19020 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0938; FRL–9925–86– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Transportation Conformity and 

Conformity of General Federal Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: On February 10, 2015, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published a direct final rule approving 

revisions to the New Mexico State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions amend the State transportation 

conformity provisions and remove the 

State general conformity provisions 

from the SIP, as allowed by the 2005 

amendments to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). The direct final rule was 

published without prior proposal 

because EPA anticipated no adverse 

comments. EPA stated in the direct final 

rule that if EPA received relevant, 

adverse comments by March 12, 2015, 

EPA would publish a timely withdrawal 

in the Federal Register. EPA received a 

relevant, adverse comment on March 10, 

2015, and accordingly is withdrawing 

the direct final rule, and in a separate 

subsequent final rulemaking will 

address the comment received. The 

withdrawal is being taken pursuant to 

section 110 of the CAA. 

DATES: The direct final rule published 

on February 10, 2015 (80 FR 7341), is 

withdrawn effective April 8, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jeffrey Riley (6PD–L), Air Planning 

Section, telephone (214) 665–8542, fax 

(214) 665–6762, email: 

riley.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 10, 2015, EPA published a 

direct final rule approving revisions to 

the New Mexico SIP. These revisions 

amend the State transportation 

conformity provisions and remove the 

State general conformity provisions 

from the SIP, as allowed by the 2005 

amendments to the CAA. The direct 

final rule was published without prior 

proposal because EPA anticipated no 

adverse comments. EPA stated in the 

direct final rule that if relevant, adverse 

comments were received by March 12, 

2015, EPA would publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register. EPA 

received a comment on March 10, 2015 

from the Sierra Club stating in relevant 

part, that an Acting Regional 

Administrator cannot sign approvals, 

disapprovals, or any combination of 

approvals or disapproval, in whole or in 

part, due to the fact that the authority 

to act on agency actions on state 

implementation plans is delegated only 

to, and therefore can only be signed by, 

the Regional Administrator. EPA 

considers this a relevant, adverse 

comment and accordingly is 

withdrawing the direct final rule. In a 

separate subsequent final rulemaking 

EPA will address the comment received. 

The withdrawal is being taken pursuant 

to section 110 of the CAA. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon Monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: March 31, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

Accordingly, the amendments to 40 

CFR 52.1620 published in the Federal 

Register on February 10, 2015 (80 FR 

7341), which were to become effective 

on April 13, 2015, are withdrawn. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07995 Filed 4–8–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0754; FRL–9924–69- 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan; San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District; Quantification of Emission 

Reductions From Incentive Programs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of a 

revision to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

regulation establishes requirements and 

procedures for the District’s 

quantification of emission reductions 

achieved through incentive funding 

programs implemented in the San 

Joaquin Valley. The effect of this action 

would be to make these requirements 

and procedures federally enforceable as 

part of the California SIP. Under 

authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

the Act), this action simultaneously 

approves the local rule and directs 

California to correct rule deficiencies. 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

May 11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0754 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

While all documents in the docket are 

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

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, 

multi-volume reports), and some may 

not be available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Idalia Pe ́rez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3248, perez.idalia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On May 19, 2014 (79 FR 28650), EPA 

proposed to fully approve the following 

rule, which the California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) submitted for 

incorporation into the California SIP. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19021 

1EPA has promulgated regulations for statutory 

EIPs required under section 182(g) of the Act. See 

40 CFR part 51, subpart U. For discretionary EIPs, 

EPA has issued guidance entitled ‘‘Improving Air 

Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,’’ U.S. 

EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, January 2001 

(EPA–45/R–01–001) (‘‘2001 EIP Guidance’’). 

Because the 2001 EIP Guidance is non-binding and 

does not represent final agency action on 

discretionary EIPs, EPA uses the 2001 EIP Guidance 

as an initial screen to evaluate potential 

approvability issues. Final action on any 

discretionary EIP occurs when EPA acts on it after 

its submission as a SIP revision. 

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ................................... 9610 State Implementation Plan Credit for Emission Reductions Generated through Incentive Programs.06/20/13 06/26/13 

We proposed to fully approve Rule 

9610 based on a proposed conclusion 

that the rule satisfied the applicable 

CAA requirements. We noted, however, 

that section 6.2 of the rule contained an 

incorrect statutory reference and 

inaccurately described the statutory 

obligations of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) with 

respect to disclosure of information 

concerning implementation of the 

Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program (EQIP). See 79 FR 28650 at 

28657 (May 19, 2014). We strongly 

recommended that the District revise 

section 6.2 of the rule at its earliest 

convenience to remove the incorrect 

reference and to provide an accurate 

description of NRCS’s statutory 

obligations with respect to disclosure of 

information related to EQIP. See id. 

Based on additional evaluation of this 

rule and in response to public 

comments, we continue to believe that 

Rule 9610 largely satisfies the 

applicable CAA requirements but find 

that the deficiencies in section 6.2 of the 

rule, as described in our proposed rule, 

necessitate a limited disapproval. We 

provide our rationale for this limited 

disapproval in our responses to 

comments below. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed rule provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received comments from the 

following entities: 

1. Paul Cort, Earthjustice; letter dated 

June 18, 2014. 

2. Seyed Sadredin, SJVUAPCD; letter 

dated June 17, 2014. 

We summarize these comments and 

provide our responses below. 

Comment 1: Earthjustice states that 

EPA should withdraw its proposed 

approval of Rule 9610 because approval 

of the rule will ‘‘create legal confusion 

over the requirements that must be met 

for approval of voluntary incentive 

measures into the State Implementation 

Plan (‘SIP’).’’ Earthjustice further claims 

that the rule adds no value to the SIP 

and that EPA’s proposal does not fully 

identify all of the ‘‘legal defects’’ in the 

rule. ‘‘At best,’’ according to 

Earthjustice, ‘‘EPA’s approval of Rule 

9610 does nothing, because compliance 

with Rule 9610 will not be enough to 

support approval of future incentive 

programs into the SIP,’’ and at worst ‘‘it 

will create legal confusion over the 

governing criteria’’ and waste resources 

by encouraging the development of 

faulty programs. 

Response 1: We disagree with these 

comments. We believe Rule 9610 is 

consistent with the flexibility accorded 

states in incorporating discretionary, 

innovative and non-traditional emission 

reduction programs in their SIPs, under 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6). 

The CAA establishes a system of 

cooperative federalism in which EPA 

provides national leadership, sets 

standards for environmental protection 

and conducts oversight of state 

implementation, while states play a 

larger role in implementation of these 

standards including developing SIPs 

and adopting emission reduction 

measures. See CAA sections 101 and 

102. Under section 110 of the Act, states 

have broad discretion to choose the mix 

of emission limitations and other 

control measures, means, or techniques 

(including economic incentive 

programs) that they will implement to 

provide for attainment of the national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

See Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 

246 (1976) (‘‘So long as the national 

standards are met, the State may select 

whatever mix of control devices it 

desires.’’). 

As we explained in our proposal, Rule 

9610 contains key provisions designed 

to establish a regulatory framework for 

the District’s quantification of emission 

reductions achieved through incentive 

programs and to provide opportunities 

for EPA, CARB, and the public to review 

and comment on the District’s 

evaluations on an annual basis. See 79 

FR 28650 at 28652. We believe the 

criteria and procedures in Rule 9610 

establish a useful starting point for the 

District’s development of such programs 

and for public participation in the 

District’s development of air quality 

plans that rely on such programs.1 Upon 

incorporation of Rule 9610 into the SIP, 

the requirements and procedures in the 

rule become federally enforceable 

against the District, enabling EPA and 

citizens to hold the District accountable 

for compliance with these requirements. 

As we also stated in the proposed 

rule, nothing in Rule 9610 supplants the 

applicable requirements of the CAA, 

and EPA will review each SIP submittal 

developed pursuant to Rule 9610 and 

EPA guidance on a case-by-case basis, 

following notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, to determine whether the 

applicable requirements of the Act are 

met. See 79 FR 28650 at 28658. EPA 

specifically identified a number of 

shortcomings in Rule 9610 to ensure 

that the State and District are aware of 

the rule’s limitations. See, e.g., 79 FR 

28650 at 28656 (noting that Rule 9610 

does not specifically address CAA 

requirements concerning funding, 

personnel, and implementation 

authority) and 28657 (discussing 

incorrect statutory reference in section 

6.2 of Rule 9610). To the extent our 

proposal did not make clear that Rule 

9610 in no way substitutes for the 

requirements of the CAA, we hereby 

clarify that the requirements of the CAA 

continue to apply to each SIP submitted 

by the State and District, 

notwithstanding any provision in Rule 

9610, and that our action on this rule 

does not constitute an endorsement of 

its content as an adequate 

representation of the requirements of 

the Act. Additionally, we are finalizing 

a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of Rule 9610 because of the 

deficiencies in section 6.2 concerning 

disclosure of records related to the 

NRCS’s implementation of the EQIP 

program. We explain our reasons for 

disapproving the rule on this basis in 

Response 3.h below. 

Given that the District’s stated 

purpose in adopting Rule 9610 was to 

establish an administrative mechanism 

for crediting emission reductions 

achieved through incentive programs 

toward SIP requirements, EPA 

discussed in the proposed rule ‘‘the 

extent to which the requirements and 

procedures contained in the rule 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19022 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

establish a framework for development 

of SIP submittals that satisfy the 

requirements of the Act, as interpreted 

in EPA policy on discretionary EIPs and 

other nontraditional emission reduction 

measures.’’ 79 FR 28650 at 28653. In the 

Technical Support Document (TSD), 

EPA also provided evaluations of the 

specific incentive program guidelines 

listed in Section 3.1 of the rule, as a 

‘‘preliminary guide to assist the District 

in its effort to address CAA 

requirements in SIP submittals that rely 

on incentive programs going forward.’’ 

79 FR 28650 at 28654; see also U.S. EPA 

Region 9 Air Division, ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for EPA’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking for the California 

State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District’s Rule 9610, State 

Implementation Plan Credit for 

Emission Reductions Generated through 

Incentive Programs,’’ May 2014 

(hereafter ‘‘Proposal TSD’’). We 

provided these evaluations to explain 

the minimum statutory requirements 

that apply to SIPs that rely on economic 

incentive programs; to inform the 

District of both provisions in Rule 9610 

that adequately represent these 

requirements and shortcomings in the 

rule that should be corrected to avoid 

confusion; and to invite public 

comment on EPA’s understanding of the 

way in which the District would 

implement Rule 9610 going forward. 

See, e.g., 79 FR 28650 at 28653 

(discussing EPA’s recommended 

programmatic ‘‘integrity elements’’ for 

innovative measures), 28654 (discussing 

EPA’s recommended SIP components 

for innovative measures); and 28657 

(recommending rule corrections to 

avoid confusion concerning NRCS’s 

statutory obligations and requesting 

public comment on mechanisms for 

tracking the District’s compliance with 

SIP commitments). EPA’s limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

Rule 9610 into the SIP does not, in any 

way, constitute endorsement of the rule 

as a substitute for CAA requirements. 

Section 110 of the CAA requires each 

state to submit to EPA for approval a 

‘‘plan which provides for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of each primary and 

secondary NAAQS, and EPA is required 

to approve a SIP submittal that relates 

to these purposes and satisfies the 

applicable federal requirements. See 

CAA section 110(k)(3), 42 U.S.C. 

7410(k)(3) and 40 CFR 52.02(a). Rule 

9610 establishes requirements and 

procedures for the District’s 

quantification of reductions in 

emissions of NAAQS pollutants (e.g., 

nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5)) achieved 

through incentive programs and, 

therefore, relates to the requirements of 

CAA section 110. See generally San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District, Final Staff Report, 

‘‘Proposed Rule 9610 (State 

Implementation Plan Credit for 

Emission Reductions Generated through 

Incentive Programs),’’ June 20, 2013. 

With the exception of the deficiencies in 

section 6.2 of the rule, Rule 9610 

satisfies the requirements concerning 

enforceability in section 110(a)(2)(A) 

and SIP revisions in section 110(l) of the 

Act. See 79 FR 28650 at 28652 

(summarizing rule provisions 

enforceable against the District) and 

28658 (explaining that approval of Rule 

9610 would not interfere with 

applicable requirements concerning 

attainment and other CAA 

requirements) and Proposal TSD at 3–8; 

see also Response 3.h (discussing 

deficiencies in section 6.2 of Rule 9610). 

Additionally, EPA has reviewed Rule 

9610 for conflicts with CAA 

requirements and identified one 

provision (section 6.2 of the rule) that 

clearly conflicts with the requirements 

of the Act. Based on these evaluations, 

we conclude that Rule 9610 satisfies the 

statutory requirements for approval into 

the SIP, except for the disclosure 

provision in section 6.2, which we are 

disapproving. See Response 3.h. 

We expect the District to address the 

applicable requirements of the CAA in 

each individual SIP submittal that relies 

on incentive programs, and our 

recommendations in both the proposal 

and today’s final rule are intended to 

provide the District with general 

guidance on how these requirements, as 

interpreted in EPA guidance, apply to 

future SIP submittals developed 

pursuant to Rule 9610 and the 

requirements of the Act. To the extent 

our action on Rule 9610 and the related 

public process provide a forum for EPA 

and the public to comment on the 

statutory requirements that the District 

must address in future SIP submittals 

that rely on incentive programs, we 

view this as an important step toward 

clarifying the applicable CAA 

requirements and ensuring transparency 

in SIP actions going forward. In any 

case, as EPA stated in the proposed rule, 

EPA will review each SIP submittal 

developed pursuant to Rule 9610 

(including the necessary evaluation of 

the applicable incentive program 

guidelines) on a case-by-case basis, 

following notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, to determine whether the 

applicable requirements of the Act are 

met. See 79 FR 28650 at 28654, 28658. 

Nothing in today’s action prohibits EPA 

from disapproving a SIP relying on 

incentive-based emission reductions 

that fails to satisfy the requirements of 

the CAA. 

Comment 2: Earthjustice states that 

the CAA requires emission reductions 

resulting from incentive programs to be 

‘‘quantifiable, surplus, enforceable and 

permanent’’ and asserts that the 

District’s new definitions for these terms 

in Rule 9610 are an attempt to redefine 

these four integrity elements for ‘‘SIP 

creditability.’’ Quoting EPA’s statement 

that ‘‘[n]othing in Rule 9610 supplants 

the applicable requirements of the 

CAA,’’ Earthjustice states that 

‘‘compliance with the SIP-creditability 

definitions in Rule 9610 does not mean 

that a given incentive program is, in 

fact, SIP creditable.’’ Earthjustice claims 

that the potential confusion and conflict 

caused by EPA’s action beg the question 

why EPA is approving Rule 9610 and 

claims that the purpose of the rule and 

EPA’s action are not evident in the 

proposal. In support of these claims, 

Earthjustice cites a statement in the 

Proposal TSD in which EPA disagrees 

with the District’s claims that Rule 9610 

identifies ‘‘pre-approved incentive 

program guidelines’’ for claiming SIP 

credit and that certain Carl Moyer 

programs provide SIP creditable 

emission reductions. Earthjustice 

further asserts that the District’s 

definitions in Rule 9610 do not meet all 

of EPA’s criteria and that EPA’s analysis 

of the District’s definitions ‘‘notes some 

of these deficiencies but ignores others,’’ 

leaving readers to ‘‘puzzle through’’ the 

reason for EPA’s approval of the rule. 

Response 2: We agree that the CAA 

requires emission reductions resulting 

from incentive programs to be 

‘‘quantifiable, surplus, enforceable and 

permanent’’ in order to qualify for 

emission reduction credit in a SIP. We 

disagree, however, with the 

commenter’s claim that the definitions 

of the terms ‘‘quantifiable,’’ ‘‘surplus,’’ 

‘‘enforceable’’ and ‘‘permanent’’ in Rule 

9610 represent an attempt by the 

District to redefine the CAA’s 

requirements for SIP creditability. As 

we stated in our proposed action, the 

SJVUAPCD’s stated intent in adopting 

Rule 9610 was to establish a regulatory 

framework to address the CAA’s 

requirements for crediting incentivebased emission reductions in SIPs. See 

79 FR 28650 at 28651. Upon 

incorporation of Rule 9610 into the SIP, 

its requirements will become federally 

enforceable under the CAA and thereby 

supplement, but not supplant, the 

requirements of the Act. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19023 

2We understand that CARB and the District do 

not intend to submit any incentive program 

guidelines to EPA for approval into the SIP, given 

that SIP-approval of an incentive program guideline 

per se is not necessary to demonstrate that the 

emission reductions associated with that program 

satisfy CAA requirements for SIP emission 

reduction credit. 

3Should the District’s implementation of Rule 

9610 going forward reveal a conflict between a 

provision of the rule and the requirements of the 

CAA, EPA may exercise its authorities under CAA 

sections 110(k)(5) or 110(k)(6) to issue a SIP call or 

to revise this action as appropriate. 

4Nothing in the comments submitted by the 

District on EPA’s proposed rule (see Comment 6) 

indicates that the District disagrees with EPA’s 

interpretation of Rule 9610, as provided in the 

proposed rule and Proposal TSD. 

As we explained in the proposed rule 

and further in the Proposal TSD, Rule 

9610 does not represent all of the CAA 

requirements applicable to SIPs that rely 

on incentive programs for emission 

reduction credit (see, e.g., 79 FR 28650 

at 28656, 28657 and Proposal TSD at 

50–52), and we agree with Earthjustice 

that compliance with the SIPcreditability definitions in Rule 9610 

does not necessarily mean that a given 

incentive program is, in fact, SIP 

creditable under the CAA. Additionally, 

as Earthjustice notes, EPA’s Proposal 

TSD identifies several statements in the 

District’s 2013 Annual Demonstration 

Report that improperly characterize the 

effect of compliance with the rule (e.g., 

the District’s statement that ‘‘Section 3.1 

of Rule 9610 identifies pre-approved 

incentive program guidelines’’). See 

Proposal TSD at 53. As we explained in 

both the proposed rule and the Proposal 

TSD, EPA is taking no action on the 

incentive program guidelines as the 

guidelines themselves are not part of 

Rule 9610, and the State has not 

separately submitted any of these 

guidelines for approval into the SIP. See 

79 FR 28650 at 28653, n. 7 and 28654. 

It follows that EPA cannot, in today’s 

action, approve (or ‘‘pre-approve’’) any 

of these guidelines for use in 

quantifying SIP emission reduction 

credit.2

We continue to believe, however, that 

the definitions of the terms 

‘‘quantifiable,’’ ‘‘surplus,’’ ‘‘enforceable’’ 

and ‘‘permanent’’ in Rule 9610 generally 

represent the four fundamental 

‘‘integrity elements’’ defined in EPA 

guidance for discretionary EIPs and 

other innovative emission reduction 

programs, provided the District 

interprets these terms consistent with 

our interpretations in this rulemaking, 

which are the bases for our limited 

approval of the rule.3 If the District 

implements Rule 9610 (including its 

definitions) in a manner that is 

consistent with EPA’s interpretation and 

the recommendations provided in our 

proposed and final rulemaking 

documents, we expect that future SIPs 

developed in accordance with Rule 

9610 would adequately address EPA’s 

policy recommendations with respect to 

these four integrity elements.4

Conversely, to the extent the District 

implements Rule 9610 in a manner that 

departs significantly from EPA’s 

understanding of the rule and related 

recommendations, we expect such 

future SIPs would not adequately 

address the requirements of the Act. 

Although we make no determination 

today concerning SIP emission 

reduction credit for any particular 

incentive program, we believe that our 

interpretations of Rule 9610, our related 

recommendations for corrections or 

clarifications to the rule, and our 

preliminary reviews of the incentive 

program guidelines referenced in the 

rule (as discussed in the Proposal TSD) 

provide general guidance to the State 

and District that will help clarify the 

applicable CAA requirements for future 

SIPs, compared to EPA inaction on Rule 

9610. 

Comment 3: Earthjustice claims that 

Rule 9610 does not ensure ‘‘surplus’’ 

and ‘‘enforceable’’ emission reductions 

and disagrees with several aspects of 

EPA’s evaluation of the rule’s 

definitions of these terms. 

Response 3: EPA is finalizing a 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval of Rule 9610 based on our 

conclusion that the rule relates to the 

requirements of CAA section 110 and, 

with one exception, satisfies the 

statutory criteria for approval into the 

SIP. See Response 1 and Response 2, 

above; see also Response 3.h (discussing 

deficiencies in section 6.2 of Rule 9610). 

Nonetheless, the commenter raises a 

number of important concerns regarding 

the adequacy of Rule 9610 as a legal 

framework for quantifying SIP emission 

reduction credit for incentive programs, 

and in an effort both to respond to these 

comments and to provide the District 

with specific guidance on the 

requirements of the Act that each SIP 

must satisfy, we respond below (in 

Response 3.a through Response 3.j) to 

each of these concerns. 

Comment 3.a: Earthjustice states that 

according to EPA, ‘‘emission reductions 

are surplus only if they are not 

otherwise required by or assumed in a 

SIP-related program,’’ any other adopted 

State air quality program, a consent 

decree, or a federal rule designed to 

reduce emissions of a criteria pollutant 

or its precursors, and that measures are 

only surplus for ‘‘the remaining useful 

life of the vehicle, engine, or equipment 

being replaced.’’ Rule 9610, on the other 

hand, defines ‘‘surplus’’ to mean that 

the emission reductions are ‘‘not 

otherwise required by any federal, state, 

or local regulation, or other legal 

mandate, and are in excess of the 

baseline emission inventories 

underlying a SIP attainment 

demonstration’’ (citing Rule 9610, 

section 2.27). Earthjustice claims that 

this definition in Rule 9610 is not 

consistent with EPA’s definition, for 

example because ‘‘the District’s 

definition leaves out various other 

assumptions built into SIP-related 

programs, such as growth factors in 

attainment and other plans, turnover 

assumptions in conformity 

demonstrations, etc.’’ and does not 

incorporate the ‘‘useful life’’ concept 

into its definition. Earthjustice claims 

that EPA’s proposal gives only ‘‘short 

shrift’’ to these differences and provides 

an unsupported claim that the District’s 

new definition will ‘‘treat as ‘surplus’ 

only those emission reductions’’ that 

meet EPA’s definition of the term. 

Response 3.a: We disagree with the 

commenter’s claims about the definition 

of ‘‘surplus’’ in Rule 9610 and believe 

that this definition is generally 

consistent with EPA’s guidance on 

‘‘additionality’’ of emission reductions, 

provided the District interprets the term 

consistent with EPA’s interpretation, as 

explained further below. 

Section 2.27 states that ‘‘emission 

reductions are surplus when they are 

not otherwise required by any federal, 

state, or local regulation, or other legal 

mandate, and are in excess of the 

baseline emission inventories 

underlying a SIP attainment 

demonstration.’’ First, we understand 

that ‘‘any federal, state, or local 

regulation, or other legal mandate’’ 

would include: (1) Any federal rule 

designed to reduce emissions of a 

criteria pollutant or its precursors (e.g., 

a new source performance standard or 

federal mobile source requirements); (2) 

any State or local regulation concerning 

air pollutant emissions; and (3) any 

obligation in a consent decree, 

settlement agreement, or other legal 

mandate. Read accordingly, the 

definition would prohibit emission 

reductions required by any of these 

types of legal obligations from being 

treated as ‘‘surplus.’’ Second, we 

understand that the phrase ‘‘baseline 

emission inventories underlying a SIP 

attainment demonstration’’ means the 

projection year emission inventories 

that provide the basis for the 

attainment-related demonstrations in a 

SIP. Read accordingly, emission 

reductions ‘‘in excess of the baseline 

emission inventories underlying a SIP 

attainment demonstration’’ would mean 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19024 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

emission reductions that go beyond 

those already assumed in a SIP-related 

program, taking into account growth 

factors, assumptions concerning fleet 

turnover, and other relevant planning 

assumptions—that is, any emission 

reductions assumed in a SIP-related 

program (e.g., an attainment or 

reasonable further progress plan or a 

transportation conformity 

demonstration) would not be treated as 

‘‘surplus.’’ 

Read in its entirety, section 2.27 

provides that only those emission 

reductions that are not otherwise 

required by or assumed in a SIP-related 

program, any other adopted State air 

quality program, a consent decree, or a 

federal rule designed to reduce criteria 

pollutant or precursor emissions will 

qualify for treatment as ‘‘surplus’’ 

emission reductions, consistent with 

EPA’s definition of the term in 

longstanding guidance. See, e.g., 

‘‘Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary 

Mobile Source Emission Reduction 

Programs in State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs),’’ EPA, Office of Air and 

Radiation, October 24, 1997 (hereafter 

‘‘1997 VMEP’’) at 6; ‘‘Improving Air 

Quality with Economic Incentive 

Programs,’’ EPA, Office of Air and 

Radiation, January 2001 (hereafter 

‘‘2001 EIP Guidance’’) at 35; 

‘‘Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary 

Measures in a State Implementation 

Plan,’’ EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, 

September 2004 (hereafter ‘‘2004 

Emerging and Voluntary Measures 

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

Quantifying and Using Their Emission 

Benefits in SIPs and Conformity,’’ EPA, 

Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, February 2014 (hereafter ‘‘2014 

Diesel Retrofits Guidance’’) at 27. 

One component of EPA’s various 

policy recommendations that the 

definition of ‘‘surplus’’ in section 2.27 

does not explicitly address is the 

recommendation concerning the 

remaining useful life of the vehicle, 

engine, or equipment being replaced. 

See 2014 Diesel Retrofits Guidance at 30 

(recommending that states ‘‘consider 

factors that may affect emission 

reductions and their surplus status 

overtime, including changing patterns of 

operations or use, vehicle deterioration 

factors, equipment useful life, and 

government emission standards’’). Rule 

9610 does, however, contain a 

definition of ‘‘project life’’ in section 

2.20 that addresses this 

recommendation. Specifically, section 

2.20 defines ‘‘project life’’ to mean ‘‘the 

period of time over which an incentive 

program project achieves SIP-creditable 

emission reductions’’ and states that 

‘‘[p]roject life shall not exceed the 

useful life of equipment, vehicles, or 

practices funded through incentive 

programs, and may vary across 

incentive programs and project types.’’ 

As we explained in the Proposal TSD, 

in future SIP submittals developed 

pursuant to Rule 9610, we expect the 

State and/or District will demonstrate: 

(1) How the ‘‘project life’’ for each 

funded project relied on for SIP credit 

takes into account the remaining useful 

life of the vehicle, engine, or equipment 

being replaced, and (2) how the State 

and/or District ensure that the emission 

reductions relied on for SIP credit are in 

excess of the reductions attributed to 

normal fleet turnover and other 

assumptions built into future year 

emissions inventories (i.e., that the same 

emission reductions are not ‘‘double 

counted’’). See Proposal TSD at 18 and 

48. 

Comment 3.b: Earthjustice asserts that 

EPA’s analysis of the District’s 

definition of ‘‘enforceable’’ is arbitrary. 

Quoting from section 110(a)(2)(A) of the 

CAA and EPA’s interpretative 

statements in ‘‘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) (hereafter 

‘‘General Preamble’’), Earthjustice states 

that even those ‘‘nontraditional 

techniques’’ for reducing pollution 

authorized by section 110(a)(2)(A) must 

be ‘‘enforceable.’’ Additionally, 

Earthjustice quotes from an EPA docket 

memorandum for a rulemaking entitled 

‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response 

to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to 

Amend Provisions Applying to Excess 

Emissions During Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction,’’ February 

4, 2013 (hereafter ‘‘2013 SSM Memo’’), 

in which EPA highlights the importance 

of the EPA and citizen enforcement 

authorities established by Congress to 

ensure compliance with CAA 

requirements and states that SIP 

provisions that function to bar effective 

enforcement by the EPA or citizens for 

violations would be inconsistent with 

the regulatory scheme established in 

title I of the Act. Earthjustice quotes 

from this memorandum to support its 

assertion that according to EPA policy, 

SIPs must be built upon emission 

reductions that are ‘‘enforceable,’’ 

meaning that ‘‘EPA and citizens must 

have the ability to bring enforcement 

actions to assure compliance.’’ For 

example, Earthjustice states, EPA will 

not approve control measures that 

include ‘‘director discretion’’ to define 

or redefine compliance requirements 

and also will ‘‘not allow SIPs to include 

state affirmative defenses that would 

foreclose EPA or other enforcement.’’ 

Earthjustice further asserts that ‘‘[a] state 

cannot claim SIP credit from control 

measures that shield pollution sources 

from independent enforcement actions.’’ 

Earthjustice also references the 2001 EIP 

Guidance in support of these arguments. 

Response 3.b: We agree that under the 

CAA, as interpreted in EPA policy, all 

measures approved into a SIP, including 

those ‘‘nontraditional techniques’’ for 

reducing pollution identified in section 

110(a)(2)(A) of the Act, must be 

‘‘enforceable’’ to qualify for SIP 

emission reduction credit and that EPA 

and citizens must be able to bring 

enforcement actions to assure 

compliance. See, e.g., General Preamble 

at 13556. We disagree, however, with 

the claim that EPA’s analysis of the 

definition of ‘‘enforceable’’ in Rule 9610 

is arbitrary. 

In our proposed rule and Proposal 

TSD, we compared the Rule 9610 

definition of ‘‘enforceable’’ with EPA’s 

recommended enforceability factors for 

voluntary and other nontraditional 

emission reduction measures, and we 

found the Rule 9610 definition to be 

generally consistent with EPA’s 

recommendations. See 79 FR 28650 at 

28654 (discussing components of Rule 

9610, section 2.8 that reflect EPA 

recommendations) and Proposal TSD at 

8–11. Specifically, we highlighted key 

components of EPA’s policy 

recommendations concerning 

enforceability and found that the 

District’s definition of the term ‘‘ensures 

that the District will treat as 

‘enforceable’ only those emission 

reductions that can, as a practical 

matter, be independently verified and 

that result from a program or measure 

that defines violations clearly, allows 

for identification of responsible parties, 

requires grantees to provide all records 

needed to demonstrate that emission 

reductions are achieved, and provides 

for public access to emissions-related 

information.’’ See 79 FR 28650 at 28653, 

28654. We provided these analyses not 

to support a regulatory determination 

concerning the enforceability of any 

particular incentive program or air 

quality plan that relies on incentive 

programs, as no such program or plan is 

before us in this action, but rather to 

highlight the District’s obligation under 

Rule 9610 to ensure that any incentive 

program relied upon in a SIP requires 

documentation adequate for EPA and 

the public to independently verify that 

the necessary emission reductions have 

occurred. See 79 FR 28650 at 28654 

(noting District’s obligation to 

demonstrate, in each SIP submittal that 

relies on an incentive program, that the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19025 

5Such documentation is necessary to hold the 

District accountable for any SIP commitments 

developed in accordance with Section 7.0 of Rule 

9610, as explained further in Response 3.h. 

6Section 302(q) of the CAA defines ‘‘applicable 

implementation plan,’’ in relevant part, as ‘‘the 

portion (or portions) of the implementation plan, or 

most recent revision thereof, which has been 

approved under section 110 of [title I of the Act] 

. . . and which implements the relevant 

requirements of [the Act].’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(q). 

7Section 113 of the CAA authorizes EPA to issue 

notices and compliance orders, assess 

administrative penalties, and bring civil actions 

against any ‘‘person,’’ including a state agency, who 

‘‘has violated or is in violation of any requirement 

or prohibition of an applicable implementation 

plan. . . .’’ CAA 113(a)(1)–(2), 42 U.S.C. 7413(a)(1)– 

(2); CAA 302(e), 42 U.S.C. 7602(e) (defining 

‘‘person’’ to include a State or political subdivision 

thereof). 

8Section 304(a)(1) of the CAA authorizes any 

person to bring a civil action against any ‘‘person,’’ 

including a state agency (to the extent permitted by 

the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution), 

‘‘who is alleged to have violated or to be in 

violation of . . . an emission standard or limitation. 

. . .’’ 42 U.S.C. 7604(a)(1); CAA 302(e), 42 U.S.C. 

7602(e) (defining ‘‘person’’ to include a State or 

political subdivision thereof). An ‘‘emission 

standard or limitation’’ is defined in section 304(f), 

in relevant part, to mean ‘‘a schedule or timetable 

of compliance’’ which is in effect under the Act ‘‘or 

under an applicable implementation plan.’’ 42 

U.S.C. 7604(f)(1). ‘‘Schedule and timetable of 

compliance’’ is broadly defined in section 302(p) to 

mean ‘‘a schedule of required measures including 

an enforceable sequence of actions or operations 

leading to compliance with an emission limitation, 

other limitation, prohibition, or standard.’’ 42 

U.S.C. 7602(p). 

9Earthjustice does not appear to question EPA’s 

statement that Rule 9610 itself is enforceable 

against the District and that our approval of the rule 

would make it federally enforceable by EPA and 

citizens under the CAA. 

emission reductions relied upon to 

satisfy SIP requirements are surplus, 

quantifiable, enforceable, and 

permanent).5 That is, we highlighted 

these provisions of section 2.8 of Rule 

9610 in an effort to ensure that future 

SIPs that rely on incentive programs in 

the SJV will, at minimum, satisfy the 

rule’s enforceability requirements, 

which reflect important components of 

EPA’s recommendations concerning 

enforceability under the CAA. See 79 FR 

28650 at 28654. 

Earthjustice asserts generally that ‘‘[a] 

state cannot claim SIP credit from 

control measures that shield pollution 

sources from independent enforcement 

actions.’’ But nothing in Rule 9610 

shields pollution sources from 

independent enforcement actions and 

Earthjustice does not identify any 

provision that does so. As further 

explained in Response 3.d., the CAA 

authorizes EPA and citizens to enforce 

requirements of an ‘‘applicable 

implementation plan’’ 6 and certain 

requirements of the Act. See CAA 

sections 113 and 304(a), 42 U.S.C. 7413, 

7604(a). Specifically, under section 113 

of the Act, EPA may bring an 

enforcement action against any 

individual or government agency for 

violation of ‘‘any requirement or 

prohibition of an applicable 

implementation plan,’’ 7 and under 

section 304(a) citizens may bring suit 

against any individual or government 

agency alleged to be in violation of ‘‘an 

emission standard or limitation,’’ 

including a schedule or timetable of 

compliance which is in effect under an 

applicable implementation plan.8 To the 

extent Earthjustice intended to argue 

that Rule 9610 would ‘‘shield’’ pollution 

sources from an action to enforce the 

requirements of an ‘‘applicable 

implementation plan’’—e.g., the 

requirements of an EPA-approved SIP— 

we disagree as Rule 9610 does not apply 

to any pollution source. See 79 FR 

28650 at 28652 (‘‘the requirements and 

procedures in [Rule 9610] apply only to 

the District . . . [and] would become 

federally enforceable against the District 

upon EPA’s final approval of the rule 

into the California SIP’’) (emphases 

added). Earthjustice does not identify 

any provision in Rule 9610 that would 

apply to a pollution source or preclude 

enforcement of SIP requirements against 

a pollution source. 

We understand that Earthjustice may 

have intended to argue that Rule 9610 

would encourage future development of 

programs that preclude EPA or citizen 

enforcement against pollution sources, 

rather than to comment on the 

enforceability of Rule 9610 itself.9

Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), 

however, the relevant inquiry is not 

whether EPA or citizens may directly 

sue pollution sources but whether the 

‘‘measure,’’ ‘‘means,’’ or ‘‘technique’’ for 

reducing emissions is ‘‘enforceable.’’ 

Section 110 of the Act requires that each 

SIP include ‘‘enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques (including 

economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance, as may 

be necessary or appropriate’’ to meet the 

Act’s requirements. CAA 110(a)(2)(A), 

42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(A). Thus, according 

to the plain language of the statute, SIPs 

may contain ‘‘means’’ or ‘‘techniques’’ 

including economic incentives and/or 

‘‘schedules and timetables for 

compliance’’ that EPA considers 

‘‘appropriate’’ for attainment, so long as 

they are ‘‘enforceable.’’ Courts have long 

held that citizen suits can be brought to 

enforce specific measures, strategies, or 

commitments by state or local agencies 

that are designed to ensure compliance 

with the NAAQS. See, e.g., BCCA 

Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th 

Cir. 2003), reh’g denied, BCCA Appeal 

Group v. EPA, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 

215 (5th Cir. 2004); Conservation Law 

Foundation, Inc. v. James Busey et al., 

79 F.3d 1250, 1258 (1st Cir. 1996) 

(citing, inter alia, Wilder v. EPA, 854 

F.2d 605 at 613–14) and Citizens for a 

Better Env’t v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 

1448, 1454–59 (N.D. Cal.), modified, 746 

F. Supp. 976 (1990). 

Nothing in Rule 9610 undermines the 

ability of EPA or citizens to bring 

enforcement actions to assure 

compliance with SIP requirements, nor 

does the rule contain or authorize the 

District to develop any ‘‘director 

discretion’’ or ‘‘affirmative defense’’ 

provision that will apply to SIP 

requirements. To the contrary, section 

7.0 of Rule 9610 requires that the 

District maintain responsibility for 

ensuring that SIP emission reductions 

occur through an ‘‘enforceable 

commitment,’’ which becomes federally 

enforceable by EPA and citizens upon 

approval into the SIP under CAA 

section 110(k). See 79 FR 28650 at 

28655 (citing Rule 9610, section 7.0). 

EPA has approved enforceable 

commitments in the past and courts 

have enforced these commitments 

against states that failed to comply with 

them. See, e.g., American Lung Ass’n of 

N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 

1987), aff’d, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 

1989); NRDC, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of 

Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 

1987); Citizens for a Better Env’t v. 

Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. 

Granted in par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. 

Cal. 1990); Coalition for Clean Air v. 

South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist., No. 

CV 97–6916–HLH (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 

1999). We believe it is appropriate to 

allow California to rely in its SIP on 

voluntary incentive programs, provided 

the State and/or District retain clear 

responsibility through an enforceable 

commitment to ensure that the emission 

reductions necessary to meet applicable 

CAA requirements are achieved, which 

EPA or citizens may enforce under 

sections 113 or 304 of the Act, 

respectively. 

As we noted previously, following the 

State’s submittal of a specific air quality 

plan or measure that relies on incentive 

programs for necessary emission 

reductions, EPA will evaluate that plan 

or measure to determine whether it 

satisfies the enforceability requirements 

of the Act. We provide these responses 

to the commenter’s concerns only as a 

preliminary explanation of the 

enforceability requirements that future 

SIPs developed through the Rule 9610 

process must satisfy, and we encourage 

the commenter and the public at large 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19026 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

10A voluntary mobile source emission reduction 

program (VMEP) is a mechanism that supplements 

traditional emission reduction strategies through 

voluntary, nonregulatory changes in local 

transportation sector activity levels or changes in 

in-use vehicle and engine fleet composition, among 

other things. See 1997 VMEP at 3. 

to participate in future rulemakings on 

specific air quality plans or measures 

that rely on incentive programs for SIP 

emission reduction credit. 

Comment 3.c: Citing a 2004 guidance 

entitled, ‘‘Incorporating Emerging and 

Voluntary Measures in a State 

Implementation Plan’’ (September 2004) 

(hereafter ‘‘2004 Emerging and 

Voluntary Measures Guidance’’), 

Earthjustice states that according to 

EPA, ‘‘emission reductions are 

‘voluntary,’ and therefore subject to a 

cap on SIP credit, when the emission 

reductions are not enforceable against 

individual sources.’’ According to 

Earthjustice, ‘‘Rule 9610 suggests that 

measures could be SIP creditable even 

if EPA and the public have to rely 

entirely on the State and local air 

District to ensure source compliance,’’ 

and that this runs counter to EPA’s 

longstanding policy and statutory 

interpretations, under which EPA ‘‘has 

only been willing to allow such 

programs with a cap on the SIP credit 

that can be claimed.’’ 

Response 3.c: We agree with 

Earthjustice’s characterization of 

‘‘voluntary’’ measures as those that are 

not directly enforceable against 

individual emission sources. See, e.g., 

1997 VMEP at 4; 2004 Emerging and 

Voluntary Measures Guidance at 1, 19; 

and 2005 Bundled Measures Guidance 

at 2, n. 1. We disagree, however, with 

the commenter’s suggestion that 

emission reductions from voluntary 

measures are ‘‘subject to’’ a specific cap 

on SIP emission reduction credit 

because they are unenforceable for SIP 

purposes under the CAA. 

Under longstanding guidance, EPA 

has recommended presumptive limits 

(sometimes referred to as ‘‘caps’’) on the 

amounts of emission reductions from 

certain voluntary and other 

nontraditional measures that may be 

credited in a SIP. Specifically, for 

voluntary mobile source emission 

reduction programs (VMEPs),10 EPA has 

identified a presumptive limit of three 

percent (3%) of the total projected 

future year emission reductions 

required to attain the appropriate 

NAAQS, and for any particular SIP 

submittal to demonstrate attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS or progress 

toward attainment (RFP), 3% of the 

specific statutory requirement. See 1997 

VMEP at 5. As explained in the 2001 

EIP Guidance, EPA recommended this 

3% cap (per pollutant) on the credit 

allowed for VMEPs because states are 

‘‘not required to play a direct role in 

implementing these programs, the 

programs are not directly enforceable 

against participating parties, and there 

may [be] less experience in quantifying 

the emission benefits from these 

programs.’’ 2001 EIP Guidance at 158; 

see also 1997 VMEP at 5 (recommending 

3% cap due to ‘‘innovative nature of 

voluntary measures and EPA’s 

inexperience with quantifying their 

emission reductions’’). For voluntary 

stationary and area source measures, 

EPA has identified a presumptive limit 

of 6% of the total amount of emission 

reductions required for RFP, attainment, 

or maintenance demonstration 

purposes. See 2004 Emerging and 

Voluntary Measures Guidance at 9 

(‘‘EPA believes it is appropriate to limit 

these measures to a small portion of the 

SIP given the untested nature of the 

control mechanisms’’) and 

‘‘Incorporating Bundled Measures in a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP),’’ 

August 2005 (hereafter ‘‘2005 Bundled 

Measures Guidance’’) at 8 

(recommending limits ‘‘[d]ue to the 

innovative nature of voluntary and 

emerging measures’’). EPA has also long 

stated, however, that states may justify 

higher amounts of SIP emission 

reduction credit for voluntary programs 

on a case-by-case basis, and that EPA 

may approve measures for SIP credit in 

excess of the presumptive limits ‘‘where 

a clear and convincing justification is 

made by the State as to why a higher 

limit should apply in [its] case.’’ 2004 

Emerging and Voluntary Measures 

Guidance at 9; see also 2005 Bundled 

Measures Guidance at 8, n. 6 and 2014 

Diesel Retrofits Guidance at 12. Thus, 

the presumptive ‘‘cap’’ on SIP credit 

referenced by Earthjustice is not a 

specific regulatory cap but a general 

policy recommendation, which states 

and EPA may justify departing from on 

a case-by-case basis, subject to noticeand-comment rulemaking on a 

particular SIP. 

Importantly, EPA has consistently 

stated that SIP credit may be allowed for 

a voluntary or other nontraditional 

measure only where the State submits 

enforceable mechanisms to ensure that 

the emission reductions necessary to 

meet applicable CAA requirements are 

achieved—e.g., an enforceable 

commitment to monitor and report on 

emission reductions achieved and to 

rectify any shortfall in a timely manner. 

See 79 FR 28650 at 28653 (citing, inter 

alia, 1997 VMEP at 4–7; 2004 Emerging 

and Voluntary Measures Guidance at 

8–12; 2005 Bundled Measures Guidance 

at 7–12; and 2004 Electric-Sector EE/RE 

Guidance at 6–7). Thus, if California 

intends to satisfy a SIP requirement 

through reliance on an incentive 

program that EPA and citizens may not 

directly enforce against participating 

sources, the State/District must take 

responsibility for assuring that SIP 

emission reduction requirements are 

met through an enforceable 

commitment, which EPA and citizens 

may enforce against the State/District 

upon EPA’s approval of the 

commitment into the SIP. EPA 

continues to believe that voluntary 

incentive measures accompanied by an 

enforceable commitment to monitor 

emission reductions achieved and 

timely rectify any shortfall meet the SIP 

control measure requirements of the 

Act. See Response 3.b above. 

Should California submit a SIP that 

relies on incentive programs to satisfy a 

CAA requirement, EPA intends to 

evaluate the submittal to determine 

whether the necessary emission 

reductions may be enforced by EPA and 

citizens through an enforceable State/

District commitment. Additionally, 

should such a SIP rely on incentivebased emission reductions in amounts 

that exceed EPA’s presumptive limits, 

as discussed in EPA’s longstanding 

guidance, EPA intends to evaluate the 

SIP submittal to determine whether the 

State and/or District have provided a 

clear and convincing justification for 

such higher amounts. 

Comment 3.d: Citing both the 2001 

EIP Guidance and the 2004 Emerging 

and Voluntary Measures Guidance, 

Earthjustice states that emission 

reductions are ‘‘enforceable’’ against the 

source if: (1) They are independently 

verifiable; (2) program violations are 

defined; (3) those liable for violations 

can be identified; (4) the District, State 

and EPA maintain the ability to apply 

penalties and secure appropriate 

corrective actions where applicable; (5) 

citizens have access to all the emissionsrelated information obtained from the 

source; (6) citizens can file suits against 

sources for violations; and (7) they are 

practicably enforceable in accordance 

with other EPA guidance on practicable 

enforceability. Earthjustice states that 

EPA’s proposed rule recites all of these 

criteria except for citizen suit 

enforceability and questions whether 

this was an oversight or a deliberate 

attempt to mislead the public on the 

criteria for enforceability. In any case, 

Earthjustice contends that ‘‘nothing in 

Rule 9610 would require incentive 

programs to provide for such citizen 

enforcement’’ and that the rule ‘‘would 

only require that violations be defined 

through contracts, [which] can only be 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19027 

11The 2001 EIP Guidance states that ‘‘[e]mission 

reductions use, generation, and other required 

actions are enforceable if’’: (1) They are 

independently verifiable; (2) program violations are 

defined; (3) those liable for violations can be 

identified; (4) the State and EPA maintain the 

ability to apply penalties and secure appropriate 

corrective actions where applicable; (5) citizens 

have access to all the emissions-related information 

obtained from the source; (6) citizens can file suits 

against sources for violations; and (7) they are 

practicably enforceable in accordance with other 

EPA guidance on practicable enforceability. See 

2001 EIP Guidance at 35–36. 

12EPA has described ‘‘emerging measures’’ as 

new emission reduction measures for which 

pollutant reductions are more difficult to accurately 

quantify than traditional SIP emission reduction 

measures. See 2004 Emerging and Voluntary 

Measures Guidance at 13 and 2005 Bundled 

Measures Guidance at 2. 

13Under the Carl Moyer, Prop 1B, and EQIP 

funding programs, each grantee must sign a contract 

specifying terms and conditions of the grant which 

are enforceable by the funding agency. See, e.g., 

CARB, ‘‘The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Approved Revisions 2011,’’ Release Date: July 11, 

2014, at Chapter 3, Section Y (‘‘Minimum Contract 

Requirements’’) (available electronically at http://

www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2011gl/

2011cmpgl_12_30_14.pdf). 

enforced by the parties to the contract.’’ 

Earthjustice asserts that citizens would 

have no recourse to ‘‘file suits against 

sources for violations,’’ and that EPA’s 

proposal includes ‘‘no explanation of 

how this requirement is met or why it 

does not apply.’’ To the extent EPA 

believes it is the latter, Earthjustice 

states, ‘‘it has now afforded the public 

no opportunity to respond to any 

reasoning behind that assertion.’’ 

Response 3.d: First, to the extent the 

commenter argues that all SIP emission 

reduction techniques must provide for 

citizen suits directly against emission 

sources, we disagree. Section 

110(a)(2)(A) of the Act explicitly 

includes ‘‘economic incentives’’ among 

the ‘‘control measures, means, or 

techniques’’ that states may use to meet 

SIP requirements, and EPA has long 

interpreted the Act to allow SIPs to rely 

on nontraditional emission reduction 

techniques—including voluntary 

measures that are not directly 

enforceable against emitting sources— 

provided the State submits enforceable 

mechanisms to assure that the 

requirements of the Act are met. See 

Response 3.b and Response 3.c, above. 

As Earthjustice correctly notes, EPA’s 

2001 EIP Guidance states that emission 

reductions and related actions are 

‘‘enforceable’’ if, among other things, 

‘‘[c]itizens can file suits against sources 

for violations. . . .’’ 2001 EIP Guidance 

at 35–36.11 As with all guidance, 

however, the 2001 EIP Guidance 

provides only non-binding 

recommendations and does not 

represent final agency action concerning 

the requirements for SIPs containing 

discretionary EIPs. See id. at 12, 19, and 

119. Moreover, in several other policies 

concerning nontraditional measures, 

EPA has indicated that provisions for 

citizen suits against a state or other 

responsible entity (other than the 

emission source) may suffice to meet the 

Act’s enforceability requirements. See 

Response 3.c above. For example, the 

2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures 

Guidance recommends provisions 

authorizing citizen suits against sources 

for ‘‘emerging measures’’ 12 but states 

that for ‘‘voluntary measures,’’ emission 

reductions and other required actions 

are enforceable if, among other things, 

‘‘EPA maintains the ability to apply 

penalties and secure appropriate 

corrective action from the State where 

applicable and the State maintains the 

[ability to] secure appropriate corrective 

action with respect to portions of the 

program that are directly enforceable 

against the source. . . .’’ 2004 Emerging 

and Voluntary Measures Guidance at 3, 

4 (emphases added); see also 2005 

Bundled Measures Guidance at 25 (also 

discussing EPA enforcement against 

State) and 1997 VMEP at 6–7 (‘‘[a] 

State’s obligations with respect to 

VMEPs must be enforceable at the State 

and Federal levels’’) (emphasis added). 

In other guidance concerning 

nontraditional emission reduction 

measures, EPA has indicated that 

provisions for enforcement against a 

‘‘responsible party’’ may be acceptable 

in lieu of enforcement directly against 

the emitting source. See, e.g., ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Credits for Emission Reductions 

from Electric-Sector Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy Measures,’’ 

August 5, 2004 (hereafter ‘‘2004 

Electric-Sector EE/RE Guidance’’) at 5, 6 

(distinguishing emission reductions that 

are ‘‘enforceable directly against the 

source’’ from those that are ‘‘enforceable 

against another party responsible for the 

energy efficiency or renewable energy 

activity’’) and 2014 Diesel Retrofits 

Guidance at 28 (emission reductions are 

federally enforceable only if, among 

other things, ‘‘[c]itizens can file lawsuits 

against the responsible party for 

violations’’) (emphases added). Thus, a 

number of EPA policies concerning 

nontraditional measures indicate that 

provisions for EPA and citizen 

enforcement against the State or against 

some other ‘‘responsible party’’ other 

than the source may satisfy the Act’s 

requirements for enforceability. 

Earthjustice fails to identify any 

statutory or regulatory support for a 

claim that all emission reduction 

measures approved into a SIP must 

provide for citizen suits directly against 

emitting sources. 

Second, Earthjustice’s claim that Rule 

9610 ‘‘would only require that 

violations be defined through contracts’’ 

which ‘‘can only be enforced by the 

parties to the contract’’ overlooks an 

important provision in the rule that 

requires the District to provide a 

mechanism for EPA and citizen 

enforcement in each submitted SIP that 

relies on an incentive program. 

Specifically, section 7.0 of Rule 9610 

requires that each SIP submission in 

which the District relies on projections 

of SIP-creditable emission reductions to 

satisfy a CAA SIP requirement contain, 

among other things, an ‘‘enforceable 

commitment’’ that: (1) Identifies the 

applicable incentive program 

guidelines; (2) identifies emission 

reductions not to exceed the amount 

projected to be achieved through the use 

of secured or reasonably anticipated 

incentive program funding and the 

estimated availability of projects and 

willing participants, based on historical 

participation and estimates of remaining 

equipment; (3) is specifically adopted 

by the District as part of the SIP and 

accounted for in annual demonstration 

reports; and (4) states that ‘‘if either the 

District or EPA finds that there is a SIP 

shortfall for a particular year, the 

District will adopt and submit to EPA, 

by specified dates, substitute rules and 

measures that will achieve equivalent 

emission reductions as expeditiously as 

practicable and no later than any 

applicable implementation deadline in 

the Clean air Act or EPA’s implementing 

regulations.’’ See 79 FR 28650 at 28655 

(citing Rule 9610, sections 7.1–7.4). A 

District commitment adopted in 

accordance with these requirements 

would, upon approval into the SIP, 

become enforceable by EPA and citizens 

under sections 113 and 304 of the Act, 

respectively. See Response 3.b. Thus, 

although Rule 9610 does not require 

that incentive programs provide for 

citizen enforcement directly against 

emission sources for contract 

violations,13 the rule does require that 

each SIP in which the District relies on 

incentive program emission reductions 

contain, among other things, an 

enforceable commitment that enables 

EPA and citizens to hold the District 

accountable for violations of the SIP. We 

therefore disagree with the commenter’s 

suggestion that Rule 9610 deprives 

citizens of the ability to enforce SIP 

emission reduction requirements. 

Finally, with respect to Earthjustice’s 

claim that EPA’s proposal provides ‘‘no 

explanation of how this requirement is 

met or why it does not apply,’’ it 

appears that Earthjustice is referring to 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19028 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA’s policy recommendation 

concerning citizen suits against 

emission sources as a ‘‘requirement.’’ As 

discussed above in this response, 

however, the CAA does not limit SIPs 

to those emission reduction techniques 

that citizens may directly enforce 

against an emission source, nor do 

EPA’s guidance documents establish 

any requirement that nontraditional 

emission reduction measures provide 

specifically for citizen suits against 

sources. In our proposed rule, we 

referenced numerous EPA guidance 

documents addressing nontraditional 

emission reduction measures that 

‘‘provide for some flexibility in meeting 

established SIP requirements for 

enforceability and quantification, 

provided the State takes clear 

responsibility for ensuring that the 

emission reductions necessary to meet 

applicable CAA requirements are 

achieved.’’ 79 FR 28650 at 28653 (citing, 

inter alia, 1997 VMEP, 2004 Emerging 

and Voluntary Measures Guidance, and 

2005 Bundled Measures Guidance). 

Consistent with these guidance 

documents, our proposed rule 

highlighted the importance of the 

enforceable ‘‘backstop’’ commitment 

from the State to monitor emission 

reductions achieved and to rectify 

shortfalls in a timely manner, which 

must accompany any nontraditional 

emission reduction measure submitted 

for SIP purposes. Id. and 79 FR 28650 

at 28654–55 (discussing necessary 

components of a SIP submittal that 

relies on nontraditional emission 

reduction measures). Our proposed rule 

also discussed the requirements 

concerning enforceable SIP 

commitments in section 7.0 of Rule 

9610 and provided specific 

recommendations for the District to 

consider in its development and 

adoption of such commitments, to 

ensure that the requirements of the Act 

are met. Id. at 28655. We believe these 

explanations are adequate to inform the 

public of EPA’s policies concerning 

enforceability of nontraditional 

emission reduction measures and to 

provide a preview of the factors that 

EPA intends to apply in reviewing 

enforceable commitments submitted by 

the District going forward. As EPA also 

explained at proposal, EPA will review 

each SIP submittal developed pursuant 

to Rule 9610 (including the necessary 

evaluation of the applicable incentive 

program guidelines) on a case-by-case 

basis, following notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, to determine whether the 

applicable requirements of the Act are 

met. See 79 FR 28650 at 28654, 28658. 

To the extent the commenter 

disagrees with EPA’s interpretations of 

the Act, we encourage the commenter to 

submit comments on the SIP 

rulemakings through which EPA takes 

final action on air quality plans or 

measures that rely on incentive program 

emission reductions. Nothing in our 

approval of Rule 9610 today deprives 

the public of these opportunities to 

comment on these future SIP actions. 

Comment 3.e: Earthjustice states that 

‘‘[t]he structure of the CAA reinforces 

EPA’s conclusion that Congress was not 

willing to rely on states alone to 

guarantee that the claimed emission 

reductions would occur or be enforced.’’ 

According to Earthjustice, section 113 of 

the Act gives EPA authority to ensure 

compliance whenever any person is in 

violation of any requirement of the Act 

and section 304 allows citizens to 

enforce the requirements of the Act. 

Earthjustice also quotes from the 

Supreme Court’s decision in 

Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens’ 

Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 560 

(1986), to support its statement that 

Congress enacted section 304 

specifically to encourage citizen 

participation in the enforcement of 

standards and regulations established 

under the Act and ‘‘to afford citizens 

very broad opportunities to participate 

in the effort to prevent and abate air 

pollution.’’ 

Response 3.e: We do not dispute the 

importance of federal enforcement 

under section 113 of the Act and citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

Act. As explained in our proposed rule 

and further in these responses to 

comments, EPA has consistently stated 

in longstanding guidance that SIP credit 

may be allowed for a voluntary or other 

nontraditional emission reduction 

measure only where the State submits 

enforceable mechanisms to ensure that 

the emission reductions necessary to 

meet applicable CAA requirements are 

achieved (e.g., an enforceable 

commitment to monitor and report on 

emission reductions achieved and to 

timely rectify any shortfall), which EPA 

and citizens may enforce under CAA 

sections 113 and 304, respectively, upon 

approval into the SIP. See 79 FR 28650 

at 28653–28655 and Response 3.b 

above. We encourage citizens to 

participate in the effort to prevent and 

abate air pollution by requesting 

information from the District concerning 

the commitments it has adopted under 

Rule 9610 and enforcing these 

commitments in the U.S. district courts 

in accordance with section 304 of the 

Act. 

Comment 3.f: Earthjustice claims that 

the Rule 9610 definition of 

‘‘enforceable’’ would not only waive any 

notion that citizens can file a suit to 

enforce the reductions but ‘‘would also 

waive any requirement that EPA have 

any ‘ability to apply penalties and 

secure appropriate corrective actions’ 

against the source.’’ The commenter 

asserts that EPA cannot enforce the 

conditions of a contract between the 

District and the source and that ‘‘the 

State and District are free to shield 

sources from enforcement, or even 

amend or rescind these contracts 

altogether without EPA oversight.’’ 

According to Earthjustice, ‘‘EPA simply 

has no claim that it can apply penalties 

or secure corrective actions against the 

sources responsible for reducing 

emissions’’ and ‘‘no basis for asserting 

that [the enforceability] criterion is 

met.’’ 

Response 3.f: Although we agree that 

EPA cannot enforce the conditions of a 

contract issued by the District pursuant 

to a state incentive program that is not 

approved into the SIP under CAA 

section 110, we disagree with the claim 

that this renders the emission 

reductions achieved by such a program 

unenforceable by citizens under the Act. 

As explained in response to comment 

3.d., above, Rule 9610 requires the 

District to provide a mechanism for EPA 

and citizen enforcement in each 

submitted SIP that relies on an incentive 

program. Specifically, section 7.0 of 

Rule 9610 requires that each SIP 

submission in which the District relies 

on projections of SIP-creditable 

emission reductions to satisfy a CAA 

SIP requirement contain, among other 

things, an ‘‘enforceable commitment’’ 

containing specific provisions to ensure 

that the District remains accountable for 

the required emission reductions. Upon 

EPA’s approval of an enforceable SIP 

commitment by the District, section 113 

of the Act authorizes EPA to apply 

penalties and secure appropriate 

corrective actions to enforce the 

requirements of the commitment against 

the District. See Response 3.b. A SIPapproved commitment cannot be 

modified except through a SIP revision 

adopted by the State after reasonable 

notice and public hearing and approved 

by the EPA through notice-andcomment rulemaking. See CAA section 

110(l); 5 U.S.C. 553; 40 CFR 51.105. 

Consequently, should the District’s 

amendment or rescission of contracts 

issued to participating sources result in 

a shortfall in the emission reductions 

required under a SIP commitment, EPA 

may enforce the District’s obligation to 

implement a remedy, provided the 

District’s SIP commitment includes a 

schedule for adoption and submittal of 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19029 

14See ‘‘Addendum to the December 2010 

Statement of Principles Regarding the Approach to 

State Implementation Plan Creditability of 

Agricultural Equipment Replacement Incentive 

Programs Implemented by the USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service and the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’’ 

(‘‘NRCS Addendum’’). 

substitute measures to remedy any 

shortfalls as required by Rule 9610. See 

Rule 9610, section 7.4; see also 

Response 3.d above (discussing 

requirements of Rule 9610, section 7.0). 

EPA would not approve a submitted SIP 

revision under Rule 9610 that did not 

contain such a schedule. 

Comment 3.g: Earthjustice states that 

‘‘EPA seems to imply that it is enough 

that EPA can push for the District to 

fulfill any shortfall in emission 

reductions through other means’’ but 

claims that EPA ‘‘has not analyzed this 

rule through the relevant criteria for 

enforceable SIP commitments, which 

are subject to limits on quantity, etc.’’ 

As a result, Earthjustice asserts that 

commenters have no basis for 

unraveling EPA’s legal rationale. 

Response 3.g: Because we are not 

approving any State or District 

commitments in today’s action, it is not 

necessary to evaluate this SIP submittal 

in accordance with the criteria that EPA 

has historically applied in approving 

enforceable commitments. We will 

apply the relevant criteria for evaluating 

enforceable SIP commitments when we 

take action on a SIP that relies on a 

commitment to satisfy the control 

measure requirements of the Act. 

Comment 3.h: Earthjustice claims that 

the Rule 9610 definition of enforceable 

does not allow for independent 

verification or even the identification of 

liable sources. Earthjustice states that 

EPA identified several defects in the 

District’s rule that would limit the 

disclosure of information necessary to 

verify compliance, such as ‘‘problems in 

[the] Annual Report’’ and ‘‘the District’s 

mistaken interpretation of, and 

reference to, the Federal Food Security 

Act.’’ Based on these defects alone, the 

commenter claims that it is unclear why 

EPA is still proposing to approve the 

rule. 

Response 3.h: We continue to believe 

that the definition of ‘‘enforceable’’ in 

Rule 9610 generally allows for 

independent verification of emission 

reductions and identification of liable 

sources. As we explained in our 

proposed rule, Rule 9610 states that 

‘‘emission reductions are enforceable if 

the incentive program includes 

provisions for ensuring the following: 

[1] The emission reductions are 

independently and practicably 

verifiable through inspections, 

monitoring, and/or other mechanisms; 

[2] Incentive program violations are 

defined through legally binding 

contracts, including identifying the 

party or parties responsible for ensuring 

that emission reductions are achieved; 

[3] Grantees are obligated to provide all 

records needed to demonstrate that 

emission reductions are achieved; and 

[4] The public has access to all 

emissions-related information for 

reductions claimed in the annual 

demonstration report, as outlined in 

Section 4.0 [of Rule 9610].’’ 79 FR 28650 

at 28654 (citing Rule 9610, section 2.8). 

Additionally, Rule 9610 requires that 

each SIP in which the District relies on 

emission reductions achieved through 

incentive programs contain an 

‘‘enforceable commitment’’ by the 

District to adopt and submit substitute 

measures to EPA by specified dates if 

there is a shortfall in required emission 

reductions for a particular year, among 

other things. See Rule 9610, section 7.4. 

Read together, these provisions of Rule 

9610 obligate the District to include, 

with each SIP submittal that relies on 

incentive programs for necessary 

emission reductions, an enforceable 

commitment that enables EPA and 

citizens to obtain records adequate to 

independently confirm whether 

necessary emission reductions have 

occurred. Going forward, we intend to 

review each SIP commitment submitted 

by the District for compliance with 

these ‘‘enforceability’’ requirements in 

section 2.8 and the provisions 

concerning commitments in section 7.0 

of Rule 9610, in addition to the 

applicable requirements of the Act. 

One significant exception to the 

general enforceability provisions in Rule 

9610 is the provision in section 6.2 that 

categorically prohibits public disclosure 

of records related to NRCS’s 

implementation of the EQIP program. 

As explained in our proposed rule (see 

79 FR 28650 at 28657 and Proposal TSD 

at 9–10), section 6.2 of Rule 9610 does 

not accurately describe NRCS’s statutory 

obligations with respect to disclosure of 

information concerning the EQIP 

program. Based on further evaluation of 

this provision and in response to 

Earthjustice’s comments, we find that 

this provision necessitates a limited 

disapproval of Rule 9610 because, in 

addition to stating NRCS’s statutory 

obligations incorrectly, the provision 

creates a potential conflict between the 

requirements of Rule 9610 and the 

requirements of the CAA concerning 

public availability of emission data. See 

CAA 114(c) and 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2); see 

also 2001 EIP Guidance at section 5.1d 

(‘‘Procedures for public disclosure of 

information’’). Therefore, EPA is 

finalizing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of Rule 9610 on the 

basis of this deficiency in section 6.2 of 

the rule. This limited disapproval does 

not trigger any sanctions clocks under 

CAA section 179(a) because Rule 9610 

was not submitted to address a 

requirement of part D, title I of the Act 

or in response to a finding of substantial 

inadequacy as described in CAA section 

110(k)(5) (i.e., a ‘‘SIP Call’’), but it does 

trigger an obligation on EPA to 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) to correct the deficiency, 

unless the State submits and EPA 

approves a corrective SIP revision 

within two years of the disapproval (see 

CAA section 110(c)(1)(B)). EPA expects 

the District to revise section 6.2 at its 

earliest opportunity to correct the errors 

in this provision and to ensure that the 

rule does not preclude disclosure of 

emission data related to the EQIP 

program. 

With respect to any future SIP 

submittal that relies on emission 

reductions achieved through EQIP to 

satisfy a CAA requirement, we expect 

that the annual reports certified by 

NRCS, as described in the March 2014 

Addendum signed by NRCS, EPA, 

CARB and the District,14 will provide 

information that enables EPA and the 

public to verify the emissions of 

participating sources with an adequate 

level of accuracy and to determine 

whether the District has violated any 

SIP emission reduction commitment. 

See 79 FR 28650 at 28657 and Proposal 

TSD at 10–11. Additionally, in order for 

emission reductions achieved through 

EQIP to be enforceable under the CAA, 

the District will have to submit an 

enforceable SIP commitment to 

specifically describe the information 

obtained from NRCS in the relevant 

annual demonstration reports, to 

incorporate project-specific information 

obtained from NRCS in the electronic 

‘‘Data Sheet’’ associated with each of 

these annual demonstration reports, and 

to make the NRCS’s certified annual 

reports themselves available to the 

public upon request. See id. and Rule 

9610, sections 6.1 and 7.0. EPA would 

not approve any SIP submittal that 

relies on emission reductions achieved 

through EQIP (or any other incentive 

program) if it does not provide for 

public availability of emission data 

consistent with CAA requirements. EPA 

will review each SIP submittal 

developed pursuant to Rule 9610 on a 

case-by-case basis, following notice-andcomment rulemaking, to determine 

whether the applicable requirements of 

the Act are met. We encourage the 

District to consult with us during its 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19030 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

15As explained in Response 3.d., the 2004 

Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance 

recommends provisions authorizing citizen suits 

against sources for ‘‘emerging measures’’ but states 

that for ‘‘voluntary measures,’’ emission reductions 

and other required actions are enforceable if, among 

other things, ‘‘EPA maintains the ability to apply 

penalties and secure appropriate corrective action 

from the State where applicable and the State 

maintains the [ability to] secure appropriate 

corrective action with respect to portions of the 

program that are directly enforceable against the 

source. . . .’’ 2004 Emerging and Voluntary 

Measures Guidance at 3, 4 (emphases added). 

16Although EPA or citizen enforcement of a SIP 

commitment adopted in accordance with section 

7.0 of Rule 9610 generally depends upon projectrelated information maintained by the District, this 

does not preclude independent verification of the 

emission reductions if the applicable incentive 

program guidelines require participating sources to 

regularly submit compliance-related documentation 

to the District and require the District to maintain 

these records for specified amounts of time. See, 

e.g., 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines at 3–31 and 

Proposal TSD at 15. 

development of any SIP commitments 

under section 7.0 of Rule 9610 to ensure 

that these commitments will be legally 

and practically enforceable by EPA and 

citizens, in accordance with the 

requirements of the Act. See Response 

3.i, below. 

With respect to the 2013 Annual 

Demonstration Report, we provided 

suggestions for future reports in the 

Proposal TSD. See Proposal TSD at 52– 

55. We expect the District to consider 

these recommendations as it develops 

its annual demonstration reports for 

future years. 

Comment 3.i: Earthjustice argues that 

EPA’s analysis ignores ‘‘the more 

fundamental defect which is that EPA 

and citizens can only rely on data 

submitted to, or collected by the 

District’’ and that this defect 

undermines any claim that the rule will 

ensure that citizens have access to all 

emissions-related information obtained 

from participating sources. According to 

Earthjustice, EPA has no authority to 

inspect sources for compliance with the 

contracts between the District and the 

source—i.e., EPA cannot collect its own 

information, conduct inspections, 

demand additional reporting, or enforce 

the failure to submit required reports. 

Earthjustice contends that EPA’s ability 

to verify any of these emission 

reductions is limited because the 

emission reductions are secured through 

contracts that do not include EPA. Thus, 

Earthjustice claims, EPA ‘‘lacks the 

ability to independently verify 

compliance and instead must rely on 

the District and State to determine 

compliance.’’ For example, with respect 

to information regarding sources of 

EQIP funding, Earthjustice argues that 

because EPA and the public will not be 

provided with any information that can 

be independently verified or that 

identifies the participating sources, 

there is no way for EPA or the public 

to ‘‘verify compliance by ‘the source’ as 

EPA’s definition of enforceability 

requires’’ or to ‘‘even identify sources 

liable for violations.’’ 

Response 3.i: We disagree with the 

commenter’s claim that EPA’s definition 

of enforceability ‘‘requires’’ that EPA 

and the public have the ability to verify 

compliance by ‘‘the source.’’ The 

commenter cites two guidance 

documents (the 2001 EIP Guidance and 

2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures 

Guidance 15) to support its claim that, to 

be ‘‘enforceable,’’ an emission reduction 

measure must allow citizens to ‘‘file 

suits against sources for violations.’’ As 

explained above in Response 3.d, 

however, the CAA does not limit SIPs 

to those emission reduction techniques 

that citizens may directly enforce 

against emission sources, and EPA has 

indicated in a number of other guidance 

documents that provisions for EPA and 

citizen enforcement against a state or 

against some other ‘‘responsible party’’ 

(other than the source) may satisfy the 

Act’s requirements for enforceability. 

See Response 3.d above. 

We continue to believe that Rule 9610 

generally ensures that citizens will have 

access to all emissions-related 

information obtained by the District 

from sources participating in incentive 

programs, with one significant 

exception in section 6.2 of the rule. As 

we explained in the proposed rule, 

section 6.1 of Rule 9610 specifically 

requires the District to keep and 

maintain ‘‘[a]ll documents created and/ 

or used in implementing the 

requirements of Section 4.0’’ of the rule 

and to make these documents available 

for public review consistent with the 

requirements of the California Public 

Records Act and related requirements. 

See 79 FR 28650 at 28657 (citing Rule 

9610, section 6.1). Section 4.0 of Rule 

9610, in turn, requires the District to 

annually prepare a public report that 

contains, among other things, 

identification of the amounts of ‘‘SIPcreditable emission reductions’’ from 

incentive programs that the District is 

relying on for SIP purposes; 

descriptions of the applicable incentive 

program guidelines; and detailed 

information about the individual 

projects relied upon to achieve the 

required emission reductions. See 79 FR 

28650 at 28656 (citing Rule 9610, 

sections 4.0–4.6). Additionally, section 

7.0 of the rule requires the District to 

make enforceable commitments that 

enable EPA and citizens to obtain 

records adequate to independently 

confirm whether necessary emission 

reductions have occurred. See Response 

3.d and Response 3.h, above. Many of 

the incentive program guidelines 

identified in section 3.1 of Rule 9610 

require that the District maintain 

specific documentation of pre-project 

and post-project inspections for each 

funded project and that all grantees 

submit detailed compliance-related 

documentation to the District on an 

annual or biennial basis. See, e.g., 

Proposal TSD at 15–16 (discussing 

provisions of Carl Moyer program 

guidelines) and 44–45 (discussing 

provisions of Prop 1B program 

guidelines). Provided the District 

commits to make these project records 

and other compliance-related 

documents available to the public upon 

request, consistent with the 

requirements of sections 6.1 and 7.0 of 

Rule 9610, EPA and citizens would have 

access to emissions-related information 

that the District obtains from 

participating sources.16

Finally, we disagree with the 

commenter’s claim that EPA lacks 

authority to collect information relevant 

to source compliance with the contracts 

issued by the District. Rule 9610 

requires the District to maintain, with 

respect to all projects that the District 

relies upon for SIP emission reduction 

credit, reports submitted by grantees 

and records of all inspections and 

enforcement actions, among other 

things. See Rule 9610, section 6.1. Upon 

EPA’s approval of a District 

commitment into the SIP, section 114(a) 

of the Act authorizes EPA to require 

information from ‘‘any person’’ who 

may have information necessary for the 

purpose of determining whether the 

District has violated such a SIP 

commitment—including all compliancerelated documentation that the District 

maintains in accordance with the 

applicable incentive program 

guidelines. See CAA section 114(a) 

(authorizing the EPA to require 

submission of information from ‘‘any 

person’’ who may have information 

necessary for the purpose of 

determining whether a SIP requirement 

has been violated) and section 302(e) 

(defining ‘‘person’’ to include a State or 

political subdivision thereof). 

Additionally, both EPA and citizens 

may obtain compliance-related records 

from the District under the California 

Public Records Act. See Rule 9610, 

section 6.1. Thus, although EPA is not 

authorized to enforce the individual 

contracts between the District and the 

source, both EPA and citizens may 

collect information concerning source 

compliance from the District and, in 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19031 

17For example, under certain Prop 1B program 

guidelines, each grantee must be subject to detailed 

contract provisions requiring the grantee to 

maintain certain documents for specified periods 

and/or submit these documents to the District on 

a regular basis. See, e.g., 2008 Prop 1B guidelines 

at Section III.D (‘‘Local Agency Project 

Implementation Requirements’’), Section IV 

(‘‘General Equipment Project Requirements’’), and 

Appendix A, Section C (‘‘Recordkeeping 

Requirements’’) and Section D (‘‘Annual Reporting 

Requirements’’); 2010 Prop 1B guidelines at Section 

IV.A (‘‘Project Implementation Requirements’’), 

Section VI (‘‘General Equipment Project 

Requirements’’), and Appendix A, Section F 

(‘‘Recordkeeping Requirements’’) and Section G 

(‘‘Annual Reporting Requirements’’). 

some cases directly from participating 

sources,17 to the extent this information 

is necessary for the purpose of 

determining whether the District has 

violated a SIP commitment. 

We expect an enforceable 

commitment that obligates the District 

to comply with adequate monitoring 

and recordkeeping requirements would 

ensure that emission reductions can be 

independently verified. In any case, 

EPA will review each submitted SIP 

commitment on a case-by-case basis to 

determine whether the commitment is 

legally and practically enforceable by 

EPA and citizens, in accordance with 

the requirements of the Act. 

Comment 3.j: Earthjustice argues that 

‘‘[t]o the extent EPA wishes to allow 

credit for unenforceable emission 

reduction programs, it has a policy for 

doing so’’—i.e., ‘‘[t]hese programs can 

be included with a cap on the credit 

they can receive.’’ Alternatively, 

Earthjustice contends, to the extent EPA 

wishes to treat these programs as 

enforceable SIP commitments, it also 

has a policy for reviewing and 

approving those, but the analysis of 

Rule 9610 is not consistent with those 

policies. 

Response 3.j: We disagree with the 

commenter’s suggestions that emission 

reductions from voluntary incentive 

measures are entirely ‘‘unenforceable’’ 

under the CAA or subject to a specific 

‘‘cap’’ on the credit allowed in a SIP. As 

explained above in Response 3.c, EPA 

has consistently stated in longstanding 

guidance that SIP credit may be allowed 

for a voluntary or other nontraditional 

measure only where the State takes 

responsibility for assuring that SIP 

emission reduction requirements are 

met through an enforceable 

commitment, which EPA and citizens 

may enforce upon EPA’s approval of the 

commitment into the SIP. That is, 

emission reductions achieved by 

voluntary measures are enforceable 

under the Act where they are 

accompanied by such an enforceable 

commitment. In addition, the ‘‘cap’’ on 

SIP credit for voluntary measures that 

Earthjustice refers to is not a specific 

regulatory cap but a general policy 

recommendation. States and EPA may 

justify departing from these caps on a 

case-by-case basis, subject to notice-andcomment rulemaking on a particular 

SIP. See Response 3.c and EPA guidance 

documents referenced therein. 

In any case, we are not approving any 

State or District commitments in today’s 

action and therefore do not have reason 

to evaluate this SIP submittal in 

accordance with EPA’s policy criteria 

for approving enforceable commitments. 

As EPA stated in the proposed rule, EPA 

will review each SIP submittal 

developed pursuant to Rule 9610 on a 

case-by-case basis, following notice-andcomment rulemaking, to determine 

whether the applicable requirements of 

the Act are met. See 79 FR 28650 at 

28654, 28658. We will apply the 

relevant criteria for evaluating SIP 

commitments when we take action on a 

SIP that contains such a commitment. 

Nothing in Rule 9610 supplants the 

applicable requirements of the Act, nor 

does anything in EPA’s approval of Rule 

9610 alter the requirements of the Act 

as they apply to SIPs that rely on 

emission reductions achieved through 

voluntary incentive programs. 

Comment 4: Earthjustice claims that 

the ‘‘best option for proceeding . . . 

would be to adopt backstop control 

measures that are fully SIP-creditable 

and use incentive programs to address 

cost-effectiveness concerns and 

incentivize early adoption and 

turnover.’’ 

Response 4: We continue to support 

the use of incentive programs to address 

cost-effectiveness concerns and to 

incentivize early adoption and turnover 

to cleaner, less-polluting mobile 

sources, and we encourage the 

commenter to provide these 

recommendations, together with any 

recommendations it may have 

concerning ‘‘backstop’’ control 

measures, to the State and/or District 

during their state and local rulemaking 

processes on air quality plans that rely 

on incentive programs for necessary 

emission reductions. 

Comment 5: Earthjustice claims that 

‘‘Rule 9610 is a flawed attempt to make 

programs ‘SIP creditable’ by fiat’’ and 

that this is not legitimate under the 

CAA. Earthjustice also asserts that 

‘‘EPA’s inconsistent analysis of the rule 

does not help in this effort.’’ In 

conclusion, Earthjustice asserts that if 

the desired goal is to promote the 

adoption of incentive programs, EPA, 

the State, and the District should go 

back to the drawing board and work 

with stakeholders to come up with a 

legally viable approach.’’ 

Response 5: For the reasons provided 

in Response 1 through Response 3 

above, we disagree with Earthjustice’s 

claims that Rule 9610 is a flawed 

attempt to make programs SIP creditable 

by fiat and that EPA has provided an 

inconsistent analysis of the rule. As 

previously explained, nothing in Rule 

9610 supplants the applicable 

requirements of the Act, and EPA will 

review each SIP submittal developed 

pursuant to Rule 9610 on a case-by-case 

basis, following notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, to determine whether the 

applicable requirements of the Act are 

met. See 79 FR 28650 at 28654, 28658. 

We agree, however, with 

Earthjustice’s suggestion that EPA, the 

State, the District and interested 

stakeholders should work together 

toward the development of air quality 

plans and measures that satisfy CAA 

requirements as applied to discretionary 

incentive programs and other 

nontraditional emission reduction 

measures. We look forward to the 

public’s continued involvement, both 

during the State and local rulemaking 

processes through which the District 

and ARB adopt these plans and during 

the EPA rulemakings through which 

EPA takes final action on these plan 

submittals under section 110 of the 

CAA. 

Comment 6: The SJVUAPCD states 

that incentive funds to reduce mobile 

source emissions have become a critical 

component of the District’s clean air 

strategy in the SJV and expresses 

appreciation for EPA’s work with the 

District and with CARB, NRCS, and 

other stakeholders throughout the 

development of Rule 9610 and related 

documents. The District states that it 

supports EPA’s proposal to fully 

approve Rule 9610 as a revision to the 

California SIP. 

Response 6: For the reasons provided 

in our proposed rule (79 FR 28650 at 

28657) and further explained in 

Response 3.h, EPA is finalizing a 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval of Rule 9610. We look 

forward to the District’s submittal of a 

revised rule that corrects the 

deficiencies we have identified in 

section 6.2 of the rule and addresses the 

recommendations provided in our 

proposed rule and Proposal TSD. 

EPA supports and encourages the 

continuing efforts by CARB, the District, 

and NRCS to make voluntary economic 

incentive programs an effective part of 

the SJV’s strategy for clean air. We 

commit to continue our work with these 

agencies to develop reliable methods for 

documenting and verifying the emission 

reductions achieved through these 

programs and to ensure that future air 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19032 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

quality plans for the SJV area that rely 

on economic incentives will satisfy the 

requirements of the Act. 

III. Final Action 

Under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 

301(a) of the Act and for the reasons set 

forth above and in our May 19, 2014 

proposed rule, EPA is finalizing a 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval of Rule 9610 as submitted 

June 26, 2013. We are finalizing a 

limited approval of the submitted rule 

because we continue to believe that the 

rule improves the SIP and is largely 

consistent with the applicable CAA 

requirements. This action incorporates 

the submitted rule, including those 

provisions identified as deficient, into 

the SJV portion of the federallyenforceable California SIP. 

We are finalizing a limited 

disapproval of Rule 9610 because 

section 6.2 of the rule incorrectly 

describes NRCS’s statutory obligations 

with respect to disclosure of 

information concerning the EQIP 

program and creates a potential conflict 

with the requirements of the CAA 

concerning public availability of 

emission data. Our reasons for 

disapproving the rule on these bases are 

explained in the proposed rule and 

further in our responses to comments 

above. 

This limited disapproval does not 

trigger any sanctions clocks under CAA 

section 179(a) because Rule 9610 was 

not submitted to address a requirement 

of part D, title I of the Act or in response 

to a finding of substantial inadequacy as 

described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (i.e., 

a ‘‘SIP Call’’). The limited disapproval 

does trigger an obligation on EPA to 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) to correct the deficiency, 

unless the State submits and EPA 

approves a corrective SIP revision 

within two years of the disapproval (see 

CAA section 110(c)(1)(B)). EPA expects 

the District to revise section 6.2 at its 

earliest opportunity to correct the errors 

in this provision and to ensure that the 

rule does not preclude disclosure of 

emission data related to the EQIP 

program. 

Note that the submitted rule has been 

adopted by the SJVUAPCD, and EPA’s 

final limited disapproval does not 

prevent the local agency from enforcing 

it. The limited disapproval also does not 

prevent any portion of the rule from 

being incorporated by reference into the 

federally enforceable SIP as discussed in 

a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ttnnsr01/gen/ 

pdf/memo-s.pdf. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with the requirements of 1 

CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the 

SJVUPACD rule described in the 

amendments to 40 CFR 52 set forth 

below. EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these documents available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the appropriate EPA office (see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 

more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals and 

limited approvals/limited disapprovals 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act do not create any 

new requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because this 

limited approval/limited disapproval 

action does not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the limited 

approval/limited disapproval action 

promulgated does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action approves pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 68 / Thursday, April 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19033 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective on May 11, 2015. 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by June 8, 2015. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 26, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(455) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(455) New and amended regulations 

for the following APCDs were submitted 

on June 26, 2013. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) Rule 9610, ‘‘State Implementation 

Plan Credit for Emission Reductions 

Generated through Incentive Programs,’’ 

adopted on June 20, 2013. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07972 Filed 4–8–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES