, incentive program 

guideline, and project type; (2) identification of SIP commitment(s) that the District has satisfied, 

in whole or in part, through SIP-creditable emission reductions from the identified incentive 

programs; (3) identification and quantification of SIP commitment shortfalls, if any, and 

remedies for addressing said shortfalls; (4) detailed information about each specific project 

achieving SIP-creditable emission reductions, e.g., unique project identification numbers, 

implementation dates, applicable incentive program guideline(s), and quantified emission 

reductions per year and aggregated over the project life, by pollutant; and (5) a summary of 

monitoring and enforcement activities conducted during the reporting period for incentive 

projects for which SIP-creditable emission reductions are being claimed. See Rule 9610, sections 

4.1- 4.6 and 5.0. 

We note that the District’s 2013 Annual Demonstration Report, which we reviewed as 

part of our evaluation of the incentive-based emission reductions in the Contingency Measure 

SIP, does not provide all of the information required under Section 4.0 of Rule 9610. See e.g.,

Rule 9610, section 4.5.8 (requiring that each annual demonstration report contain “quantified 

emission reductions per year . . . by pollutant” for each project relied upon for SIP credit). These 

deficiencies in the 2013 Annual Demonstration Report do not affect our current evaluation of the 

Board commitments submitted with the Contingency Measure SIP, given the District submitted 

the 2013 Annual Demonstration Report primarily for informational purposes together with other 

supporting materials, which as a whole provide an adequate technical basis for EPA’s evaluation 

of the incentive-based emission reductions in the Contingency Measure SIP. Going forward, 

however, SJVUAPCD Board Resolution No. 13-6-18 obligates the District to account for the 

District’s claimed incentive-based emission reductions in the Contingency Measure SIP through 

annual demonstration reports that satisfy the requirements of Rule 9610, and we encourage the 

District to consult with EPA through its development of the 2014 Annual Demonstration Report 

to ensure that it fully satisfies these Board commitments. 
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 43

Commitment to a timely remedy

The second key component is a commitment to adopt and submit to EPA, no later than 

December 31, 2016, “substitute rules and measures that will achieve equivalent emission 

reductions as expeditiously as practicable and no later than any applicable implementation 

deadline in the CAA or EPA’s implementing regulations,” if there is a shortfall in emission 

reductions. SJVUAPCD Board Resolution No. 13-6-18 at p. 3. Consistent with this commitment, 

EPA expects the District to confirm as part of its 2014 and 2015 Annual Demonstration Reports 

whether the claimed 4.15 tpd of NOx reductions and 0.10 tpd of PM2.5 reductions are expected to 

occur in 2015 as projected, and to provide the basis for its conclusion – e.g., information about 

actual program participation rates, actual reported activity data, project audits, usage reports, and 

other project monitoring activities consistent with the requirements of Rule 9610, section 4.0. If 

the District finds that there may be a shortfall in the claimed emission reductions for 2015, the 

District will be required to identify in its 2014 or 2015 Annual Demonstration Report both the 

estimated amount of the SIP shortfall (in tons per day, by pollutant) and the specific remedy to 

be implemented in the event of a shortfall – i.e., the substitute rules and measures that will 

achieve equivalent emission reductions, to be submitted to EPA no later than December 31, 

2016. See Rule 9610, section 4.4 (“The District shall identify and quantify SIP commitment 

shortfalls, if any, and remedies for addressing said shortfalls” as part of the annual demonstration 

report). Finally, EPA expects the District’s 2016 Annual Demonstration Report will either 

confirm that the claimed 4.15 tpd of NOx reductions and 0.10 tpd of PM2.5 reductions actually 

occurred in 2015 as projected or identify and quantify the specific SIP shortfalls and specific 

remedies to be implemented consistent with the District’s commitment. Any conclusion that the 

District’s claimed 4.15 tpd of NOx reductions and 0.10 tpd of PM2.5 reductions actually occurred 

in 2015 must be supported by documentation of actual emissions, based on historical annual 

usage (i.e., reported activity data), actual program participation rates, project audits, and other 

information consistent with the requirements of sections 4.0 – 4.6 of Rule 9610.

These Board commitments obligate the District to monitor, assess, and report on program 

implementation and actual emission reductions achieved and, ultimately, enable EPA to 

determine whether the District’s claimed emission reductions (4.15 tpd of NOx reductions and 

0.10 tpd of PM2.5 reductions) actually occurred in 2015. Should EPA find, based on the 2014 or 

2015 Annual Demonstration Report, that the District’s claimed 4.15 tpd of NOx reductions and 

0.10 tpd of PM2.5 reductions may not occur in 2015 as projected, EPA will promptly notify the 

District of its potential obligation to adopt and submit substitute rules and measures consistent 

with its Board commitment no later than December 31, 2016, so that the District has ample time 

to develop and adopt such rules/measures consistent with this deadline. Subsequently, should 

EPA determine that the SJV area has failed to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date of April 5, 2015, the District will be obligated to verify through its next annual 

report to EPA (i.e., the 2016 Annual Demonstration Report) whether the 4.15 tpd of NOx

reductions and 0.10 tpd of PM2.5 reductions identified in the Contingency Measure SIP occurred

in 2015, and if not, to adopt and submit substitute rules and measures to EPA consistent with its 

Board commitment no later than December 31, 2016. 

Based on our evaluation of the District’s commitments regarding the Carl Moyer 

Program and Prop 1B and related technical documentation provided by the District in its SIP 

submission, we propose to find that the 2015 emission reductions associated with these specific 
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 44

incentive programs satisfy the statutory criteria for SIP credit and to approve these emission 

reductions as attainment contingency measures for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. Upon

EPA’s final approval of the Contingency Measure SIP, these Board commitments will become 

federally enforceable under sections 113 and 304 of the CAA, and the District will be obligated 

to monitor, assess, and report to EPA on implementation of the Carl Moyer Program and Prop 

1B program grants with respect to the specific projects identified herein. See Attachment A to 

this TSD (“Prop 1B: On-Road Vehicle Replacement projects achieving emission reductions 

through 2015”) and Attachment B to this TSD (“Carl Moyer Program: Off-Road Vehicle 

Replacement projects achieving emission reductions through 2015”). 

c. Substitution of Direct PM2.5 Reductions for NOx Reductions

To demonstrate that it provides for sufficient NOx reductions to meet the contingency 

measure requirement, the District is relying in part on trading excess reductions of direct PM2.5

for NOx reductions. The District estimated, based on monitored air quality over the past five 

winter seasons, that triggering the contingency provision in its woodburning rule would reduce 

direct PM2.5 emissions by a further 3.12 tpd. See Contingency Measure SIP, p. 6. This level of 

reduction exceeds the 2.5 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions needed to meet the CAA contingency 

requirement for this pollutant by 0.62 tpd. Taking into account the 0.1 tpd of direct PM2.5

reductions from incentive programs, the District proposes to convert the total amount of surplus 

direct PM2.5 reductions (0.72 tpd) into NOx reductions at a ratio of 9 tons of NOx for each ton of 

direct PM2.5. Based on this PM2.5 to NOx conversion, the District concluded that a 0.72 tpd 

reduction in direct PM2.5 emissions has the same ambient air quality impact as a 6.48 tpd 

reduction in NOx emissions. Id.

Documentation for this NOx:PM2.5 ratio is found in Appendix A to the Contingency 

Measure SIP, in supplemental information provided in the CARB letter submitting the 

Contingency Measures SIP,37 and in the EPA memorandum38 which summarizes additional 

information provided to EPA by CARB verbally and via electronic mail. Using the Community 

Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling application underlying the attainment demonstration 

in the SJV PM2.5 Plan,

39 in two separate runs CARB simulated an additional 10 percent reduction 

in modeling domain NOx emissions and in direct PM2.5 emissions. The modeling domain 

emissions totals were 235.4 tons/day of NOx and 126.4 tons/day of direct PM2.5; the 10 percent 

thus represented reductions of 23.5 and 12.6 tons/day, of NOx and direct PM2.5 respectively. For 

the three monitors with the highest PM2.5 concentrations in the SJV, the modeled ambient PM2.5

design value effect of each reduction was divided by the respective emissions change. This 

calculation gave a concentration change per emissions change, or effectiveness for each 

 

37 Letter dated July 3, 2013 from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, July 3, 2013.

38 Memorandum dated August 13, 2013from Scott Bohning, EPA Region 9, to File for docket EPA-R09-

OAR-2013-0534, San Joaquin Valley action, Subject: Contingency precursor effectiveness ratio using additional 

information. This memorandum can be found in the docket for this proposal.

39 EPA approved this air quality modeling as part of its approval of the attainment demonstration in the SJV 

PM2.5 Plan. See 76 FR 41338, 41349 and 76 FR 69896, 69924.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 45

pollutant. Finally, the direct PM2.5 effectiveness was divided by the NOx effectiveness to arrive at 

a NOx:PM2.5 ratio for each monitor; the average of these is 9. 

As we noted in our 2011 proposed action on the SJV PM2.5 SIP (see 76 FR 41338, 

41349), this method appears to be adequate for purposes of assessing the effect of area-wide 

emissions changes, e.g., in the analyses used to address RFP, contingency measures, and 

conformity budgets.40 The method modeled “across the board” emission changes over the entire 

modeling domain. CARB’s submittal letter for the contingency Measure SIP notes that PM2.5

concentrations are highest in winter, and highest then in urban areas; reductions of direct PM2.5

emissions via residential wood burning restrictions would thus be especially effective at reducing 

these high concentrations. By contrast, NOx emissions, as well as NOx emission reductions, are 

more Valley-wide. Therefore, the CARB approach of simulating reductions over the full 

modeling domain tends to understate the benefit of direct PM2.5 reductions from curtailment of 

wood burning relative to regional NOx reductions on air quality in areas most likely to see high 

PM2.5 concentrations, and so in this case the 9:1 NOx to PM2.5 ratio gives a conservatively high 

estimate of the amount of direct PM2.5 emissions needed to substitute for a given amount of the 

NOx reductions required for attainment contingency measures. Therefore, EPA proposes to 

approve the use of this ratio for purposes of quantifying emission reductions to satisfy the CAA 

section 172(c)(9) attainment contingency measure requirement is met for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV.

Trading in other contexts could involve additional consideration of spatial and temporal 

variation of the emissions and would require an additional technical demonstration by the State 

and evaluation by EPA. EPA is not proposing to approve this trading ratio at this time for any 

purpose other than to address attainment contingency measures for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the SJV. This proposal does not affect our previous approval of the ratio for use in transportation 

conformity determinations (see 76 FR 69896, 69923).

d. Summary of Attainment Contingency Emission Reductions 

In sum, the Contingency Measure SIP identifies SIP-creditable attainment contingency 

measures that will achieve a total of 31.9 tpd of NOx, 2.5 tpd of direct PM2.5, and 3 tpd of SOx

reductions in 2015. These emission reductions equal or exceed one-year’s worth of RFP as 

calculated in EPA’s 2011 final action on the SJV PM2.5 SIP. See Table E-12 below. 

 

40 EPA approved the use of this NOx to PM2.5 interpollutant trading ratio in transportation conformity 

determinations for the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV and for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS but only until such 

time as EPA finds adequate or approves budgets developed specifically for the 2006 standards. See 76 FR 69896, 

69923 and 76 FR 41338, 41360 - 41361.
TSD for the Proposed Approval of SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP August 15, 2013

EPA- Region 9 Page 46

Table E-12

Summary of Emission Reductions for 

Attainment Contingency Measures

Tons per annual average day - 2015

Direct PM2.5 NOx SOx

Reductions from regulatory measures 

(Table E-9) 3.1 21.3 3

SIP-creditable incentives 0.1 4.2 —

PM2.5 reductions substituted for NOx -0.7 — —

NOx reductions from PM2.5 substitution — 6.5 —

Total contingency reductions achieved* 2.5 31.9 3

Contingency reductions required (1-year’s 

worth of RFP) 2.5 31.6 0.2

Contingency need met? Yes Yes Yes

* Totals may not sum due to rounding.

e. EPA’s Proposed Action on the Attainment Contingency Measures

Based on our evaluation, we are proposing to fully approve the Contingency Measure SIP 

as satisfying the attainment contingency measure requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area. All of the emission 

reductions relied on to meet the attainment contingency measure requirement are provided by 

control measures or incentive programs that are fully adopted under State law. These measures 

and programs provide SIP-creditable emission reductions that are not relied on in the SJV PM2.5

SIP to demonstrate RFP or attainment and provide for an appropriate level of continued emission 

reduction progress should the SJV area fail to attain by its statutory attainment date and 

necessitate additional planning.
The following attachments to this TSD are in the electronic file “Attachments to SJV CM 

Proposal TSD” which may be found in docket for this rulemaking (EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0534) 

on www.regulations.gov

Attachment A - Prop 1B: On-Road Vehicle Replacement projects achieving emission reductions 

through 2015

Attachment B - Carl Moyer Program: Off-Road Vehicle Replacement projects achieving 

emission reductions through 2015