Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 37741 

may result in hazardous radiation 

exposure. 

(v) In the case of laser products other 

than laser systems, a statement of the 

compatibility requirements for a laser 

energy source that will assure 

compliance of the laser product with 

this section and, if applicable, with 

§ 1040.11. 

(vi) For Class 1M and 2M laser 

products, an additional warning is 

required. This warning must state that 

viewing the laser output with optical 

instruments may result in an eye hazard 

for Class 1M or an increased eye hazard 

for Class 2M. 

(2) Purchasing and servicing 

information. Manufacturers of laser 

products must provide or cause to be 

provided: 

(i) In all catalogs, specification sheets, 

and descriptive brochures pertaining to 

each laser product, a statement of the 

class designation of the laser product. 

(ii) To servicing dealers and 

distributors and to others upon request 

at a cost not to exceed the cost of 

preparation and distribution, adequate 

instructions for radiation safety 

procedures during service. The 

radiation safety procedures must 

include: 

(A) Precautions to be taken to avoid 

possible exposure of service and other 

personnel to hazardous levels of laser 

and collateral radiation, 

(B) A listing of controls and 

procedures that could be utilized by 

persons other than the manufacturer or 

the manufacturer’s agents to increase 

the hazard by increasing accessible 

levels of radiation, 

(C) A description of the displaceable 

portions of protective housings that 

could allow human access to hazardous 

levels of laser or collateral radiation, 

and 

(D) Legible reproductions (color 

optional) of required labels and hazard 

warnings required by paragraph (g) of 

this section and, if applicable, by 

§ 1040.11, to be affixed to the laser 

product or provided with the laser 

product. 

(i) Modification of certified laser 

products. The modification of a laser 

product previously certified under 

§ 1010.2 of this subchapter by any 

person engaged in the business of 

manufacturing, assembling, or 

modifying laser products constitutes 

manufacturing under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act if the 

modification affects any aspect of the 

product’s performance or intended 

function(s) for which this section or 

§ 1040.11 have an applicable 

requirement. The person who performs 

such modification must recertify and reidentify the product in accordance with 

the provisions of §§ 1010.2 and 1010.3 

of this subchapter. 

■ 10. Section 1040.11 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1040.11 Specific purpose laser products. 

(a) Medical laser products. Each 

medical laser product must comply with 

all of the applicable requirements of 

§ 1040.10 for laser products of its class. 

In addition, such products must comply 

with the following specified clauses and 

subclauses of IEC 60601–2–22:2007 and 

IEC 60825–1:2007 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 1040.5). 

(1) Instructions for use, subclause 

201.7.9.2 of IEC 60601–2–22:2007; 

(2) Protection against unwanted and 

excessive radiation hazards, clause 

201.10 of IEC 60601–2–22:2007, except 

for: 

(i) Applicability to medical LED 

products, and 

(ii) Emission indicator, subclause 

201.10.4(e) of IEC 60601–2–22:2007, for 

which subclause 4.7 of IEC 60825– 

1:2007 is applicable; 

(3) Indication of laser output, 

subclause 201.12.1.101 of IEC 60601–2– 

22:2007; 

(4) Indication of parameters relevant 

to safety, subclause 201.12.4.2 of IEC 

60601–2–22:2007; 

(5) Calibration procedures, subclause 

201.7.9.2.101, 4th dash of IEC 60601–2– 

22:2007; 

(6) Incorrect output, subclause 

201.12.4.4 of IEC 60601–2–22:2007; and 

(7) Emergency laser stop, subclause 

201.12.4.4.101 of IEC 60601–2–22:2007. 

(b) Surveying, leveling, and alignment 

laser products. Each surveying, leveling, 

or alignment laser product must comply 

with all of the applicable requirements 

of § 1040.10 for a Class 1, 2, or 3R laser 

product and must not permit human 

access to laser radiation in excess of the 

accessible emission limits of Class 3R. 

(c) Demonstration laser products. 

Each demonstration laser product must 

comply with all of the applicable 

requirements of § 1040.10 for a Class 1, 

2, or 3R laser product and must not 

permit human access to laser radiation 

in excess of the accessible emission 

limits of Class 3R. 

(d) Children’s toy laser products. Each 

children’s toy laser product must 

comply with all of the applicable 

requirements of § 1040.10 for a Class 1 

laser product and must not permit 

human access to laser radiation in 

excess of the accessible emission limits 

of Class 1 under any conditions of 

operation, maintenance, service, or 

failure. If a children’s toy laser product 

also meets the definition of a 

demonstration laser product or 

surveying, leveling, and alignment laser 

product, then the classification limit for 

children’s toy laser product applies. 

(e) Laser products procured by the 

U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). 

Laser products procured by the DOD for 

use in combat, combat training, or that 

are classified in the interest of national 

security are exempt from the other 

provisions of this section, and from 

§§ 1002.10, 1002.11, 1002.13 of this 

subchapter, and those provisions of 

§ 1040.10 that are determined not to be 

appropriate for the intended military 

application. In order for this exemption 

to apply to a specific laser product, the 

manufacturer of such product shall 

obtain a letter from an authorized DOD 

procuring Agency that applies the 

exemption to the products. The 

exemption letter must be obtained prior 

to sale and must be retained for 

subsequent sales of the exempted 

products under the specific contract to 

any DOD Agency. 

Dated: June 18, 2013. 

Leslie Kux, 

Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–14846 Filed 6–21–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0384; FRL–9826–2] 

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 

July 24, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

37742 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA has also designated the South Coast area as 

nonattainment for the more stringent 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS of 35 mg/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 mg/m3 and annual standards of 15 

mg/m3 as codified in 40 CFR 50.7. 

2EPA 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 

OAR–2013–0384, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• Email: lo.doris@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office 

of Air Planning (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105. 

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 email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site 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 

comments due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site 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. 

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

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

and 24-hour (daily) standards of 65 mg/ 

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 two-thirds of Los Angeles 

County, southwestern San Bernardino 

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 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 

41578–41580 (July 14, 2011) and 76 FR 

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 SIP-creditable 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 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 41478–80 and 76 FR 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 

pollutant-specific basis.2 76 FR 41579– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 37743 

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. 

3The 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. 

4We refer to those measures addressing failure to 

make RFP as ‘‘RFP contingency measures’’ and 

those measures addressing failure to attain as 

‘‘attainment contingency measures.’’ 

5Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia (DC 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 

Continued 

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 69952. 

II. Summary of California Submittal 

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 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 SIP-creditable 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. 

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 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 

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 

occur within 60 days after EPA notifies 

the State of its failure. 57 FR 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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

37744 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

EPA’s longstanding interpretation of it continue to 

apply. 

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’’). 

7Consistent 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. 

8Although 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. 

9This 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. 

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 mg/m3 in 

2005 to a value of 17.98 mg/m3 in 2010. 

Id. at 5. The maximum observed design 

value for 2010 at the design value site 7

(Rubidoux 8), however, was 15.01 mg/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 

mg/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 mg/m3

improvement over 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 data 9 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 37745 

10Emissions 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 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. 

11For a more detailed discussion of the air quality 

data that EPA evaluated, see Section III.B.2.c, infra 

(‘‘PM2.5 air quality data’’). 

12Consistent 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). 

13See n. 2, supra. 

14The 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. 

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 

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 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), 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

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 pp. 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

37746 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

15The 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. 

may qualify for approval as contingency 

measures for the PM2.5 NAAQS, 

provided the measures are surplus to 

PM2.5 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 

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-thanrequired 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, 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 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 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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 37747 

16The 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). 

17According 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 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. 

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 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 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–B–3_section1.pdf. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

District’s enforceable SIP commitments 

regarding the Carl Moyer Program and 

technical 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 

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 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 (OnRoad 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

37748 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 shore-side 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, 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 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 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 SIPcreditable 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 SIPcreditable 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 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 SIP-creditable 

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 

mg/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- 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 37749 

18EPA 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. 

19Most 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. 

hour concentration, also as determined 

in accordance with appendix N, is less 

than or equal to 65 mg/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. Qualityassured 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 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 Beach—PCH .......................................................... 060374004 .......... 20.6 16.5 14.7 14.4 13.7 13.7 12.5 10.4 10.7 10.9 

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 

One-year annual mean (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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

37750 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

20See ibid. 

21See 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’’). 

22EPA 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. 

TABLE 2—ANNUAL PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES, 2002–2012—Continued 

Site AQS ID 

One-year annual mean (μg/m3)19

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

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 

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 mg/m3 in 

2002 (at Rubidoux) to 15.3 mg/m3 in 

2012 (at Mira Loma), and the annual 

PM2.5 design value for the area dropped 

from 28.9 mg/m3 to 15.6 mg/m3 during 

this same timeframe. Daily PM2.5 design 

values at all monitors in the South Coast 

area also declined significantly, from 73 

mg/m3 (at Rubidoux) in 2002 to 37 mg/ 

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 mg/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 mg/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 mg/m3) and may also attain 

the annual standard (15 mg/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 date 22 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 reductions necessary to bring 

about attainment in the area.’’ See PM– 

10 Addendum at 42015 and 72 FR 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 37751 

23See ‘‘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). 

24The Contingency Measure SIP does not 

specifically provide SIP-creditable SOX reductions 

in 2015 for contingency measure purposes. 

25See n. 2, supra. 

South Coast air basin to reach 15.00 mg/ 

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 mg/m3 rather than 15.00 mg/m3, 

and that the additional 0.04 mg/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 mg/ 

m3 as the target emission level in its 

modeling analyses 23 and that, because 

the South Coast PM2.5 SIP models 

attainment at a level of 15.0 mg/m3, 

some amount of emission reductions 

accounting for the additional 0.04 mg/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 NOXequivalent 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 SIPcreditable 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 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 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 SIPcreditable 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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

37752 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 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); 

• 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 

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, Incorporation by reference, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 12, 2013. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2013–14918 Filed 6–21–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2013–0417; FRL–9827–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Rescission of Federal Implementation 

Plan; Wyoming; Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse 

Gas Tailoring Rule Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions and additions to the Wyoming 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the Wyoming Department 

of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) to 

EPA on March 8, 2013. The proposed 

SIP revision to the Wyoming Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

program updates the program to regulate 

permitting of sources of greenhouse 

gases (GHGs). Specifically, we propose 

to approve revisions to Chapter 1, 

Common Provisions, Section 3, 

Definitions, and Chapter 6, Permitting 

Requirements, Section 4, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration, and the 

addition of Chapter 1, Section 7, 

Greenhouse Gases. The March 8, 2013 

proposed SIP revision to the Wyoming 

PSD program establishes emission 

thresholds for determining which new 

stationary sources and modifications to 

existing stationary sources become 

subject to Wyoming’s PSD permitting 

requirements for their GHG emissions. 

The March 8, 2013 proposed SIP 

revision also defers until July 21, 2014 

application of the PSD permitting 

requirements to biogenic carbon dioxide 

emissions from bioenergy and other 

biogenic stationary sources. EPA is 

proposing to approve the March 8, 2013 

SIP revision to the Wyoming PSD 

permitting program as being consistent 

with federal requirements for PSD 

permitting. EPA is also proposing to 

rescind the GHG PSD Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for Wyoming 

that was put in place to ensure the 

availability of a permitting authority for 

GHG PSD permitting in Wyoming, 

which would be effective upon final 

approval of the March 8, 2013 PSD SIP 

revision. EPA is proposing this action 

under section 110 and part C of the 

Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 24, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2013–0417, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: ostendorf.jody@epa.gov 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS