Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51147 

1 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997) and 40 CFR 50.7. 

Effective December 18, 2006, EPA strengthened the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 

mg/m3. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR 

50.13. Effective March 18, 2013, EPA strengthened 

the annual PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 

12 mg/m3. 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013) and 40 

CFR 50.18. In this preamble, all references to the 

PM2.5 NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, are to 

the 1997 24-hour standard (65 mg/m3) and annual 

standard (15.0 mg/m3) as codified in 40 CFR 50.7. 

2 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005). 

3 Id. 

4The SJV area encompasses over 23,000 square 

miles and includes all or part of eight counties in 

California’s central valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, 

Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and Kern. 

For a precise description of the geographic 

boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment 

area, see 40 CFR 81.305. 

5 40 CFR 81.305. 

confidentiality, please refer to 21 CFR 

10.20. 

C. Information Identifying the Person 

Submitting the Comment 

Please note that your name, contact 

information, and other information 

identifying you will be posted on 

http://www.regulations.gov if you 

include that information in the body of 

your comments. For electronic 

comments submitted to http://

www.regulations.gov, FDA will post the 

body of your comment on http://

www.regulations.gov along with your 

State/province and country (if 

provided), the name of your 

representative (if any), and the category 

identifying you (e.g., individual, 

consumer, academic, industry). For 

written submissions submitted to the 

Division of Dockets Management, FDA 

will post the body of your comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov, but you can 

put your name and/or contact 

information on a separate cover sheet 

and not in the body of your comments. 

Dated: August 18, 2015. 

Leslie Kux, 

Associate Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20759 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0489; FRL–9932–74– 

Region 9] 

Revision to the California State 

Implementation Plan; San Joaquin 

Valley; Demonstration of Creditable 

Emission Reductions from Economic 

Incentive Programs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

demonstration of creditable emission 

reductions submitted by California for 

approval into the San Joaquin Valley 

(SJV) portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This SIP 

submittal demonstrates that certain state 

mobile source incentive funding 

programs have achieved specified 

amounts of reductions in emissions of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) in the SJV area 

by 2014. The effect of this action would 

be to approve these amounts of emission 

reductions for credit toward an emission 

reduction commitment in the California 

SIP. We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 23, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA–R

09–OAR–2015–0489, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. http:// 

www.regulations.gov 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 email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

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

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, perez.

idalia@epa.gov, (415) 972–3248. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. The State’s Submittal 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s Submittal 

A. SIP Procedural Requirements 

B. EPA Policy on Economic Incentives 

C. Sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act 

IV. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA established 

new national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for particles less 

than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (mm) in 

diameter (PM2.5), including an annual 

standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

and a 24-hour (daily) standard of 65 mg/ 

m3 based on a 3-year average of 98th 

percentile 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations.1 EPA established these 

standards after considering substantial 

evidence from numerous health studies 

demonstrating that serious health effects 

are associated with exposures to PM2.5

concentrations above these levels. 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, EPA is required under 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) to 

designate areas throughout the nation as 

attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. 

On January 5, 2005, EPA published 

initial air quality designations for the 

1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

using air quality monitoring data for the 

three-year periods of 2001–2003 and 

2002–2004.2 These designations became 

effective April 5, 2005.3 EPA designated 

the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) area 4 as 

nonattainment for both the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard (15.0 mg/m3) and the 

1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard (65 mg/

m3).5

Between 2007 and 2011, California 

made six SIP submittals to address 

nonattainment area planning 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
51148 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

6 76 FR 69896 at n. 2 (November 9, 2011). 

7 Id. at 69924. 

8 76 FR 69896, 69926 (codified at 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2) and 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2)). 

9 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014). 

10Committee for a Better Arvin et al v. EPA, Case 

Nos. 11–73924 and 12–71332, 2015 U.S. App. 

LEXIS 8295 (9th Cir. 2015). 

11 Id. 

12 Id. 13See n. 8, supra. 14Emission Reduction Report at 1–2. 15Emission Reduction Report at 24, Table 3 

(‘‘Total 2014 Incentive-Based Emission 

Reductions’’), Appendix H.1 (‘‘SIP Creditable 

Incentive Projects in the San Joaquin Valley (Moyer 

Program)’’) and Appendix H.2 (‘‘SIP Creditable 

Incentive Projects in the San Joaquin Valley (Prop 

1B)’’). 

16Under both the Carl Moyer Program and the 

Prop 1B Program, CARB adopts or approves 

program ‘‘guidelines’’ that specify, among other 

things, terms and conditions that must apply to 

each grant of incentive funds to an applicant. See 

California Health & Safety Code sections 44275 et 

seq. (establishing Carl Moyer Program) and 39625 

et seq. (establishing Prop 1B Program). 

requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the SJV.6 We refer to these submittals 

collectively as the ‘‘2008 PM2.5 Plan.’’ 

On November 9, 2011, EPA approved all 

elements of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan except 

for the contingency measures, which 

EPA disapproved.7 As part of this 

action, EPA approved, inter alia, 

commitments by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) and the 

SJVUAPCD to achieve specific amounts 

of NOX and PM2.5 emission reductions 

by 2014.8 In July 2013, the State 

submitted a revised PM2.5 contingency 

measure plan for the SJV, which EPA 

fully approved in May 2014.9

On May 20, 2015, the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals issued its decision in 

a challenge to EPA’s November 9, 2011 

action on the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.10 In 

Committee for a Better Arvin et. al v. 

EPA (Case Nos. 11–73924 and 12– 

71332) (CBA), the court held that EPA 

violated the CAA by approving the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan even though the plan did not 

include certain state-adopted mobile 

source emission standards on which the 

plan relied to achieve its emission 

reduction goals.11 The CBA court 

remanded EPA’s action on the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan for further proceedings 

consistent with the decision but did not 

vacate EPA’s action.12 Thus, absent an 

EPA rulemaking to withdraw or revise 

the Agency’s November 2011 approval 

of the emission reduction commitments 

in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, these 

commitments remain enforceable 

components of the California SIP.13

II. The State’s Submittal 

CARB adopted the ‘‘Report on 

Reductions Achieved from Incentivebased Emission Reduction Measures in 

the San Joaquin Valley’’ (Emission 

Reduction Report) on October 24, 2014 

and submitted it to EPA as a revision to 

the California SIP on November 17, 

2014. On May 17, 2015, the Emission 

Reduction Report submittal became 

complete by operation of law under 

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B). 

The purpose of the Emission 

Reduction Report is to demonstrate that 

certain mobile source incentive funding 

programs implemented in the SJV area 

have achieved specified amounts of 

NOX and PM2.5 emission reductions by 

January 1, 2014 and to thereby satisfy a 

portion of the 2014 emission reduction 

commitments approved into the SIP as 

part of EPA’s November 2011 action on 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.14 Specifically, the 

Emission Reduction Report documents 

the State’s bases for concluding that a 

total of 2,286 incentive projects 

implemented in the SJV pursuant to the 

Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality 

Standards Attainment Program (Carl 

Moyer Program) and the Proposition 1B: 

Goods Movement Emission Reduction 

Program (Prop 1B Program) have 

achieved a total of 7.8 tons per day (tpd) 

of NOX emission reductions and 0.2 tpd 

of PM2.5 emission reductions in the SJV, 

which may be credited toward the 

State’s 2014 emission reduction 

commitment.15

The SIP submittal for the Emission 

Reduction Report includes eight 

appendices containing documentation 

to support the State’s conclusions. First, 

Appendix A through Appendix E 

contain relevant excerpts from the Carl 

Moyer Program and Prop 1B Program 

guidelines 16 that apply to specifically 

identified types of incentive projects. 

Table 1 identifies the selected project 

types and relevant portions of the 

incentive program guidelines that 

govern their implementation. 

TABLE 1 

Project type Applicable guideline 

(relevant portions) 

Carl Moyer Program: Off-road equipment 

repower, replacement, and retrofit 

projects.

The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Approved Revision 2005, part I, ‘‘Program Overview and Administrative Requirements,’’ and part II, chapter 5, ‘‘Compression-Ignition Off-Road Equipment’’. 

The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Approved Revision 2008, part I, chapter 5, ‘‘Off-Road Compression-Ignition Equipment,’’ and Part III, ‘‘Program Administration’’. 

The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Approved Revisions 2011, part I, chapter 3, ‘‘Program Administration,’’ and chapter 7, ‘‘Off-Road Compression-Ignition Equipment’’. 

Carl Moyer Program: Portable and stationary agricultural source repower 

projects.

The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Approved Revision 2005, part I, ‘‘Program Overview and Administrative Requirements,’’ and part II, chapter 10, ‘‘Agricultural Sources’’. 

The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Approved Revision 2008, part I, chapter 10, ‘‘Agricultural 

Sources,’’ and Part III, ‘‘Program Administration’’. 

The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Approved Revisions 2011, part I, chapter 3, ‘‘Program Administration,’’ and chapter 10, ‘‘Portable and Stationary Agricultural Sources’’. 

Prop 1B Program: On-road vehicle replacement projects.Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program, Final Guidelines for Implementation, 

2008, Section II, ‘‘ARB Program Administration,’’ Section III, ‘‘Local Agency Project,’’ Section IV, 

‘‘General Equipment Project Requirements,’’ and appendix A, ‘‘Trucks Serving Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards’’. 

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

2008, Section II, ‘‘ARB Program Administration,’’ Section III, ‘‘Local Agency Project,’’ Section IV, 

‘‘General Equipment Project Requirements,’’ and appendix B, ‘‘Other Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks’’. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51149 

17Under longstanding EPA guidance, emission 

reductions achieved through economic incentives 

and other nontraditional emission reduction 

measures must be quantifiable, surplus, 

enforceable, and permanent in order to qualify for 

SIP emission reduction credit under the CAA. See, 

e.g., ‘‘Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile 

Source Emission Reduction Programs in State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs),’’ October 24, 1997 

(‘‘1997 VMEP’’) at 6–7; ‘‘Improving Air Quality with 

Economic Incentive Programs,’’ U.S. EPA, Office of 

Air and Radiation, January 2001 (EPA–452/R–01– 

001) (‘‘2001 EIP Guidance’’) at section 4.1; 

‘‘Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures 

in a State Implementation Plan,’’ September 2004 

(‘‘2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures 

Guidance’’) at 3–4; and ‘‘Diesel Retrofits: 

Quantifying and Using Their Emission Benefits in 

SIPs and Conformity,’’ February 2014 (‘‘2014 Diesel 

Retrofits Guidance’’) at 27–29. 

18See generally CARB, ‘‘The Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines, Approved Revisions 2011,’’ Release 

Date: February 8, 2013, at Chapter 1 (available 

electronically at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/

moyer/moyer.htm). 

19 Id. 

20See generally ‘‘Strategic Growth Plan Bond 

Accountability, Goods Movement Emission 

Reduction Program,’’ Approved February 27, 2008 

(available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/bonds/gmbond/ 

docs/gm_accountability_with_links_2-27-08.pdf). 

21See, 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 sections 172(c)(6), 183(e)(4). 

22See 59 FR 16690 (April 7, 1994) (codified at 40 

CFR part 51, subpart U) and 2001 EIP Guidance. 

23See generally 1997 VMEP; 2004 Emerging and 

Voluntary Measures Guidance; 2014 Diesel Retrofits 

Guidance; and ‘‘Guidance on Incorporating 

Bundled Measures in a State Implementation Plan,’’ 

August 16, 2005 (‘‘2005 Bundled Measures 

Guidance’’). 

TABLE 1—Continued 

Project type Applicable guideline 

(relevant portions) 

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

2010, Section II, ‘‘ARB Program Administration,’’ Section III, ‘‘Local Agency Project Proposal,’’ Section IV, ‘‘Local Agency Project Implementation,’’ Section V, ‘‘State Agency Project Implementation,’’ 

Section VI, ‘‘General Equipment Project Requirements,’’ and appendix A, ‘‘Heavy Duty Diesel 

Trucks’’. 

Source: Emission Reduction Report at 5, 10, 14, and 17. 

Second, Appendix F and Appendix G 

contain CARB’s demonstrations that the 

identified portions of the Carl Moyer 

Program and Prop 1B Program 

guidelines adequately address EPA’s 

recommended ‘‘integrity elements’’ by 

ensuring that the resulting emission 

reductions are quantifiable, surplus, 

enforceable, and permanent.17 We refer 

to these analyses as the State’s ‘‘integrity 

demonstrations’’ for these components 

of the Carl Moyer Program and Prop 1B 

Program. 

Third, Appendix H lists each of the 

832 Carl Moyer Program projects and 

1,454 Prop 1B Program projects funded 

pursuant to the identified program 

guidelines that the State has relied upon 

in the Emission Reduction Report. For 

each of these projects, Appendix H 

identifies the ‘‘equipment project ID,’’ 

contract term (project life), postinspection date, adoption year of the 

applicable incentive program guideline, 

and NOX and/or PM2.5 emission 

reductions achieved in 2014, in pounds 

per year (lbs/yr). 

The Carl Moyer Program is a 

California grant program established in 

1998 that provides funding to encourage 

the voluntary purchase of cleaner-thanrequired engines, equipment, and other 

emission reduction technologies.18 In its 

first 12 years, the Carl Moyer Program 

provided over $680 million in state and 

local funds to reduce air pollution 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.19

The Prop 1B Program is a California 

grant program established in 2007, as a 

result of State bond funding approved 

by voters, which provides $1 billion in 

funding to CARB to reduce air pollution 

emissions and health risks from freight 

movement along California’s priority 

trade corridors. Under the enabling 

legislation (California Senate Bill 88 and 

Assembly Bill 201 (2007)), CARB 

awards grants to fund projects proposed 

by local agencies that are involved in 

freight movement or air quality 

improvements associated with goods 

movement activities. Upon receipt of 

such grants, the local agencies are then 

responsible for providing financial 

incentives to owners of equipment used 

in freight movement to upgrade to 

cleaner technologies, consistent with 

program guidelines adopted by CARB.20

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s 

Submittal 

A. SIP Procedural Requirements 

Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the 

Act 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. 

CARB’s November 17, 2014 SIP 

submittal includes public process 

documentation for the Emission 

Reduction Report, including 

documentation of a duly noticed public 

hearing held by the State on October 24, 

2014. On October 24, 2014, CARB 

adopted the Emission Reduction Report 

as a revision to the California SIP and 

submitted it to EPA on November 17, 

2014 for action pursuant to CAA section 

110(k) of the Act. We find that the 

process followed by CARB in adopting 

the Emission Reduction Report 

complies with the procedural 

requirements for SIP revisions under 

CAA section 110 and EPA’s 

implementing regulations. 

B. EPA Policy on Economic Incentives 

The CAA explicitly provides for the 

use of economic incentives as one tool 

for states to use to achieve attainment of 

the NAAQS.21 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 issued 

guidance for discretionary EIPs.22 In 

light of the increasing incremental cost 

associated with further stationary and 

mobile source emission reductions and 

the difficulty of identifying such 

additional sources of emissions 

reductions in many areas, EPA 

encourages innovative approaches to 

reducing emissions through EIPs and 

other nontraditional measures and 

programs, including ‘‘voluntary’’ and 

‘‘emerging’’ measures.23

We provide below a summary of our 

evaluation of the Emission Reduction 

Report and related incentive program 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
51150 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

24See, e.g., 2001 EIP Guidance at section 4.1. 

25See, e.g., 2001 EIP Guidance at section 4.1; 

1997 VMEP at 6–7; 2004 Emerging and Voluntary 

Measures Guidance at 3–4; and 2014 Diesel 

Retrofits Guidance at 27–29. 

26See 2001 EIP Guidance at Section 4.1; 1997 

VMEP at 6–7; 2004 Emerging and Voluntary 

Measures Guidance at 3–4; and 2014 Diesel 

Retrofits Guidance at 27–29. 

27Emission Reduction Report at 7–8, 11–12, 15, 

19–20, Appendix F, and Appendix G. 

28Emission Reduction Report at 9, 12, 15–16, 20, 

Appendix F, and Appendix G. 

29Emission Reduction Report at 6–7, 10–11, 15, 

17–19, Appendix F, and Appendix G. 

30Emission Reduction Report at 9–10, 13–14, 16, 

21–22, Appendix F, and Appendix G. 

31See, e.g., 1997 VMEP at 4–7; 2004 Emerging 

and Voluntary Measures Guidance at 8–12; and 

2005 Bundled Measures Guidance at 7–12. 

guidelines. Our Technical Support 

Document (TSD) contains a more 

detailed evaluation of the SIP submittal. 

1. Programmatic ‘‘integrity elements’’ 

Where a State relies upon a 

discretionary EIP or other nontraditional 

emission reduction measure in a SIP 

submittal, EPA evaluates the 

programmatic elements of the measure 

to determine whether the resulting 

emission reductions are quantifiable, 

surplus, enforceable and permanent.24

These four fundamental ‘‘integrity 

elements,’’ which apply to all 

discretionary EIPs and other innovative 

measures relied on for SIP purposes, are 

designed to ensure that such measures 

satisfy the applicable requirements of 

the Act.25 EPA has generally defined the 

four fundamental integrity elements for 

discretionary EIPs and other innovative 

emission reduction programs as follows: 

• Quantifiable: emission reductions 

are quantifiable if they can be measured 

in a manner that is reliable and 

replicable by different users; 

• 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); additionally, 

emission reductions are ’’surplus’’ only 

for the remaining useful life of the 

vehicle, engine, or equipment being 

replaced. 

• 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; 

citizens may file suit against a 

responsible entity for violations; and the 

required reductions/actions are 

practicably enforceable consistent with 

EPA guidance on practical 

enforceability. 

• 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. 

The time period that the emission 

reductions are used in the SIP can be no 

longer than the remaining useful life of 

the retrofitted or replaced engine, 

vehicle, or equipment.26

The Emission Reduction Report 

documents CARB’s bases for concluding 

that the portions of the incentive 

program guidelines identified in Table 1 

adequately address each of these 

integrity elements. First, with respect to 

quantification, the Emission Reduction 

Report references and describes the 

formulas that the guidelines require 

applicants to use to determine annual 

emissions (i.e., baseline emissions, 

based on existing equipment or new 

equipment certified by CARB to current 

emission standards) and annual 

emission reductions (i.e., the difference 

between baseline emissions and 

reduced emissions from new/upgraded 

equipment).27 These requirements 

ensure that program participants will 

calculate emission reductions reliably, 

using widely available methods and 

assumptions, and in a manner that can 

be replicated by different users. 

Second, with respect to additionality 

(i.e., ensuring that reductions are 

‘‘surplus’’ or non-duplicative to existing 

requirements), the Emission Reduction 

Report references and describes the 

provisions in the guidelines that 

prohibit the use of program funds for 

emission reductions that are required by 

any federal, state or local regulation or 

other legal mandate and requirements to 

ensure that equipment or engines being 

replaced are still in usable form and 

would not have been replaced by 

normal fleet turnover.28 These 

provisions ensure that projects funded 

under these guidelines will achieve 

emission reductions that are not 

otherwise required by or assumed in a 

SIP-related program and that are surplus 

to federal, state, and local requirements. 

Third, with respect to enforceability, 

the Emission Reduction Report 

references and describes the funding 

criteria in the guidelines that are 

designed to ensure that emission 

reductions will be independently 

verifiable and practicably enforceable by 

CARB and the District, including 

detailed requirements for project 

applications, contracts, pre- and postproject inspections, and recordkeeping 

and reporting by both the grantees and 

the implementing local agencies.29

These requirements ensure that 

emission reductions can be 

independently verified, that the public 

has access to emissions-related 

information, and that required actions 

are practicably enforceable consistent 

with EPA guidance on practical 

enforceability. 

Finally, with respect to permanence, 

the Emission Reduction Report 

references and describes requirements 

in the guidelines for program applicants 

to demonstrate that both the baseline 

(old) and replacement (new/upgraded) 

equipment are used similarly in the 

nonattainment area and to document the 

destruction of the baseline (old) 

equipment, as well as requirements to 

identify in each contract the timeframe 

during which the State/District attribute 

emission reductions to the project.30

These requirements ensure that 

emission reduction calculations are 

based on reasonable assumptions 

concerning equipment/vehicle activity; 

that baseline (old) equipment and 

vehicles do not continue in operation; 

and that EPA and the public can 

determine whether emission reductions 

attributed to a project adequately cover 

the period for which those reductions 

are relied upon in a SIP. 

Based on these evaluations, we find 

that the portions of the Carl Moyer 

Program and Prop 1B Program 

guidelines identified in Table 1 

establish emission reduction 

quantification protocols, grant 

conditions, recordkeeping and reporting 

obligations, and other requirements that 

adequately address EPA’s recommended 

integrity elements for economic 

incentive programs. 

2. Enforceable Commitment 

Where a State relies on a discretionary 

EIP or other voluntary measure to satisfy 

an attainment planning requirement 

under the CAA (e.g., to demonstrate that 

specific amounts of emission reductions 

will occur by a future milestone date), 

the State must take responsibility for 

assuring that SIP emission reduction 

requirements are met through an 

enforceable commitment, which 

becomes federally enforceable upon 

approval into the SIP.31 The purpose of 

the Emission Reduction Report, 

however, is to demonstrate that a 

portion of the emission reductions 

required under a previously-approved 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51151 

SIP commitment have in fact been 

achieved, not to satisfy a future 

emission reduction requirement. 

Accordingly, it is not necessary to 

require the State to submit additional 

commitments for this purpose. 

C. Sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act 

Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits 

EPA from approving any SIP revision 

that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

RFP or any other applicable CAA 

requirement. The Emission Reduction 

Report documents CARB’s bases for 

concluding that specific incentive 

projects implemented by January 1, 

2014, in accordance with the identified 

portions of the Carl Moyer Program and 

Prop 1B Program guidelines, have 

achieved a total of 7.8 tpd of NOX

emission reductions and 0.2 tpd of 

PM2.5 emission reductions in the SJV 

area which may be credited toward the 

State’s 2014 emission reduction 

commitment in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

These calculations of emission 

reductions are based on actions taken by 

grantees before January 1, 2014 which 

reduced emissions of NOX and PM2.5 in 

the SJV (e.g., through replacement of 

older, higher-polluting vehicles 

operating in the SJV area with newer, 

cleaner vehicles). The Emission 

Reduction Report does not establish or 

revise any emission limitation, control 

measure, or other requirement in the 

applicable SIP. We propose to 

determine that our approval of the 

Emission Reduction Report 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 attainment of the NAAQS and other 

CAA provisions are met. 

Section 193 of the Act does not apply 

to this proposed action because the 

Emission Reduction Report does not 

modify any SIP-approved control 

requirement in effect before November 

15, 1990. 

IV. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

Under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, 

EPA is proposing to fully approve the 

submitted Emission Reduction Report 

and, based on CARB’s documentation 

therein of actions taken by grantees in 

accordance with the identified incentive 

program guidelines, to approve 7.8 tpd 

of NOX emission reductions and 0.2 tpd 

of PM2.5 emission reductions for credit 

toward the State’s 2014 emission 

reduction commitment in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposed action until the 

date noted in the DATES section above. 

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 approves 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 (Pub. L. 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 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: August 6, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20749 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0556; FRL–9932–94– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri; Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of 

Missouri in a letter dated March 30, 

2015. This SIP revision provides 

Missouri’s state-determined allowance 

allocations for existing electric 

generating units (EGUs) in the state for 

the 2016 control period and replaces 

certain allowance allocations for the 

2016 control periods established by EPA 

under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR). The CSAPR addresses the 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provision of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) that requires states 

to reduce the transport of pollution that 

significantly affects downwind air 

quality. In this action EPA is proposing 

to approve Missouri’s SIP revision, 

incorporating the state-determined 

allocations for the 2016 control periods 

into the SIP, and amending the 

regulatory text of the CSAPR Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) to reflect this 

approval and inclusion of the statedetermined allocations. EPA is 

proposing to take direct final action to 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS