The EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld signed the following 

proposed rule on June 12, 2013 and EPA is submitting it for publication in 

the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy 

of this Internet version of the proposed rule, it is not the official version 

of the final rule. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR 

publication appearing on the Government Printing Office’s FDsys website, 

http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action and on Regulation.gov in Docket 

Number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0384, http://www.regulations.gov.

Billing Code: 6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part52 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0384; FRL- ] 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; 

South Coast; Contingency Measures for 1997 PM2.5 Standards 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a state implementation 

plan (SIP) revision submitted by California to address Clean Air 

Act (CAA) contingency measure requirements for the 1997 annual 

and 24-hour national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in the Los Angeles-South Coast 

Air Basin (South Coast). Final approval of this SIP revision 

would terminate the sanctions clocks and a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) clock that were triggered by EPA’s 

partial disapproval of a related SIP submission on November 9, 

2011 (76 FR 69928). 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by [Federal Register Office 

insert date 30 days from publication in the Federal Register.]
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

2

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPAR09-OAR-2013-0384, by one of the following methods: 

· Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

· E-mail: lo.doris@epa.gov. 

· Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office of Air Planning (AIR2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or 

otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, 

and EPA will not know your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send 

e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your comments due to technical 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

3

difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for this action is 

available electronically on the www.regulations.gov website and 

in hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California, 94105. While all documents in the docket 

are listed in the index, some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material), and some may not be publicly available at either 

location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please 

schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the 

contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

Copies of the SIP materials are also available for 

inspection at the following locations: 

· California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, 

California 95814, and 

· South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. 

Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, Air Planning Office 

(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 

972-3959, lo.doris@epa.gov
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

4

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” 

and “our” refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of California Submittal 

III. EPA Review of the SIP Revision 

A. SIP Procedural Requirements 

B. Substantive Requirements for Contingency Measures 

C. Section 110(l) of the Act 

IV. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established new 

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5, 

particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, 

including annual standards of 15.0 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/m3 based 

on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. 40 CFR 50.7. Effective April 5, 2005, EPA 

designated the “Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin” in California 

(South Coast), including Orange County, the southwestern twothirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

5

County, and western Riverside County, as nonattainment for the 

1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards. See 70 FR 944 (January 

5, 2005) and 40 CFR 81.305.1 The local air district with primary 

responsibility for developing a plan to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

this area is the South Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD or District). 

California has made numerous SIP submittals to address the 

South Coast area’s nonattainment designation for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. The two principal ones are the SCAQMD’s “Final 2007 Air 

Quality Management Plan” (South Coast 2007 AQMP), submitted on 

November 28, 2007, and the California Air Resources Board’s 

(CARB’s) “State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan” (2007 State Strategy), submitted on 

November 16, 2007 and revised in 2009 and 2011 through CARB’s 

“2009 State Strategy Status Report” and “2011 Progress Report.” 

On November 9, 2011, EPA partially approved and partially 

disapproved the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State 

Strategy (collectively the “South Coast PM2.5 SIP”). 76 FR 

69928. As part of this action, EPA disapproved the contingency 

measure provisions in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP as failing to 

 

1 EPA has also designated the South Coast area as nonattainment for the more 

stringent 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 μg/m3, which EPA promulgated on October 17, 

2006 and codified in 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/m3 as 

codified in 40 CFR 50.7. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

6

meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 

51.1012, which require that the SIP for each PM2.5 nonattainment 

area contain contingency measures to be implemented if the area 

fails to make reasonable further progress (RFP) or to attain the 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. See 76 FR at 41578-

41580 (July 14, 2011) and 76 FR at 69947 (November 9, 2011). 

EPA found that the suggested contingency measures contained in 

the South Coast PM2.5 SIP did not meet the minimum CAA 

requirements because, among other things, the measures were not 

fully adopted and the District had failed to quantify the SIPcreditable emission reductions they would achieve. Id. 

As EPA explained in the proposed rule, contingency measures 

must be fully adopted rules or control measures that are ready 

to be implemented quickly without significant additional action 

by the State, must be measures not relied on in the plan to 

demonstrate RFP or attainment, and should provide SIP-creditable 

emissions reductions equivalent to one year of RFP. See 76 FR 

41652 (July 14, 2011) at 41578; see also “Final Technical 

Support Document and Response to Comments, Final Rulemaking 

Action on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM2.5 and the South 

Coast Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strategy,” Air 

Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, September 30, 2011 (“Final TSD for 

South Coast PM2.5 SIP”) at pp. 123-130. Additionally, the SIP 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

7

should contain trigger mechanisms for the contingency measures 

and specify a schedule for their implementation. Id. 

Although CARB’s 2011 Progress Report demonstrated that 

existing CARB mobile source measures would achieve 24 tons per 

day (tpd) of NOx reductions and 13 tpd of VOC reductions in 

2015, the year after the attainment year, EPA found that these 

measures alone were not adequate to satisfy the Act’s 

contingency measure requirements. See 76 FR at 41478-80 and 76 

FR at 69947-8, 69952. Specifically, EPA reviewed the 

information provided in the 2011 Progress Report and found that 

these post-attainment year emission reductions were not 

sufficient to achieve one year’s worth of RFP on a pollutantspecific basis.2 76 FR at 41579-41580. EPA also found that the 

South Coast PM2.5 SIP did not address the contingency measure 

requirement for the 2012 RFP year. Id. at Table 9. 

Accordingly, EPA disapproved the contingency measure provisions 

in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP for failure to satisfy the Act’s 

contingency measure requirements for the 2012 RFP year and for 

the 2015 attainment date. Id. at 41580 and 76 FR at 69952. 

II. Summary of California Submittal 

 

2 EPA estimated one year’s worth of RFP to be approximately 49 tpd of NOx, 29 

tpd of VOC, 0.7 tpd of direct PM2.5 and 3.8 tpd of SOx reductions. See Final 

TSD at Table I-2 (pg. 128). Thus, the 24 tpd of NOx reductions and 13 tpd of 

VOC reductions achieved in 2015 by CARB’s mobile source measures would amount 

to approximately half of those NOx and VOC measures needed to achieve one 

year’s worth of RFP reductions. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

8

On November 14, 2011, CARB submitted the “South Coast Air 

Quality Management District Proposed Contingency Measures for 

the 2007 PM2.5 SIP” (dated October 2011) (“Contingency Measures 

SIP”) as a revision to the California SIP. The November 14, 

2011 submittal includes a copy of the Contingency Measures SIP 

itself; a letter dated November 14, 2011 from James N. 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to 

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 9, submitting the adopted Contingency 

Measures SIP for EPA review; CARB Executive Order S-11-023 

adopting the Contingency Measures SIP; a letter dated October 

26, 2011 from Barry R. Wallerstein, Executive Officer, SCAQMD, 

to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, submitting the 

adopted Contingency Measures SIP for CARB review and approval; 

SCAQMD Resolution No. 11-24 approving the Contingency Measures 

SIP; and public process documentation. 

On April 24, 2013, the District submitted a technical 

clarification to the Contingency Measures SIP, including updated 

emissions data for 2012. See letter dated April 24, 2013, from 

Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Deborah 

Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, Re: “Update of the 

2012 RFP Emissions and 2015 Reductions from Contingency Measures 

for the 2007 Annual PM2.5 Air Quality Management Plan for the 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

9

South Coast Air Basin,” including attachments (hereinafter “2013 

Supplement”). 

The Contingency Measures SIP, as supplemented in 2013, 

contains: (1) the District’s demonstration that actual emission 

levels in the South Coast in 2012 were below the RFP 

“benchmarks” for the 2012 RFP year; (2) identification of SIPcreditable control measures that will provide emission 

reductions in 2015 in excess of those relied on to demonstrate 

RFP and attainment; and (3) the SCAQMD’s analysis of significant 

air quality improvements in the South Coast area that the 

District believes EPA should take into account in its review of 

and action on the SIP submission. 

 III. EPA Review of the SIP Revision 

A. SIP Procedural Requirements 

CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) require that revisions to a 

SIP be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public 

hearing. EPA has promulgated specific procedural requirements 

for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These 

requirements include publication of notices, by prominent 

advertisement in the relevant geographic area, of a public 

hearing on the proposed revisions, a public comment period of at 

least 30 days, and an opportunity for a public hearing. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

10

CARB’s SIP submission includes public process 

documentation for the Contingency Measures SIP, including 

documentation of a duly noticed public hearing held by the 

District on October 7, 2011 on the proposed Contingency Measures 

SIP. On November 14, 2011, CARB adopted the Contingency Measures 

SIP as a revision to the California SIP and submitted it to EPA 

for action pursuant to CAA section 110(k).3 We find that the 

process followed by CARB and the District in adopting the 

Contingency Measures SIP complies with the procedural 

requirements for SIP revisions under CAA section 110 and EPA’s 

implementing regulations. 

B. Substantive Requirements for Contingency Measures 

Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires that the SIP for each 

nonattainment area “provide for the implementation of specific 

measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable 

further progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment 

date applicable under [part D of title I]” and requires that 

these measures “take effect without further action by the State 

or EPA.” The Act does not specify how many contingency measures 

are required or the magnitude of emissions reductions that must 

be provided by these measures. Consistent with the text of 

 

3 The 2013 Supplement is not subject to additional procedural requirements 

under the Act as it is a technical clarification that does not alter the 

substance of the Contingency Measures SIP. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

11

section 172(c)(9), however, these measures must be specific, 

adopted 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.4

EPA provided guidance on the section 172(c)(9) contingency 

measure requirement in an interpretative document entitled 

“State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (“General Preamble”). As 

EPA explained in the General Preamble, “contingency measures 

should, at a minimum, ensure that an appropriate level of 

emissions reduction progress continues to be made if attainment 

[or] RFP is not achieved and additional planning by the State is 

needed.” 57 FR at 13511. These emission reductions would be in 

addition to those that were already scheduled to occur in 

accordance with the plan for the area. Id. at n. 2 and 13543-

544. Additionally, States must show that their contingency 

measures can be implemented with minimal further action on their 

part and with no additional rulemaking actions such as public 

hearings or legislative review. In general, EPA expects all 

actions needed to effect full implementation of the measures to 

 

4 We refer to those measures addressing failure to make RFP as “RFP 

contingency measures” and those measures addressing failure to attain as 

“attainment contingency measures.” 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

12

occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the State of its 

failure. 57 FR at 13512 and 13543-544; see also 59 FR 41998 at 

42014-42015 (August 16, 1994)(“PM-10 Addendum”). 

Consistent with these longstanding interpretations of the 

Act, EPA explained in the preamble to its 2007 implementation 

rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS that the SIP should contain trigger 

mechanisms for the contingency measures, specify a schedule for 

implementation, and indicate that the measures will be 

implemented without significant further action by the State or 

EPA. See 72 FR 20586 at 20642-20645 (April 25, 2007) and 40 CFR 

51.1012.5 

Contingency measures can include federal measures and local 

measures already scheduled for implementation that provide 

emissions reductions in excess of those needed to provide for 

RFP or expeditious attainment. The key is that the statute 

requires that contingency measures provide for additional 

emission reductions that are not relied on for RFP or attainment 

 

5 Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. 

Circuit) recently remanded this rule and directed EPA to re-promulgate it 

pursuant to subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA (see Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir., Jan. 4, 2013)), the court’s 

ruling in this case does not affect EPA’s action on the Contingency Measures 

SIP. Subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act contains no specific provision 

governing contingency measures for PM10 or PM2.5 nonattainment areas that 

supersedes the general contingency measure requirement for all nonattainment 

areas in CAA section 172(c)(9). Thus, even if EPA applies the subpart 4 

requirements to our evaluation of the Contingency Measures SIP and disregards 

the provisions of the 2007 PM2.5 implementation rule recently remanded by the 

court, the general requirement for contingency measures in CAA section 

172(c)(9) and EPA’s longstanding interpretation of it continue to apply. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

13

and that are not included in the RFP or attainment 

demonstrations. The purpose is “to provide a cushion while the 

plan is being revised to meet the missed milestone.” 72 FR at 

20642-20643. Nothing in the statute 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 and which provided emissions reductions in excess of 

those in the attainment demonstration and RFP SIP). 

The EPA has approved numerous SIPs under this 

interpretation – i.e., SIPs that use as contingency measures one 

or more federal or local measures that are in place and provide 

reductions that are in excess of the reductions required by the 

attainment demonstration or RFP plan. See, e.g., 62 FR 15844 

(April 3, 1997) (direct final rule approving Indiana ozone SIP 

revision); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997) (final rule approving 

Illinois ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) (direct 

final rule approving 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 Connecticut ozone SIP 

revision). The State may use the same measures for purposes of 

both RFP and attainment contingency if the measures will provide 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

14

reductions in the relevant years. Should these measures first 

be triggered for failure to make RFP, however, the State would 

need to submit replacement contingency measures for attainment 

purposes. See 57 FR at 13511. 

With respect to the level of emission reductions associated 

with contingency measures, EPA has recommended that states 

consider “the potential nature and extent of any attainment 

shortfall for the area” and the amount of actual emissions 

reductions required by the SIP control strategy to attain the 

standards. PM-10 Addendum at 42015; see also 72 FR at 20643. 

The contingency measures are to be implemented in the event that 

the area does not meet RFP or attain the standards by the 

attainment date, and “should represent a portion of the actual 

emissions reductions necessary to bring about attainment in 

[the] area.” 72 FR at 20643. Generally, EPA has recommended 

that the emissions reductions anticipated by the contingency 

measures should be equal to approximately 1 year's worth of 

emissions reductions necessary to achieve RFP for the area. See 

id. and PM-10 Addendum at 42015. 

1. 2012 RFP Contingency Measures

The Contingency Measures SIP states that the District has 

identified several already-adopted rules that will achieve 

additional emission reductions for the 2012 RFP year beyond 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

15

those reductions already accounted for in the South Coast PM2.5

SIP. Additionally, the Contingency Measures SIP provides the 

District’s rationale for concluding that significant PM2.5 air 

quality improvements in the South Coast area should be accounted 

for in evaluating the 2012 RFP contingency measure requirement 

for the area. See Contingency Measures SIP at 5-11. Finally, 

the 2013 Supplement to the Contingency Measures SIP provides a 

demonstration that the South Coast area achieved its 2012 RFP 

benchmarks. Based on our review of the District’s analyses and 

our independent review of available PM2.5 air monitoring data for 

the 2002 to 2012 period, EPA is proposing to find that the RFP 

requirement for the 2012 RFP year has been met and that, 

therefore, the contingency measure requirement for that year is 

now moot.6

According to the District, recent modeling analyses 

indicate that “existing air quality at all monitoring stations 

is already better than it would be if emissions were at the 

levels projected in the plan for RFP, and an additional one 

year’s worth of reductions had been implemented (i.e., simulated 

 

6 Given our proposal to conclude that contingency measures for the 2012 RFP 

year are no longer required, we do not evaluate here the incentive programs 

and voluntary measures that the Contingency Measures SIP discusses for 

purposes of addressing the 2012 RFP contingency measure requirement. To the 

extent the District discusses these same measures to address the attainment 

contingency measure requirement, however, we have reviewed those analyses and 

discuss our evaluation of them in Section III.B.2.b, infra (“Attainment 

Contingency Measures”). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

16

implementation of contingency measure on top of actually meeting 

RFP).” Contingency Measures SIP at 2. The District states that 

the speciated regional modeling analysis in the South Coast PM2.5

SIP had predicted that implementation of the plan would result 

in a reduction in the basin-wide design concentration from 22.7 

μg/m3 in 2005 to a value of 17.98 μg/m3 in 2010. Id. at 5. The 

maximum observed design value for 2010 at the design value site7

(Rubidoux8), however, was 15.01 μg/m3 according to the District, 

17 percent lower than the concentrations projected in the plan. 

See id.; see also id. at 10, Table 2. Accounting for temporary 

reductions in ambient PM2.5 levels due to favorable weather and 

reduced economic activity, the District estimates the PM2.5

design value “improvement” attributable to implementation of its 

plans, compared to previous projections, to be approximately 

1.88 μg/m3 in 2010. Id. at 8-10 and Table 2. If PM2.5 air 

quality at the design site (Rubidoux) were to remain at 2010 

levels through 2012, the difference between the predicted and 

observed design value would show a 1.47 μg/m3 improvement over 

 

7 Consistent with EPA’s definition of “design value” in 40 CFR 58.1, we use 

the term “design value site” to refer to the monitoring site that records the 

highest calculated pollutant concentration (according to the applicable 

appendix of 40 CFR part 50) in the nonattainment area. 

8 Although the current design value site for the area is the Mira Loma (Van 

Buren) monitoring station, this site was not accounted for in the analyses 

underlying the South Coast PM2.5 SIP as it was not operational until 2007. See

Contingency Measures SIP at 5, n. 2. Therefore, the District compared the 

projected and observed values for the Rubidoux monitoring site, which was the 

design value site prior to 2007. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

17

the 2012 projections underlying the South Coast PM2.5 SIP. Id. 

at 5. According to the District, these PM2.5 air quality 

improvements equate to approximately 420 tons per day (tpd) of 

NOx emission reductions in 2012. Id. 

Additionally, the District’s 2013 Supplement includes a 

demonstration that the South Coast area achieved its emission 

reduction benchmarks for the 2012 RFP year. Specifically, the 

updated emissions inventory data9 provided in this technical 

supplement show that emissions of direct PM2.5, NOx, VOC, and SOx 

were all below the corresponding 2012 benchmarks in the South 

Coast PM2.5 SIP. See id. at Attachment 1 (“Updated Table C-2, 

South Coast Air Basin PM2.5 Reasonable Further Progress”). 

Based on the District’s evaluation of these updated emissions 

data, the District concludes that it satisfied its 2012 RFP 

benchmarks and, accordingly, that RFP contingency measures for 

this milestone year are no longer needed. See id. 

We agree with the District’s conclusion that the South 

Coast area met the 2012 RFP benchmarks in the South Coast PM2.5 

SIP and that RFP contingency measures for 2012 are, therefore, 

no longer needed. EPA reviewed the updated 2012 emissions 

 

9 This updated emissions data is based on emissions inventory data that the 

District adopted in December 2012 as part of its Final 2012 Air Quality 

Management Plan, which CARB submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on February 

13, 2013. See letter dated February 13, 2013, from James Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9, transmitting 2012 AQMP and enclosures. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

18

inventory data provided by the District in the 2013 Supplement 

and confirmed that the data are consistent with the emissions 

inventory data recently submitted to EPA as part of the 

District’s 2012 AQMP, which includes the State’s plan to provide 

for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area. 

See Memorandum from Wienke Tax to File dated May 30, 2013. The 

updated data in the 2013 Supplement show that actual emissions 

of direct PM2.5, NOx, VOC, and SOx in the South Coast were all 

below the corresponding 2012 benchmarks in the South Coast PM2.5

SIP.10 See id. 

Additionally, EPA independently reviewed PM2.5 air quality 

data available in EPA’s “Air Quality System” (AQS) for the 2002-

2012 period to assess the District’s representations regarding 

PM2.5 air quality improvements in the South Coast area,11 as well 

as the District’s estimates of the amounts of emission 

reductions that these air quality improvements represent. We 

believe these assessments further support a conclusion that 

emission levels in the South Coast area were below the 2012 RFP 

benchmarks in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP. For more detail on our 

 

10 Emissions in the area were well below both the 2012 RFP benchmarks that EPA 

approved as part of the South Coast PM2.5 SIP (see 76 FR at 41578, Table 8, 

“revised projected controlled emissions levels” for 2012) and the RFP 

“targets” listed in Attachment 1 of the 2013 Supplement, identified as 

“linear benchmarks” in the plan. See CARB 2011 Progress Report (Hearing 

Date: April 28, 2011), at Table C-2. 

11 For a more detailed discussion of the air quality data that EPA evaluated, 

see Section III.B.2.c, infra (“PM2.5 air quality data”). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

19

technical evaluations, see Memorandum from Carol Bohnenkamp to 

File dated May 30, 2013. 

Based on this information, EPA proposes to find that the 

RFP contingency measure requirement for 2012 is now moot as 

applied to the South Coast. 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 benchmark would 

have required California to implement RFP contingency measures 

and to revise the South Coast 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 2013 Supplement submitted by 

the District demonstrates that actual emission levels in 2012 

met the SIP-approved benchmarks for all four pollutants (PM2.5, 

NOx, VOC, and SOx), and both the District’s and EPA’s 

evaluations of the substantial PM2.5 air quality improvements in 

the South Coast area further support a conclusion that emission 

levels in the area were well below the 2012 RFP benchmarks. 

Accordingly, RFP contingency measures for 2012 no longer have 

meaning or purpose, and the requirement for them is moot. 

2. Attainment Contingency Measures

a. Regulatory measures and programs 

The South Coast PM2.5 SIP, as partially approved and 

partially disapproved by EPA in November 2011 (76 FR 69928), 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

20

provides for the continuing implementation of existing CARB 

mobile source measures that will achieve 24 tpd of NOx 

reductions and 13 tpd of VOC reductions in 2015. See 76 FR 41562 

at 41580, Table 9, and Final TSD for South Coast PM2.5 SIP at 126. 

These mobile source emission reductions are surplus to the 

reductions relied upon to demonstrate RFP and attainment because 

they occur in 2015 (after implementation of all control measures 

necessary for expeditious attainment)12 and will achieve 

approximately one half of the NOx and VOC emission reductions 

needed to achieve 1 year’s worth of RFP.13 

The Contingency Measures SIP also identifies two stationary 

source control measures that the District believes should be 

creditable towards meeting the attainment contingency measure 

requirement: (1) the “SOx RECLAIM Shave,” which is projected to 

achieve 1.10 tpd of SOx reductions in 2014, and (2) SCAQMD Rule 

1113 (Architectural Coatings), which is projected to achieve 

1.30 tpd of VOC reductions in 2015. See Contingency Measure SIP 

at 12-13, 17 and 2013 Supplement, Attachment 2.14 

 

12 Consistent with CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1007(b), the South 

Coast 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). 

See 76 FR 69928 at 69942 (November 9, 2011). 

13 See n. 2, supra. 

14 The Contingency Measures SIP identifies emission reductions for 2014 but in 

the 2013 Supplement, the District provided updated 2015 emission reductions 

for Rule 1113 and several other measures. See 2013 Supplement, Attachment 2. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

21

EPA approved the SOx RECLAIM Shave into the California SIP 

on August 12, 2011. See 76 FR 50128. Because all of the SOx 

emission reductions associated with these rule improvements have 

already been credited toward the PM2.5 attainment demonstration as 

part of EPA’s November 9, 2011 final action on the South Coast 

PM2.5 SIP, the 1.10 tpd of SOx reductions identified in the 

Contingency Measure SIP are not surplus to attainment 

requirements and, therefore, cannot be treated as contingency 

measures. See 76 FR 41562 at 41569, Table 3 (July 14, 2011) and 

76 FR 69928 at 69948, Table 1 (November 9, 2011). 

EPA has also approved SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural 

Coatings) into the California SIP. 78 FR 18244 (March 26, 

2013). The 1.30 tpd of 2015 VOC reductions associated with this 

measure in the Contingency Measure SIP are not relied on for RFP 

or attainment purposes in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP. See South 

Coast 2007 AQMP at p. 4-10, Table 4-2A; see also 76 FR 41562 at 

41569, Table 3 (July 14, 2011) and 76 FR 69928 at 69948, Table 1 

(November 9, 2011). EPA therefore agrees with the District that 

Rule 1113 may serve as an attainment contingency measure for 

purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Additionally, the 2013 Supplement identifies two new 

stationary source control measures scheduled for adoption in May 

2013 that are expected to collectively achieve 0.6 tpd of direct 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

22

PM2.5 emission reductions in 2015. See 2013 Supplement, 

Attachment 2 (identifying SCAQMD Rule 444 and Rule 445). The 

0.6 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions associated with these 

two measures in the Contingency Measure SIP are not relied on 

for RFP or attainment purposes in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP. See

76 FR 41562 at 41569, Table 3 (July 14, 2011) and 76 FR 69928 at 

69948, Table 1 (November 9, 2011). On May 3, 2013, the District 

adopted both measures and CARB submitted them to EPA on June 12, 

2013. In a separate notice published in today’s Federal

Register, EPA is proposing to approve these rules into the 

California SIP. See “Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management 

District,” pre-publication proposed rule signed June 12, 2013. 

Finally, the Contingency Measures SIP states that an 

additional 17.6 tpd of NOx reductions, 4.5 tpd of VOC 

reductions, and 1.1 tpd of SOx reductions will be achieved in 

2015 through continued implementation of the District’s 2007 

Ozone Attainment Plan, and that these “backstop” emission 

reductions provide the equivalent of contingency measures for 

the South Coast PM2.5 SIP. See Contingency Measures SIP at 10-11 

and Table 3. Although control measures relied upon in an ozone 

attainment plan may qualify for approval as contingency measures 

for the PM2.5 NAAQS, provided the measures are surplus to PM2.5
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

23

attainment and RFP requirements and meet all other EPA criteria 

for SIP approval, the Contingency Measures SIP does not provide 

EPA with sufficient information to determine whether the 

referenced ozone-related measures meet these approval criteria. 

Accordingly, we cannot at this time propose to approve these 

“backstop” ozone-related measures as PM2.5 contingency measures 

at this time. 

In sum, taking into account surplus emission reductions in 

the South Coast PM2.5 SIP that EPA previously identified as 

available for contingency measure purposes, the total amount of 

emission reductions from regulatory control measures that we are 

proposing to approve as part of the Contingency Measures SIP are 

as follows: 24 tpd of NOx reductions from fleet turnover; 14.3 

tpd of VOC reductions from fleet turnover and SCAQMD Rule 1113; 

and 0.6 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions from SCAQMD Rule 

444 and Rule 445, which will be available for contingency 

purposes upon final EPA approval of these rules into the SIP. 

See Table 4. 

b. Voluntary measures, incentive programs, and miscellaneous 

“excess reductions” 

The Contingency Measures SIP identifies several voluntary 

measures and incentive programs that the District believes 

should qualify for approval as PM2.5 contingency measures because 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

24

emission reductions achieved by these measures have not been 

accounted for in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP. The submittal also 

identifies certain miscellaneous “excess reductions” resulting 

from economic conditions and source operations below permit 

limits, which the District believes should qualify for approval 

as contingency measures. We discuss each of these 

programs/measures and our evaluations below. 

Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment 

Program 

The Contingency Measures SIP identifies a portion of the 

Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program 

(Carl Moyer Program) as a contingency measure for the PM2.5

NAAQS. See Contingency Measures SIP at 14 and 17, Table 4 and 

2013 Supplement, Attachment 2. We are proposing to approve 

specific amounts of emission reductions from the Carl Moyer 

Program, as identified in the District’s submissions, for this 

purpose. 

The Carl Moyer Program is a California grant program 

established in 1998 that provides funding to encourage the 

voluntary purchase of cleaner-than-required engines, equipment, 

and other emission reduction technologies. See generally 

California Air Resources Board, “The Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines, Approved Revisions 2011,” Release Date: February 8, 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

25

2013, at Chapter 1 (available electronically at

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/moyer.htm). In its first 12 

years, the Carl Moyer Program provided over $680 million in 

state and local funds to reduce air pollution emissions from 

equipment statewide, e.g., by replacing older trucks with newer, 

cleaner trucks , retrofitting controls on existing engines, and 

encouraging the early retirement of older, more polluting 

vehicles. Id. 

The Contingency Measures SIP, as supplemented in 2013, 

states that certain Carl Moyer Program projects funded beginning 

in program year 2005-06 to program year 2009-2010 will provide 

3.2 tpd of NOx reductions and 0.2 tpd of PM2.5 reductions in 

2015 that may be treated as contingency measures. See 

Contingency Measures SIP at 14 and 17, Table 4 and 2013 

Supplement, Attachment 2 (“2015 Emission Reductions Beyond 2007 

AQMP SIP Commitment Available for Contingency”).15 In the 2013 

Supplement, the District clarified that these emission 

reductions would be obtained from the following source 

categories participating in Carl Moyer programs: on-road heavy 

 

15 The Contingency Measures SIP, as initially submitted in November 2011, 

provides emission reductions for 2014 (4.43 tpd of NOx reductions, 0.06 tpd 

of PM reductions, and 0.17 tpd of VOC reductions), but we are evaluating the 

updated 2015 emission reductions provided in the 2013 Supplement because 2015 

is the relevant year for attainment contingency measure purposes. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

26

duty engines, off-road diesel equipment, marine engines, and 

locomotive engines. See 2013 Supplement, Attachment 2, notes. 

Under EPA’s long-standing policy, voluntary mobile source 

emission reduction programs (VMEPs) that meet certain minimum 

criteria may qualify for a limited amount of SIP credit under 

the CAA. See generally Memorandum dated October 24, 1997 from 

Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, Regions 1-10, 

entitled “Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source 

Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs)” (hereinafter “1997 VMEP”). To qualify for SIP credit, a 

VMEP must be consistent with SIP attainment and RFP requirements 

and must achieve emission reductions that are quantifiable, 

surplus, enforceable, and permanent. See 1997 VMEP at 6, 7. 

Additionally, the 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. Id. The 

State must also demonstrate that it has adequate personnel and 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

27

program resources to implement the program and that the VMEP 

does not interfere with other requirements of the Act. Id. EPA 

has generally limited the amount of emission reductions allowed 

for VMEPs in a SIP to three percent (3%) 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% of the specific statutory 

requirement. Id. at 5. 

Consistent with these criteria, the SCAQMD submitted an 

enforceable commitment in 2007 to take “all actions necessary to 

ensure that emission reductions resulting from projects funded 

by the Carl Moyer Program will meet U.S. EPA criteria (surplus, 

quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent for life of project) 

and requirements for SIP creditability to meet federal Clean Air 

Act requirements.” See South Coast AQMD Board Resolution No. 

07-9, dated June 1, 2007 (adopting South Coast 2007 AQMP) (“2007 

Resolution”). Specifically, the 2007 Resolution includes the 

District’s commitments to: (1) calculate emission reductions 

from Carl Moyer Program projects using established 

quantification protocols specified in the applicable Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines; (2) verify surplus emission reductions 

through a comprehensive inspection, monitoring and reporting 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

28

program for each project funded by the Carl Moyer Program, (3) 

conduct onsite inspections, random audits, and other monitoring 

activities to ensure that funded projects are implemented 

according to contract terms; (4) submit reports to EPA by 

November 30 of each calendar year, verifying the amounts of 

actual emission reductions achieved by the Carl Moyer Program 

grants for the preceding funding cycle, and (5) take specific 

actions to remedy any shortfalls in emission reductions, to 

ensure that contracted emission reductions occur. Id. The 

District also submitted technical support documentation 

describing the Carl Moyer Program, the District’s policies for 

implementing the program, and the methodologies for predicting 

emissions benefits. See generally South Coast 2007 AQMP, 

Appendix IV-B-3, “District Implementation of the Carl Moyer 

Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program,” available 

electronically at 

https://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/aqmp/Appendix_IV-B3_section1.pdf.

EPA approved these District commitments into the California 

SIP as part of our November 2011 final action on the South Coast 

PM2.5 SIP, thereby making the commitments federally enforceable. 

See 76 FR 69928 at 69954 (November 9, 2011) and 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(398)(ii)(A)(2) (codifying SCAQMD commitment “to 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

29

fulfill USEPA Requirements for the use of emissions reductions 

[from] the Carl Moyer Program in the State Implementation Plan, 

June 1, 2007”). EPA also approved the District’s technical 

documentation describing the Carl Moyer Program as part of the 

South Coast PM2.5 SIP. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(398)(ii)(A)(1). In 

the 2013 Supplement, the District affirmed its SIP-approved 

commitments to “take all actions necessary to assure that 

emissions reductions resulting from the projects funded by the 

Carl Moyer Program will meet U.S. EPA criteria . . . and 

requirements for SIP creditability,” including its obligation to 

prepare and submit annual reports to EPA by November 30 of each 

year identifying actual emission reductions achieved compared to 

predicted emissions reductions and audit information for each 

grant issued. See letter dated April 24, 2013, from Elaine 

Chang, Deputy Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Deborah Jordan, Air 

Division Director, U.S. EPA Region 9, transmitting 2013 

Supplement. 

The SIP-approved commitments in the 2007 Resolution enable 

the District to quantify the emission reductions attributed to 

the Carl Moyer Program, verify that those emission reductions 

are surplus to other CAA requirements, enforce the conditions of 

the Carl Moyer Program grants to ensure that contracted emission 

reductions are achieved, and monitor the continuing 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

30

implementation of program grants to ensure that emission 

reductions are “permanent” throughout the life of each project. 

The 3.2 tpd of NOx reductions and 0.2 tpd of PM2.5 reductions 

attributed to the Carl Moyer Program in 2015 for contingency 

measure purposes each amount to less than 2% of the total 

projected emission reductions of each pollutant needed to attain 

the PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area.16 Finally, information 

provided in the South Coast 2007 AQMP demonstrates that the 

District has adequate personnel and program resources to 

implement the Carl Moyer Program. See generally, South Coast 

2007 AQMP, Appendix IV-B-3, “District Implementation of the Carl 

Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program,” at 

Section 1, available electronically at 

https://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/aqmp/Appendix_IV-B3_section1.pdf. 

Based on our evaluation of the District’s enforceable SIP 

commitments regarding the Carl Moyer Program and technical 

 

16 The South Coast PM2.5 SIP projects that the total amounts of emission 

reductions needed to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS, from a 2002 base year to a 2014 

attainment year, are as follows: 633 tpd of NOx reductions, 370 tpd of VOC 

reductions, 13 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions, and 33 tpd of SOx reductions. 

See 76 FR 69928 at 69950, Table 4 (November 9, 2011) and Final TSD at 97 

(Table F-9). Thus, the Carl Moyer Program reductions identified in the 

Contingency Measures SIP amount to approximately 0.5 percent of the NOx 

reductions and 1.5 percent of the PM2.5 reductions needed for timely attainment 

of the PM2.5 NAAQS. The Contingency Measures SIP provides these Carl Moyer 

Program emission reductions for the sole purpose of fulfilling the 

requirements for contingency measures in CAA section 172(c)(9) and not for 

the purposes of demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or 

progress toward attainment (RFP). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

31

documentation provided by the District in its SIP submissions, 

we propose to find that the 2015 emission reductions associated 

with the Carl Moyer Program in the Contingency Measures SIP, as 

supplemented in 2013, satisfy the statutory criteria for SIP 

credit for contingency measure purposes. The Carl Moyer Program 

procedures have served as models for the design of national, 

state, and local credit validation systems for mobile source 

subsidy programs, and California continuously refines these 

guidelines to accurately reflect the reductions associated with 

the program subsidies. The procedures address emission 

reduction quantification issues associated with both baseline 

emissions and the amount of reductions achievable from the 

various repower, retrofit, and replacement technologies and 

alternative fuel options, as well as issues associated with 

project life and enforceable requirements to ensure that 

reductions continue within the nonattainment area. 

Given all of these considerations, we propose to approve 

these Carl Moyer Program emission reductions as attainment 

contingency measures for the PM2.5 NAAQS. Upon EPA’s final 

approval of the Contingency Measures SIP, the District will be 

obligated to monitor, assess, and report to EPA on 

implementation of the Carl Moyer Program with respect to the 

four specific source categories identified in the 2013 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

32

Supplement (on-road heavy duty engines, off-road diesel 

equipment, marine engines, and locomotive engines). See 2013 

Supplement, Attachment 2. Additionally, should EPA subsequently 

determine that the South Coast 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 whether the 3.2 tpd of NOx reductions and 0.2 tpd 

of PM2.5 reductions identified in the 2013 Supplement occurred in 

2015, and if not, to take specific actions to remedy any 

emission reduction shortfalls consistent with its SIP-approved 

commitments in 40 CFR 52.220(c)(398)(ii)(A)(2). We are 

proposing to approve these Carl Moyer Program emission 

reductions for the sole purpose of satisfying the attainment 

contingency measure requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast. 

Other voluntary measures and incentive programs 

The Contingency Measures SIP identifies several other 

voluntary measures and incentive programs that the District 

believes should qualify for approval as PM2.5 attainment 

contingency measures.17 For the reasons provided below, these 

 

17 According to the District, all but one of these measures will achieve 

surplus emission reductions in both 2012 and 2014 and may, therefore, serve 

both as 2012 RFP contingency measures and as attainment contingency measures. 

As explained above in Section III.B.1, EPA is not evaluating the 2012 

emission reduction estimates that the District provided for each of these 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

33

programs do not qualify for approval as contingency measures at 

this time. 

First, the submittal states that the “average vehicle 

ridership” (AVR) portion of SCAQMD Rule 2202 (On-Road Mobile 

Source Vehicle Mitigation Options) requires employers with 250 

or more employees to develop rideshare programs or help fund an 

air quality improvement program to achieve equivalent emissions 

reductions to meet the AVR target. Contingency Measures SIP at 

13. The District states that this measure will achieve 1.32 tpd 

of NOx reductions and 0.06 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions in 2014 

beyond those relied on for attainment, and that the measure 

could therefore serve as an attainment contingency measure. Id. 

at 17, Table 4. EPA does not currently have sufficient 

information to evaluate the emission reductions associated with 

this measure as the State has not submitted the measure or any 

supporting documentation to EPA. Thus, we cannot propose to 

approve this measure as a contingency measure at this time. 

Second, the submittal states that the AB 2766 program 

provides annual funding to local governments in the South Coast 

air basin to reduce mobile source emissions and that the SCAQMD 

 

measures, given our proposal to conclude that the 2012 RFP contingency 

measure requirement is now moot for this area. See n. 6, supra. We 

therefore evaluate only the emission reduction estimates associated with 

these measures for attainment contingency measure purposes (i.e., for 2015), 

as provided in the 2013 Supplement. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

34

submits annual reports about the emission reductions under AB 

2766 to CARB. Contingency Measures SIP at 13. The District 

states that this measure will achieve 1.90 tpd of NOx reductions 

and 0.30 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions in 2014 beyond those 

relied on for attainment, and that this measure could therefore 

serve as an attainment contingency measure. Id. at 17, Table 4. 

EPA does not currently have sufficient information to evaluate 

the emission reductions associated with this measure as the 

State has not submitted the measure or any supporting 

documentation to EPA. Thus, we cannot approve this measure as a 

contingency measure at this time. 

Third, the submittal states that the Ports of Los Angeles 

and Long Beach (POLA/POLB) have been facilitating use of shoreside power as part of the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action 

Plan (referred to as the “Ocean-Going Vessel At-Berth”), and 

that these measures reduce emissions further than those achieved 

by a statewide (CARB) regulation that requires a percentage of 

certain ocean-going vessels (OGVs) to use shore-side power while 

at berth. Contingency Measures SIP at 14. The District states 

that these POLA/POLB measures will achieve 3.3 tpd of NOx 

reductions and 0.06 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions in 2014 beyond 

those relied on for attainment, and that the measures may 

therefore serve as attainment contingency measures. Id. at 17, 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

35

Table 4. EPA does not currently have sufficient information to 

evaluate the emission reductions associated with these measures 

as the State has not submitted the measures or any supporting 

documentation to EPA. Thus, we cannot approve these measures as 

contingency measures at this time. 

Finally, the submittal states that early implementation of 

certain provisions of the “SCAQMD Surplus Off-Road Opt-In for 

NOx” (SOON) program, adopted by the SCAQMD in May 2008, will 

achieve 0.30 tpd of PM2.5 emission reductions in 2014 beyond 

those relied on for attainment, and that this program could 

therefore serve as an attainment contingency measure. 

Contingency Measures SIP at 15 and 17, Table 4. CARB submitted 

this measure (Rule 2449) to EPA on July 18, 2008 but EPA has not 

yet taken any action on it. Thus, we cannot propose to approve 

this measure as a contingency measure at this time. 

EPA is currently working with the State and districts to 

develop reliable processes for documenting the emission 

reductions associated with voluntary and incentive programs for 

SIP purposes. The goal is to develop processes that ensure that 

the emission reductions resulting from voluntary and incentive 

programs are surplus, quantifiable, enforceable and permanent 

consistent with the Act as interpreted in EPA guidance. EPA 

strongly encourages CARB and the SCAQMD to continue implementing 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

36

effective incentive programs and voluntary measures as part of 

their strategies for meeting air quality goals and to continue 

discussing with EPA the potential incorporation of these 

incentive programs and measures into SIP planning processes 

going forward. We welcome public comments on how to ensure that 

emission reductions resulting from these programs meet the Act’s 

requirements for SIP credit. 

Miscellaneous “excess reductions” 

The Contingency Measures SIP states that permitted sources 

in the South Coast area often achieve “excess reductions” beyond 

those assumed in the SIP. For example, the District states that 

sources typically emit at levels well below allowable levels to 

maintain adequate compliance margins, or they may comply with 

stringent control standards through preconstruction review 

processes that reduce emissions below the levels assumed in the 

SIP. Contingency Measures SIP at 15. Furthermore, the District 

states that the recent recession in the region “would further 

lower the growth projections that were previously assumed in the 

2007 PM2.5 SIP.” Id. The District states that these factors 

combined caused significantly lower emissions in 2010 compared 

to the levels projected for that year in the South Coast PM2.5 

SIP. Id. According to the District, these circumstances will 

result in approximately 6.42 tpd of NOx reductions, 0.45 tpd of 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

37

PM2.5 reductions, and 8.75 tpd of VOC reductions in 2014 beyond 

the reductions relied on for attainment, which collectively 

equate to about 14 tpd of “NOx equivalent” emission reductions 

for that year. Id. at 15 and 17, Table 4. 

We disagree with these statements. Emission reductions 

that occur as a result of business decisions to maintain 

adequate compliance margins or due to an unexpected economic 

recession are not approvable as contingency measures unless such 

reductions are quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, and permanent 

and meet all applicable CAA requirements for approval. Even 

assuming the “excess” emission reductions identified in the 

Contingency Measures SIP are in fact surplus to those that are 

specifically relied upon in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP for 

attainment purposes, these reductions are not SIP-creditable 

without adequate documentation to show that the reductions are 

also quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent consistent with 

long-standing EPA policy. The Contingency Measures SIP provides 

no such documentation. Accordingly, the “excess” reductions 

associated with 14 tpd of “NOx equivalent” emission reductions 

in 2015 are not SIP-creditable at this time. 

c. PM2.5 air quality data 

The Contingency Measures SIP provides the District’s 

rationale for concluding that significant PM2.5 air quality 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

38

improvements in the South Coast area should be accounted for in 

evaluating the attainment contingency measure requirement for 

the area. See Contingency Measures SIP at 5-11. Based on our 

review of the District’s analyses and our independent review of 

available PM2.5 air monitoring data for the 2002-2012 period, EPA 

agrees that these air quality improvements should be taken into 

account in evaluating the level of emission reductions needed 

for purposes of meeting the attainment contingency measure 

requirement under CAA section 172(c)(9). Although these air 

quality improvements do not, in themselves, represent SIPcreditable emission reductions, we believe the significant 

decline in ambient PM2.5 levels observed during the 2002-2012 

period provides a reasonable basis for concluding that emission 

reductions amounting to less than 1 year’s worth of RFP are 

adequate for PM2.5 attainment contingency measure purposes in 

this particular nonattainment area. 

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the 1997 annual 

primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the annual 

arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 

40 CFR part 50, appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 μg/m3

at all relevant monitoring sites in the subject area. The 1997 

24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the 

98th percentile 24-hour concentration, also as determined in 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

39

accordance with appendix N, is less than or equal to 65 μg/m3 at 

all relevant monitoring sites. 40 CFR 50.7(b), (c).

EPA independently reviewed PM2.5 air quality data available 

in EPA’s “Air Quality System” (AQS) for the 2002-2012 period to 

assess the District’s representations regarding PM2.5 air quality 

improvements in the South Coast area.18 The SCAQMD currently 

operates 20 regulatory PM2.5 monitoring sites in the South Coast 

air basin and annually reports quality-assured ambient PM2.5 data 

from these sampling sites to the EPA AQS database. See SCAQMD, 

Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan (July 2012), at 7-9 

and 21, Table 5. EPA has approved the District’s monitoring 

network as satisfying the network design and data adequacy 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58. See letter dated April 18, 

2013, from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, 

EPA Region 9, to Dr. Matt Miyasato, Deputy Executive Officer, 

Science and Technology Advancement, SCAQMD. Quality-assured and 

certified ambient air quality data collected through the 

District’s monitoring network and available in AQS show that 

PM2.5 levels in the South Coast nonattainment area were 

significantly lower in the years leading to 2012 than the levels 

 

18 EPA evaluated these data only preliminarily, for purposes of determining 

whether the Contingency Measures SIP satisfies the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(9), and is not at this time proposing to make any formal 

determination regarding attainment for the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment 

area. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

40

projected in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP for this period, and that 

both annual and 24-hour concentrations have declined 

significantly at all monitors in the area. See U.S. EPA, Air 

Quality System, Preliminary Design Value Report, PM2.5, 2002-2012 

(Report Date: May 10, 2013); see also U.S. EPA, Data Quality 

Indicator Report, SCAQMD, California, PM2.5 (April 26, 2012) and 

letter dated May 1, 2012, from Chung Liu, Deputy Executive 

Officer, Science and Technology Advancement, SCAQMD, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9 

(certifying air quality data submitted to AQS). 

Table 1 lists the annual mean PM2.5 concentration at each 

monitor in the South Coast air basin during the 2002-2012 

period. 

Table 1. PM2.5 Annual Mean concentrations, 2002-2012 

Site AQS ID 

One-year Annual Mean (μg/m3)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Azusa 060370002 20.7 19.3 18.3 17.0 15.4 15.7 14.0 13.1 10.8 12.1 11.0

Burbank –

Palm Ave.

060371002 24.0 22.1 19.1 17.8 16.5 16.9 13.9 15.3 12.8 13.5 12.6

LA – North 

Main

060371103 22.0 21.3 19.7 17.8 15.6 16.8 16.1 14.4 12.6 13.5 13.2

Reseda 060371201 18.9 16.5 15.7 13.9 12.8 13.3 11.8 11.4 10.1 10.2 10.5

Lynwood 060371301 23.3 20.3 18.5 17.5 16.7 16.0 14.6

Compton 060371302 12.4 14.7 12.5 12.5 11.7

Pico Rivera 

#1

060371601 24.0 20.6 20.0 15.2

Pico Rivera 

#2

060371602 22.3 16.6 16.6 14.9 14.8 12.5 12.5 11.9

Pasadena 060372005 20.3 18.6 16.6 15.1 13.4 14.4 12.8 12.3 10.2 10.8 10.1

Long 

Beach

060374002 19.5 18.0 17.9 15.9 14.1 14.6 14.1 12.8 10.4 11.3 10.6

Long 060374004 20.6 16.5 14.7 14.4 13.7 13.7 12.5 10.4 10.7 10.9
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

41

Beach –

PCH

Anaheim 060590007 18.6 17.3 17.0 14.7 14.0 14.4 13.1 12.1 10.5 11.1 10.0

Mission 

Viejo

060592022 15.5 13.1 12.0 10.6 11.0 11.1 10.4 9.5 8.0 8.5 7.9

Riverside 060651003 27.1 22.6 20.8 17.9 16.9 18.3 13.3 13.3 11.0 11.8 11.4

Rubidoux 060658001 27.5 24.8 22.1 20.9 18.9 19.0 16.4 15.6 13.3 13.8 13.7

Mira Loma 060658005 20.8 20.9 18.3 17.2 15.5 15.9 15.3

Ontario 060710025 25.4 23.8 20.9 18.8 18.4 18.3 15.8 14.7 13.0 13.3 12,4

Fontana 060712002 24.3 22.1 19.9 18.8 17.5 18.9 15.3 14.2 11.9 12.6 12.8

Big Bear 060718001 11.5 10.6 9.6 12.0 11.3 10.3 9.1 9.9 8.4 8.4 8.0

San 

Bernardino

060719004 25.8 22.2 21.9 17.3 17.6 17.9 13.4 13.0 11.1 12.2 11.8

Source: U.S. EPA, Air Quality System, Preliminary Design Value Report, PM2.5, 

2002-2012 (Report Date: May 10, 2013). 

Table 2 lists the annual PM2.5 design value at each monitor 

in the South Coast air basin for the 2002-2012 period. 

Table 2. Annual PM2.5 Design Values, 2002-2012 

Site AQS ID Annual Design Value (μg/m3

)

19

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Azusa 060370002 20.8 20.6 19.4 18.2 16.9 16.0 15.1 14.3 12.7 12.0 11.3

Burbank –

Palm Ave.

060371002 23.3 23.6 21.7 19.7 17.8 17.1 15.8 15.4 14.0 13.9 12.9

LA – North 

Main

060371103 22.2 22.0 21.0 19.6 17.7 16.7 16.1 15.8 14.4 13.5 13.1

Reseda 060371201 18.4 17.9 17.0 15.4 14.1 13.3 12.6 12.1 11.1 10.6 10.3

Lynwood 060371301 23.6 22.7 20.7 18.7 17.5 16.7 15.8 15.3 14.6

Compton 060371302 12.4 13.5 13.2 13.4 12.4

Pico Rivera 

#1

060371601 24.4 23.3 21.5 18.6 17.6 15.2

Pico Rivera 

#2

060371602 22.3 19.5 18.5 16.0 15.4 14.1 13.3 12.3

Pasadena 060372005 20.2 19.9 18.5 16.8 15.0 14.3 13.5 13.2 11.8 11.1 10.4

Long 

Beach

060374002 20.1 19.6 18.5 17.3 16.0 14.9 14.3 13.9 12.4 11.5 10.8

Long 

Beach – 

PCH

060374004 20.6 18.6 17.3 15.2 14.3 13.9 13.3 12.2 11.2 10.7

Anaheim 060590007 22.0 20.4 17.6 16.3 15.2 14.3 13.8 13.2 11.9 11.2 10.8

 

19 Most but not all of these design values are based on data that meet EPA’s 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 4.0. See

Memorandum from Meredith Kurpius to File dated May 10, 2013. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

42

Mission 

Viejo

060592022 15.4 14.8 13.5 11.9 11.2 10.9 10.8 10.3 9.3 8.7 8.1

Riverside 060651003 26.9 25.9 23.5 20.5 18.6 17.7 16.2 15.0 12.5 12.0 11.4

Rubidoux 060658001 28.9 27.8 24.8 22.6 20.6 19.6 18.1 17.0 15.1 14.2 13.6

Mira Loma 060658005 20.8 20.9 20.0 18.8 17.0 16.2 15.6

Ontario 060710025 25.3 25.2 23.4 21.2 19.4 18.5 17.5 16.2 14.5 13.7 12.9

Fontana 060712002 24.6 23.8 22.1 20.3 18.7 18.4 17.2 16.1 13.8 12.9 12.4

Big Bear 060718001 10.9 11.1 10.6 10.8 11.0 11.2 10.3 9.8 9.1 8.9 8.3

San 

Bernardino

060719004 25.9 24.7 23.3 20.5 18.9 17.6 16.3 14.7 12.5 12.1 11.7

Source: U.S. EPA, Air Quality System, Preliminary Design Value Report, PM2.5, 

2002-2012 (Report Date: May 10, 2013). 

Table 3 lists the 24-hour PM2.5 design value at each monitor 

in the South Coast air basin for the 2002-2012 period. 

Table 3. 24-hour PM2.5 Design Values, 2002-2012 

Site AQS ID 24-hour Design Value (μg/m3

)

20

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Azusa 060370002 59 57 54 54 48 47 41 42 38 36 31

Burbank –

Palm Ave.

060371002 69 62 55 53 48 48 43 41 34 34 32

LA – North 

Main

060371103 62 58 57 56 49 48 43 42 35 34 32

Reseda 060371201 51 49 48 45 40 34 30 29 29 28 30

Lynwood 060371301 60 57 53 51 49 46 41 39 33

Compton 060371302 13 25 28 34 31

Pico Rivera 

#1

060371601 65 58 53 51 52 51

Pico Rivera 

#2

060371602 58 51 50 43 41 35 33 31

Pasadena 060372005 53 51 48 46 41 40 37 38 31 30 27

Long 

Beach

060374002 54 48 46 45 41 39 38 38 33 30 28

Long 

Beach – 

PCH

060374004 53 48 44 38 36 35 34 31 28 27

Anaheim 060590007 54 53 49 47 42 42 38 37 30 29 27

Mission 

Viejo

060592022 43 43 41 36 32 31 29 29 23 23 21

Riverside 060651003 65 62 58 50 47 49 48 44 33 30 27

Rubidoux 060658001 73 72 67 65 57 55 50 45 38 35 34

Mira Loma 060658005 62 53 56 53 49 41 39 37

 

20 See ibid. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

43

Ontario 060710025 62 63 61 59 50 47 45 43 37 34 32

Fontana 060712002 64 60 58 55 52 52 52 48 37 31 32

Big Bear 060718001 30 30 28 30 34 38 36 32 30 29 29

San 

Bernardino

060719004 68 64 66 58 55 54 53 49 35 32 30

Source: U.S. EPA, Air Quality System, Preliminary Design Value Report, PM2.5, 

2002-2012 (Report Date: May 10, 2013). 

According to these certified ambient air quality data, the 

highest annual mean PM2.5 concentration in the South Coast area 

dropped from 27.5 μg/m3 in 2002 (at Rubidoux) to 15.3 μg/m3 in 

2012 (at Mira Loma), and the annual PM2.5 design value for the 

area dropped from 28.9 μg/m3 to 15.6 μg/m3 during this same 

timeframe. Daily PM2.5 design values at all monitors in the 

South Coast area also declined significantly, from 73 μg/m3 (at 

Rubidoux) in 2002 to 37 μg/m3 (at Mira Loma) in 2012. All 

monitors in the South Coast area have recorded 24-hour PM2.5

design values below the 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 65 μg/m3 since 

at least 2006, and as of 2010 most monitors were also recording 

24-hour design values below the more stringent 2006 24-hour 

standard of 35 μg/m3.

21

These data indicate that actual emission levels in the area 

during the years leading to 2012 were significantly lower than 

the levels projected for this period in the South Coast PM2.5

SIP. The data also indicate that the area is already attaining 

the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard (65 μg/m3) and may also attain the 

 

21 See also Final TSD for South Coast PM2.5 SIP at 8, Figure IB-3 (“South Coast 

AQMP 1997 24-hour PM2.5 Design Value Concentration Trends 2000-2010”). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

44

annual standard (15 μg/m3) in advance of the applicable 

attainment date of April 5, 2015. Accordingly, compared to the 

assumptions underlying the South Coast PM2.5 SIP, in reality the 

likelihood that attainment contingency measures will never need 

to be triggered is much greater, and the extent of any potential 

attainment shortfall much lower, than was predicted. Therefore, 

given the proximity of the applicable attainment date (April 5, 

2015) and the probability that the area will attain the PM2.5

standards by that date22 or, in the event it fails to attain, 

that a smaller amount of additional emission reductions 

(compared to the levels identified in the plan as needed to 

achieve 1 year’s worth of RFP) will be needed to bring about 

attainment in the area, we believe it is appropriate to find 

that emission reductions amounting to less than 1 year’s worth 

of RFP are adequate to satisfy the attainment contingency 

measure requirement in these particular circumstances. This 

conclusion is consistent with EPA’s long-standing recommendation 

that states should consider “the potential nature and extent of 

any attainment shortfall for the area” and that contingency 

measures “should represent a portion of the actual emissions 

 

22 EPA is not aware of any information indicating significant changes (such as 

a sharp upturn in economic or population growth, or dramatic meteorological 

shift) that might adversely affect the consistent historical trend in the 

area to improved air quality, during the relatively short amount of time 

remaining before April 5, 2015. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

45

reductions necessary to bring about attainment in the area.” 

See PM-10 Addendum at 42015 and 72 FR at 20643. 

d. Surplus emission reductions in South Coast PM2.5 SIP 

The Contingency Measures SIP states that the South Coast

PM2.5 SIP identified emission reductions sufficient for the South 

Coast air basin to reach 15.00 μg/m3 by April 2015, which is more 

than necessary to demonstrate timely attainment according to EPA 

modeling guidelines. Specifically, the District states that EPA 

guidelines allow states to demonstrate attainment at a level of 

15.04 μg/m3 rather than 15.00 μg/m3, and that the additional 0.04 

μg/m3 of air quality improvement accounted for in its attainment 

demonstration equated to a “surplus” of 11 tpd of NOx-equivalent 

emission reductions. See Contingency Measures SIP at 15. In 

the 2013 Supplement, the District characterized this amount as a 

“surplus” of 0.8 tpd of SOx reductions, in accordance with 

conversion factors provided in Appendix C of a CARB Staff Report 

entitled “2007 State Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air 

Basin PM2.5 and 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS.” See 2013 Supplement, 

Attachment 2. 

EPA agrees that the District may demonstrate attainment 

using 15.04 μg/m3 as the target emission level in its modeling 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

46

analyses23 and that, because the South Coast PM2.5 SIP models 

attainment at a level of 15.0 μg/m3, some amount of emission 

reductions accounting for the additional 0.04 μg/m3 of air 

quality improvement may be characterized as “surplus” to 

attainment needs. We are not equating these air quality 

improvements with a specific amount of SIP credit at this time 

but we have reviewed the District’s conversions of these 

concentrations into NOx-equivalent and SOx-equivalent emission 

reductions and find the approximations to be reasonable. See 

Memorandum from Carol Bohnenkamp to File dated May 30, 2013. 

These analyses generally support our conclusion that attainment 

contingency measures achieving less than 1 year’s worth of RFP 

are adequate for this particular nonattainment area. 

e. Summary 

In sum, the Contingency Measure SIP, as supplemented in 

2013, identifies SIP-creditable attainment contingency measures 

that will achieve a total of 27.2 tpd of NOx reductions, 14.3 

tpd of VOC reductions, and 0.2 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions in 

2015. The 2013 Supplement identifies two additional control 

measures that will, upon final EPA approval of the measures, 

achieve an additional 0.6 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions, for a 

 

23 See “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,” April 

2007, EPA -454/B-07-002, at p. 21 (referencing EPA’s rounding convention in 

40 CFR part 50, appendix N for calculation of annual average PM2.5 values). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

47

total of 0.8 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions in 2015. These 

emission reductions amount to approximately 56% of the NOx 

reductions, 49% of the VOC reductions, and more than 100% of the 

direct PM2.5 reductions that would be needed to achieve 

approximately 1 year’s worth of RFP in 2015.24 See Table 4. 

Table 4. Summary of 2015 emission reductions creditable as 

attainment contingency measures (in tons per day) 

NOx VOC PM2.5 SOx

Fleet 

turnover 

24 13 

Rule 1113 1.3 

Carl Moyer 3.2 0.2 

Rule 444* 0.2 

Rule 445* 0.4 

TOTAL

EMISSION 

REDUCTIONS: 

27.2 14.3 0.8 0

1 year RFP25 49 29 0.7 3.8 

Total as 

percentage 

of 1-year 

RFP 

56% 49% 114% 0 

* Creditable only upon EPA’s final approval of these rules into 

the SIP pursuant to CAA section 110. 

We are proposing to fully approve these measures and 

surplus emission reductions as satisfying the attainment 

contingency measure requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment area. All of 

these emission reductions are provided by control measures or 

 

24 The Contingency Measure SIP does not specifically provide SIP-creditable SOx

reductions in 2015 for contingency measure purposes. 

25 See n. 2, supra. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

48

incentive programs that are fully adopted under State law and 

currently being implemented by the District. These measures and 

programs provide SIP-creditable emission reductions that are not 

relied on in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP to demonstrate RFP or 

attainment and provide for an appropriate level of continued 

emissions reduction progress should the South Coast area fail to 

attain by the statutory attainment date and necessitate 

additional planning. 

C. Section 110(l) of the Act 

Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits EPA from approving any 

SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and RFP or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act. The Contingency Measures SIP 

corrects SIP deficiencies identified in EPA’s November 9, 2011 

partial approval and partial disapproval of the South Coast PM2.5

SIP (76 FR 69928). Specifically, the Contingency Measures SIP, 

as supplemented in 2013, contains: (1) the District’s 

demonstration that actual emission levels in the South Coast in 

2012 were below the 2012 RFP benchmarks, (2) identification of 

SIP-creditable control measures that will achieve emission 

reductions in 2015 in excess of those relied on for RFP and 

expeditious attainment, and (3) an analysis of significant air 

quality improvements in the South Coast area that the District 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

49

believes EPA should take into account as part of our action on 

the SIP submission. We propose to determine that our approval 

of the Contingency Measures SIP, as supplemented in 2013, would 

comply with CAA section 110(l) because the proposed SIP revision 

would not interfere with the on-going process for ensuring that 

requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are met, and 

the submitted SIP corrects SIP deficiencies that were the basis 

for EPA’s November 9, 2011 partial disapproval of the South 

Coast PM2.5 SIP. 

IV. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

For the reasons discussed above, we are proposing to 

conclude that the Contingency Measures SIP submitted by CARB on 

November 14, 2011, as supplemented on April 24, 2013, satisfies 

the attainment contingency measure requirement in CAA section 

172(c)(9) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast 

nonattainment area, and to fully approve this submission into 

the California SIP. Simultaneously, we are proposing to 

conclude that the RFP contingency measure requirement in CAA 

section 172(c)(9) for the 2012 milestone year is moot as applied 

to the South Coast because the area achieved its emission 

reduction benchmarks for the 2012 RFP year. 

Final approval of the Contingency Measures SIP, as 

supplemented, would correct the deficiencies that were the basis 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

50

for EPA’s partial disapproval of the South Coast PM2.5 SIP on 

November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69928) and would, therefore, terminate 

the CAA section 179(b) sanctions clocks triggered by that action 

and the obligation on EPA to promulgate a FIP within two years 

of that action. 

EPA will accept public comments on this proposal for the 

next 30 days. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to 

approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of 

the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role 

is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the 

criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review 

by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

51

• does not impose an information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4); 

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); 

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based 

on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

52

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 

address disproportionate human health or environmental 

effects with practical, appropriate, and legally 

permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will 

not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 

Volatile organic compounds.

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

________________ ______________________ 

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld, 

 Regional Administrator, 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

53

Region IX.