Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 53113 

Commanding Officer Navy Region 

Southwest by calling the Navy Port 

Operation Dispatch at telephone 

number (619) 556–1433 or on VHF–FM 

channels 16 or 12. If permission is 

granted, all persons and vessels must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port San Diego or his or 

her designated representative. 

(c) Definitions. For purposes of this 

section: Captain of the Port San Diego, 

means the Commanding Officer of the 

Coast Guard Sector San Diego; 

Commander, Navy Region Southwest, 

means the Navy Region Commander 

responsible for the Southwest Region; 

Commanding Officer, Naval Base Point 

Loma, means the Installation 

Commander of the naval base located on 

Point Loma, San Diego, California; 

Designated Representative, means any 

U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer who has been 

designated by the Captain of the Port 

San Diego to assist in the enforcement 

of the security zone described in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted in the patrol and 

enforcement of the security zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section by the U.S. Navy and local law 

enforcement agencies. 

■ 3. Add § 165.1103 to read as follows: 

§ 165.1103 Security Zone; Naval Mine Anti 

Submarine Warfare Command; San Diego 

Bay, San Diego, CA. 

(a) Location. (1) The following area is 

a security zone: The water adjacent to 

the Naval Mine Anti Submarine Warfare 

Command, bound by the following 

coordinates: 

32°43′40.9′′ N, 117°12′54.9′′ W (A) 

32°43′40.6′′ N, 117°12′52.3′′ W (B) 

32°43′22.5′′ N, 117°12′57.8′′ W (C) 

32°43′23.4′′ N, 117°13′1.3′′ W (D) 

Thence running generally northwest 

along the shoreline to Point A. 

(2) The proposed security zone at the 

Naval Mine Anti Submarine Warfare 

Command would be established to 

provide for the 100 feet of standoff 

distance. 

(b) Regulations. (1) The general 

regulations governing security zones 

found in 33 CFR 165.33 apply to the 

security zone described in paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

(2) Entry into, or remaining in, the 

areas of either zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

San Diego; Commanding Officer, Naval 

Mine Anti Submarine Warfare 

Command; or Commander, Naval 

Region Southwest. 

(3) Persons desiring to transit the area 

of the security zone may request 

permission from the Captain of the Port 

San Diego at telephone number (619) 

278–7033 or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 

MHz) or from either the Commanding 

Officer, Naval Mine Anti Submarine 

Warfare Command or the Commander, 

Navy Region Southwest by calling the 

Navy Port Operation Dispatch at 

telephone number (619) 556–1433 or on 

VHF–FM channels 16 or 12. If 

permission is granted, all persons and 

vessels must comply with the 

instructions of the Captain of the Port 

San Diego or his or her designated 

representative. 

(c) Definitions. For purposes of this 

section: Captain of the Port San Diego, 

means the Commanding Officer of the 

Coast Guard Sector San Diego; 

Commander, Navy Region Southwest, 

means Navy Region Commander 

responsible for the Southwest Region; 

Commanding Officer, Naval Mine Anti 

Submarine Warfare Command, means 

the Installation Commander of the naval 

base located on Point Loma, San Diego, 

California; Designated Representative, 

means any U.S. Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

who has been designated by the Captain 

of the Port San Diego to assist in the 

enforcement of the security zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted in the patrol and 

enforcement of the security zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section by the U.S. Navy and local law 

enforcement agencies. 

Dated: July 30, 2013. 

J.A. Janszen, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting, 

Captain of the Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20781 Filed 8–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0534; FRL–9900–35– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California; San 

Joaquin Valley; Contingency Measures 

for the 1997 PM2.5 Standards 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a state implementation plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

California to address Clean Air Act 

nonattainment area contingency 

measure requirements for the 1997 

annual and 24-hour fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) national ambient air 

quality standards in the San Joaquin 

Valley. Final approval of this SIP 

revision would terminate the sanctions 

clocks and a federal implementation 

plan clock that were triggered by EPA’s 

partial disapproval of a related SIP 

submission on November 9, 2011 (76 FR 

69896). 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

September 27, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0534, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions. 

• Email: wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Frances Wicher, 

Office of Air Planning (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comments due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket 

(docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2013– 

0534) for this action is available 

electronically on the 

www.regulations.gov Web site and in 

hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California, 94105. While all documents 

in the docket are listed in the index, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material), and some 

may not be publicly available at either 

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

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53114 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA has also designated the San Joaquin Valley 

as nonattainment for the more stringent 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/m3, which EPA promulgated 

on October 17, 2006 and codified at 40 CFR 50.13 

(74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009). In this 

preamble, all references to the PM2.5 NAAQS, 

unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour 

PM2.5 standards of 65 mg/m3 and annual standards 

of 15 mg/m3 as codified in 40 CFR 50.7. 

2CARB, ‘‘Status Report on the State Strategy for 

California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

and Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting 

Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy,’’ dated 

March 24, 2009, adopted April 24, 2009. 

3CARB, ‘‘Progress Report on Implementation of 

PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the 

South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and 

Proposed SIP Revisions,’’ dated March 29, 2011 and 

adopted April 28, 2011. 

4To demonstrate attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, the SJV PM2.5 SIP relied on reductions of 

direct PM2.5 and two PM2.5 precursor pollutants: 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur oxides (SOx). It 

did not rely on reductions of the two other chemical 

precursors to PM2.5: volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) and ammonia. See 76 FR 41338, 41353 and 

76 FR 69896, 69924. 

5The SJV PM2.5 SIP also contained provisions 

addressing RFP contingency measures for the 2009 

milestone year, but EPA concluded it was not 

necessary to evaluate these provisions given the 

District had demonstrated that the area met the 

applicable 2009 RFP milestone year targets for 

direct PM2.5, NOX, and SOx (76 FR 41338, 41358 to 

41359). 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 9, (415) 972–3957, 

wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Clean Air Act Requirements for 

Contingency Measures 

III. Review of the Submitted San Joaquin 

Valley PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP 

A. The Submitted San Joaquin Valley PM2.5

Contingency Measure SIP 

B. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements 

for SIP Submissions 

C. Evaluation of the Contingency Measure 

SIP 

1. Contingency Measures for Failure To 

Meet the 2012 Reasonable Further 

Progress Milestone 

2. Contingency Measures for Failure To 

Attain 

D. Clean Air Act Section 110(l) 

IV. Proposed Actions and Request for Public 

Comment 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA established 

new national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5

(particulate matter with a diameter of 

2.5 microns or less) including annual 

standards of 15.0 micrograms per cubic 

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

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations 

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

m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 

See 62 FR 36852 and 40 CFR 50.7. 

Effective April 5, 2005, EPA designated 

the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) in 

California as nonattainment for the 1997 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. 

See 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005) and 40 

CFR 81.305.1 The SJV PM2.5

nonattainment area is located in the 

southern half of California’s central 

valley and includes all or part of eight 

counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, 

Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, 

and the valley portion of Kern. The local 

air district with primary responsibility 

for developing the state implementation 

plan (SIP) to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

this area is the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD or ‘‘District’’). 

California has made numerous SIP 

submittals to address the SJV’s 

nonattainment designation for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The two principal ones 

are the SJVUAPCD’s ‘‘2008 PM2.5 Plan,’’ 

submitted on June 30, 2008, and the 

California Air Resources Board’s 

(CARB’s) ‘‘State Strategy for California’s 

2007 State Implementation Plan’’ (‘‘2007 

State Strategy’’), submitted on 

November 16, 2007 and revised in 2009 

and 2011 through CARB’s ‘‘2009 State 

Strategy Status Report’’ 2 and ‘‘2011 

Progress Report.’’ 3

On November 9, 2011, EPA partially 

approved and partially disapproved the 

District’s 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 

revised 2007 State Strategy (collectively 

the ‘‘SJV PM2.5 SIP’’) (76 FR 69896). 

EPA’s partial disapproval of the SJV 

PM2.5 SIP was based on our 

determination that its contingency 

measure provisions failed to meet the 

requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1012, 

which require that the SIP for each 

PM2.5 nonattainment area contain 

contingency measures to be 

implemented if the area fails to make 

reasonable further progress (RFP) or to 

attain the NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. See 76 FR 41338, 41357 

to 41359 (July 13, 2011) and 76 FR 

69896, 69918 to 69919 and 69924. 

As we explained in our proposed 

action on the SJV PM2.5 SIP, 

contingency measures must be fully 

adopted rules or control measures that 

are ready to be implemented quickly 

without significant additional action by 

the state. See 76 FR 41338, 41357; see 

also ‘‘Final Technical Support 

Document and Responses to Comments, 

Final Rulemaking Action on the San 

Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plan,’’ Air Division, 

U.S. EPA Region 9, September 30, 2011 

(‘‘Final TSD for SJV PM2.5 SIP’’) at pp. 

126 to 134. We further explained that 

these measures must not be relied on in 

the plan to demonstrate RFP or 

attainment and should provide SIPcreditable emission reductions 

equivalent to approximately one year of 

RFP. Id. Finally, we stated that the SIP 

should contain trigger mechanisms for 

the contingency measures and specify a 

schedule for their implementation. Id. 

The contingency measure provisions 

in the SJV PM2.5 SIP consisted of several 

different types of measures, including 

surplus emission reductions in the RFP 

demonstration; commitments by the 

District to take specific actions; a 

contingency provision in the District’s 

Rule 4901, ‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces 

and Wood Burning Heaters Residential 

Woodburning;’’ post-attainment year 

(2015) reductions from CARB mobile 

source measures; reductions resulting 

from the District’s expenditure of 

incentive program funds; and other 

reductions from implemented District 

rules that were not otherwise relied on 

in the attainment and RFP 

demonstrations. See 76 FR 41338, 41357 

to 41359; see also Final TSD for SJV 

PM2.5 SIP at pp. 126 to 136. EPA found 

that, although several of these measures 

individually qualified for approval as 

contingency measures, collectively the 

measures identified in the SJV PM2.5 SIP 

did not provide sufficient SIP-creditable 

emission reductions for contingency 

measure purposes . See id. and 76 FR 

69896, 69918 to 69919. 

Specifically, for RFP contingency 

measures for the 2012 milestone year, 

the SJV PM2.5 SIP relied on surplus 

reductions of direct PM2.5 and the two 

regulated precursors 4 in the RFP 

demonstration, which provided some of 

the needed emission reductions but did 

not provide enough to achieve roughly 

one-year’s worth of RFP (76 FR 41338, 

41359 (Table 10)).5 For attainment 

contingency measures in 2015, the SJV 

PM2.5 SIP relied on the State’s continued 

implementation of mobile source 

measures, a contingency provision in 

the District’s Rule 4901, and surplus 

reductions from other District rules that 

would reduce emissions substantially in 

2015. Overall, the attainment 

contingency measures in the SJV PM2.5

SIP provided all of the needed SOx

reductions but only about two-thirds of 

the needed NOX and direct PM2.5

reductions for 2015. Accordingly, we 

disapproved the contingency measure 

provisions in the SJV PM2.5 SIP for 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 53115 

6EPA’s partial disapproval of the SJV PM2.5 SIP 

based on these deficiencies triggered mandatory 

sanctions clocks under CAA section 179(b) and an 

obligation on EPA to promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) within two years (76 FR 

69896, 69924). The first sanctions, the offset 

sanction under CAA section 179(b)(2), became 

effective in the SJV area 18 months after the 

effective date of EPA’s final disapproval, i.e., on 

July 9, 2013 (40 CFR 52.31(d)). In a separate action 

published in today’s Federal Register, EPA is 

staying the offset sanction and deferring the 

application of highway funding sanctions, based on 

today’s proposed rule to fully approve the 

Contingency Measure SIP. See ‘‘Interim Final 

Determination to Stay and Defer Sanctions; San 

Joaquin Valley’’ in the Rules section of today’s 

Federal Register. 

7We refer to those measures addressing failure to 

make RFP as ‘‘RFP contingency measures’’ and 

those measures addressing failure to attain as 

‘‘attainment contingency measures.’’ 

8Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia (DC Circuit) recently remanded 

this rule and directed EPA to re-promulgate it 

pursuant to subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA 

(see Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 

F.3d 428 (DC Cir., Jan. 4, 2013)), the court’s ruling 

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

Contingency Measure SIP. Subpart 4 of part D, title 

I of the Act contains no specific provision 

governing contingency measures for PM10 or PM2.5

nonattainment areas that supersedes the general 

contingency measure requirement for all 

nonattainment areas in CAA section 172(c)(9). 

Thus, even if EPA applies the subpart 4 

requirements to our evaluation of the Contingency 

Measure SIP and disregards the provisions of the 

2007 PM2.5 implementation rule recently remanded 

by the court, the general requirement for 

contingency measures in CAA section 172(c)(9) 

continues to apply. 

failure to satisfy the CAA’s contingency 

measure requirements for the 2012 RFP 

milestone year and for the 2015 

attainment date.6 See 76 FR 41338, 

41359 and 76 FR 69896, 69924. 

II. Clean Air Act Requirements for 

Contingency Measures 

CAA section 172(c)(9) requires that 

the SIP for each nonattainment area 

‘‘provide for the implementation of 

specific measures to be undertaken if 

the area fails to make reasonable further 

progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by 

the attainment date applicable under 

[part D of title I]’’ and requires that these 

measures ‘‘take effect without further 

action by the State or EPA.’’ The CAA 

does not specify how many contingency 

measures are required or the magnitude 

of emission reductions that must be 

provided by these measures. Consistent 

with the text of section 172(c)(9), 

however, these measures must be 

specific, adopted measures that are 

ready to be implemented quickly upon 

failure to meet RFP or failure of the area 

to meet the standard by its attainment 

date.7

EPA provided guidance on the section 

172(c)(9) contingency measure 

requirement in an interpretative 

document entitled ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) 

(‘‘General Preamble’’). As EPA 

explained in the General Preamble, 

‘‘contingency measures should, at a 

minimum, ensure that an appropriate 

level of emission reduction progress 

continues to be made if attainment [or] 

RFP is not achieved and additional 

planning by the State is needed’’ (57 FR 

13498, 13511). These emission 

reductions would be in addition to 

those that were already scheduled to 

occur in accordance with the plan for 

the area. See Id. at n. 2 and 57 FR 13498, 

13543 to 13544. Additionally, States 

must show that their contingency 

measures can be implemented with 

minimal further action on their part and 

without additional rulemaking actions 

such as public hearings or legislative 

review. In general, EPA expects actions 

needed to effect full implementation of 

the measures to occur within 60 days 

after EPA notifies the State of an area’s 

failure to meet RFP or attain. See 57 FR 

13498, 13512 and 13543 to 13544; see 

also 59 FR 41998, 42014 to 42015 

(August 16, 1994) (‘‘PM–10 

Addendum’’). 

Consistent with these interpretations 

of the Clean Air Act, EPA explained in 

the preamble to its 2007 implementation 

rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS that the 

SIP should contain trigger mechanisms 

for the contingency measures, specify a 

schedule for implementation, and 

indicate that the measures will be 

implemented without significant further 

action by the State or EPA. See 72 FR 

20586, 20642 to 20645 (April 25, 2007) 

and 40 CFR 51.1012.8

Contingency measures can include 

Federal, state, and local measures 

already scheduled for implementation 

that provide emission reductions in 

excess of those needed to provide for 

RFP or expeditious attainment. The key 

is that the contingency measures 

provide for additional emission 

reductions that are not relied on for RFP 

or attainment and that are not included 

in the attainment demonstration. The 

purpose is ‘‘to provide a cushion while 

the plan is being revised to meet the 

missed milestone’’ (72 FR 20586, 20642 

to 20643). Nothing in the statute 

precludes a state from implementing 

such measures before they are triggered. 

See, e.g., LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 

(5th Cir. 2004) (upholding contingency 

measures that were previously required 

and implemented where they were in 

excess of the attainment demonstration 

and RFP SIP). 

EPA has approved numerous SIPs 

under this interpretation—i.e., SIPs that 

use as contingency measures one or 

more Federal or local measures that are 

in place and provide reductions that are 

in excess of the reductions required by 

the attainment demonstration or RFP 

plan. See, e.g., 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 

1997) (direct final rule approving an 

Indiana ozone SIP revision); 62 FR 

66279 (December 18, 1997) (final rule 

approving an Illinois ozone SIP 

revision); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) 

(direct final rule approving a Rhode 

Island ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 586 

(January 3, 2001) (final rule approving 

District of Columbia, Maryland, and 

Virginia ozone SIP revisions); and 66 FR 

634 (January 3, 2001) (final rule 

approving a Connecticut ozone SIP 

revision). A state may use the same 

measures for both RFP and attainment 

contingency if the measures will 

provide reductions in the relevant years. 

If these measures are first triggered for 

failure to make RFP, however, the state 

would need to submit replacement 

contingency measures for attainment 

purposes (57 FR 13498, 13511). 

With respect to the level of emission 

reductions associated with contingency 

measures, EPA has recommended that 

states consider ‘‘the potential nature and 

extent of any attainment shortfall for the 

area’’ and the amount of actual emission 

reductions required by the SIP control 

strategy to attain the standards. See PM– 

10 Addendum at 42015; see also 72 FR 

20586, 20643. The contingency 

measures are to be implemented in the 

event that the area does not meet RFP 

or attain the standards by the attainment 

date, and ‘‘should represent a portion of 

the actual emission reductions 

necessary to bring about attainment in 

area’’ (72 FR 20586, 20643). 

Accordingly, EPA has recommended 

that the emission reductions anticipated 

by the contingency measures should be 

equal to approximately one-year’s worth 

of emission reductions needed to 

achieve RFP for the area. See id. and 

PM–10 Addendum at 42015. 

III. Review of the Submitted San 

Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Contingency 

Measure SIP 

A. The Submitted San Joaquin Valley 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP 

On July 3, 2013, CARB submitted the 

‘‘Quantifying Contingencies for the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan’’ (dated June 20, 2013) 

(‘‘Contingency Measure SIP’’) as a 

revision to the California State 

Implementation Plan. The State and 

District adopted the Contingency 

Measure SIP to correct the SIP 

deficiencies identified in EPA’s 

November 9, 2011 partial disapproval of 

the SJV PM2.5 SIP by (1) confirming that 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53116 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

9The State also provided public notice and a 

hearing on Rule 9610 before submitting the rule and 

associated support documents to EPA as a SIP 

revision. See letter dated June 26, 2013 from 

Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 

(submitting Rule 9610) and CARB Executive Order 

S–13–006, dated June 26, 2013. EPA is not acting 

on Rule 9610 at this time but is reviewing it as 

support material for the Contingency Measure SIP. 

Other supplemental materials related to incentive 

programs that the State submitted to EPA under 

separate cover are not subject to additional State 

procedures under the Act as they provide only 

technical support and do not alter the substance of 

the Contingency Measure SIP. All of these 

supplemental materials are available in EPA’s 

docket for this rulemaking. 

10For a description of these uncreditable 

reductions, see Proposal TSD, Table E–4, p. 15. 

the SJV area had met its 2012 RFP 

milestones and (2) expanding upon the 

attainment contingency measures in the 

SJV PM2.5 SIP to establish a contingency 

plan that achieves SIP-creditable 

emission reductions equivalent to 

approximately one year’s worth of RFP 

in 2015. See generally Contingency 

Measure SIP. The July 3, 2013 

submission includes a copy of the 

Contingency Measure SIP revision itself; 

a letter dated July 3, 2013 from Richard 

Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9, submitting the adopted 

Contingency Measure SIP for EPA 

review; CARB Resolution 13–30 (June 

27, 2013) adopting the Contingency 

Measure SIP; a letter dated June 21, 

2013 from Samir Sheikh, Director of 

Strategies and Incentives, SJVUAPCD, to 

Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, 

submitting the adopted Contingency 

Measure SIP for CARB review and 

approval; SJVUPACD Board Resolution 

No. 13–6–18 approving the Contingency 

Measure SIP; technical support 

documentation; and public process 

documentation. 

On July 24, 2013, the District clarified 

its intent that EPA review, as support 

documentation for the Contingency 

Measure SIP, additional materials 

related to incentive programs that the 

District had submitted to EPA under 

separate cover. See email dated July 24, 

2013, from Samir Sheikh, SJVUAPCD, to 

Kerry Drake, EPA Region 9, ‘‘RE: Per our 

conversation earlier.’’ These 

supplemental materials include: (1) 

SJVUAPCD Rule 9610, ‘‘State 

Implementation Plan Credit for 

Emission Reductions Generated through 

Incentive Programs,’’ adopted June 20, 

2013; (2) SJVUAPCD, Rule 9610 Final 

Staff Report (including appendices), 

dated June 20, 2013; (3) SJVUAPCD, 

‘‘2013 Annual Demonstration Report,’’ 

dated June 2013 (including associated 

electronic ‘‘Data Sheet’’); (4) CARB, 

‘‘Carl Moyer Program: Guideline Criteria 

for On-Road and Off-Road Projects,’’ 

dated July 2013; (5) CARB, ‘‘San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Proposed Rule 9610, Responses to U.S. 

EPA’s Request to Address ‘Integrity 

Elements’ in the Proposition 1B: Goods 

Movement Emission Reduction Program 

Guidelines,’’ draft, revised June 6, 2013; 

(6) CARB, ‘‘Proposition 1B: Goods 

Movement Emission Reduction 

Program, Final Guidelines for 

Implementation,’’ adopted February 28, 

2008 (selected excerpts); (7) CARB, 

‘‘Proposition 1B: Goods Movement 

Emission Reduction Program, Final 

2010 Guidelines for Implementation,’’ 

adopted March 25, 2010 (selected 

excerpts); and (8) CARB, ‘‘The Carl 

Moyer Program Guidelines,’’ approved 

April 28, 2011 (selected excerpts). 

CARB submitted additional technical 

support for its PM2.5 to NOX conversion 

analysis on August 6, 2013. See 

Memorandum dated August 13, 2013 

from Scott Bohning, EPA Region 9 to 

File for docket EPA–R09–OAR–2013– 

0534, San Joaquin Valley action; 

Subject: Contingency precursor 

effectiveness ratio using additional 

information. 

In sum, the Contingency Measure SIP 

contains (1) the District’s demonstration 

that actual emission levels in the SJV in 

2012 were below the milestone year 

targets identified in the SJV PM2.5 SIP 

and approved by EPA for the 2012 RFP 

year; and (2) identification of 

contingency measures that provide 2015 

emission reductions not relied on for 

RFP or attainment that are 

approximately equivalent to one-year’s 

worth of RFP. The District’s calculation 

of 2015 emission reductions in the 

Contingency Measure SIP includes: 

reductions from contingency measures 

that we previously identified as SIPcreditable measures as part of our 2011 

action on the SJV PM2.5 SIP, a revised 

calculation of emission reductions from 

the District’s woodburning control 

measure (Rule 4901) based on updated 

air quality and emissions data, emission 

reductions resulting from the District’s 

implementation of incentive programs, 

and substitution of surplus direct PM2.5

reductions for NOX reductions. For the 

SJV PM2.5 SIP, emission reductions 

equivalent to one year’s worth of RFP 

are 2.5 tpd of direct PM2.5, 31.6 tpd of 

NOX and 0.2 tpd of SOx. See 76 FR 

41338, 41359 (Table 10) and Final TSD 

for SJV PM2.5 SIP, p. 131. 

We provide below a summary of our 

evaluation of the Contingency Measures 

SIP. For a more detailed discussion of 

EPA’s analyses, see Air Division, EPA 

Region 9, ‘‘Technical Support 

Document—Proposed Approval of Clean 

Air Act Section 172(c)(9) Contingency 

Measures—San Joaquin Valley State 

Implementation Plan for Attainment of 

the 1997 PM2.5 Standards,’’ August 15, 

2013 (‘‘Proposal TSD’’), available in the 

docket for this proposed rule. 

B. Clean Air Act Procedural 

Requirements for SIP Submissions 

CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) 

require that revisions to a SIP be 

adopted by the State after reasonable 

notice and public hearing. EPA has 

promulgated specific procedural 

requirements for SIP revisions in 40 

CFR part 51, subpart F. These 

requirements include publication of 

notices, by prominent advertisement in 

the relevant geographic area, of a public 

hearing on the proposed revisions, a 

public comment period of at least 30 

days, and an opportunity for a public 

hearing. 

CARB’s SIP submission includes 

public process documentation for the 

Contingency Measure SIP, including 

documentation of duly-noticed public 

hearings held by the District on June 20, 

2013 and by CARB on June 27, 2013. 

See SJVUAPCD Board Resolution No. 

13–6–18, pp. 2 and 3 and CARB 

Resolution 13–30, p. 3. We find that the 

process followed by the District and 

CARB in adopting the Contingency 

Measure SIP complies with the 

procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions under CAA section 110 and 

EPA’s implementing regulations.9

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

EPA to determine whether a SIP 

submission is complete within 60 days 

of receipt. Our SIP completeness criteria 

are found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 

V. We determined that the Contingency 

Measure SIP is complete on August 12, 

2013. See letter from dated August 12, 

2013 Deborah Jordan, Air Division 

Director EPA Region 9 to Richard Corey, 

Executive Officer, Air Resources Board. 

C. Evaluation of the Contingency 

Measure SIP 

1. Contingency Measures for Failure To 

Meet the 2012 Reasonable Further 

Progress Milestone 

The Contingency Measure SIP 

includes a demonstration that emissions 

of direct PM2.5, NOX, and SOx in 2012 

were all below the corresponding 2012 

RFP milestone year emissions targets 

that EPA approved as part of the SJV 

PM2.5 SIP. See Contingency Measure 

SIP, p. 2. To make this demonstration, 

the District used the emission inventory 

from the 2011 Progress Report, adjusted 

to remove uncreditable reductions,10

and compared it to the SIP-approved 

2012 RFP milestone year targets. Based 

on this comparison, the District 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 53117 

11The 2012 RFP milestone year targets that EPA 

approved as part of the RFP demonstration in the 

SJV PM2.5 SIP are identified as ‘‘revised projected 

controlled emissions levels’’ for 2012 in EPA’s 

proposed action on the SJV PM2.5 SIP (76 FR 41338, 

41357 (Table 9)). 

12Consistent with CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 

CFR 51.1007(b), the SJV PM2.5 SIP provides for the 

implementation of all control measures needed for 

attainment as expeditiously as practicable and no 

later than the beginning of the year prior to the 

attainment date (i.e., by January 2014) (76 FR 

69896, 69916 to 69917). 

13See 13 CCR section 2281 (‘‘Sulfur Content of 

Diesel Fuel’’). 

14EPA approved CARB’s diesel fuel regulations 

on May 12, 2010 (75 FR 26653), Rule 4320 on 

March 25, 2011 (76 FR 16696), and Rule 4354 on 

August 29, 2011 (76 FR 53640). 

concluded that it met its approved 2012 

RFP milestone year targets and, 

accordingly, that RFP contingency 

measures for this milestone year are no 

longer needed. Id. 

We agree with the District’s 

conclusion that the SJV area has now 

met its approved 2012 RFP milestone 

year targets 11 and that RFP contingency 

measures for 2012 are, therefore, no 

longer needed. The emission inventory 

used in the RFP demonstration in the 

SJV PM2.5 SIP is expressed in tons per 

average annual day, an appropriate 

metric for measuring progress for the 

annual PM2.5 standard. The inventory in 

the 2011 Progress Report, used in the 

Contingency Measure SIP to 

demonstrate that the 2012 RFP targets 

have been met, is the most recent 

average annual day inventory currently 

available for the SJV. However, as an 

additional check, EPA also reviewed the 

average winter day inventory recently 

submitted as part of the District’s 2012 

PM2.5 Plan for attaining of the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS and determined that 

the conclusion that the area has met its 

approved 2012 milestone year targets is 

also supported by this inventory. See 

Proposal TSD, pp. 16 to 17. 

Based on our evaluation, EPA 

proposes to find that the RFP 

contingency measure requirement for 

the 2012 RFP milestone year is now 

moot as applied to the SJV. The sole 

purpose of RFP contingency measures is 

to provide continued progress if an area 

fails to meet its RFP goal. Failure to 

meet the 2012 milestone year target 

would have required California to 

implement RFP contingency measures 

and to revise the SJV PM2.5 SIP to assure 

that the plan still provided for 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date of April 5, 2015. In this case, 

however, the Contingency Measure SIP 

demonstrates that actual emission levels 

in 2012 met the approved 2012 RFP 

milestone year targets for all three 

pollutants (PM2.5, NOX, and SOX) 

regulated in the SJV PM2.5 SIP. 

Accordingly, RFP contingency measures 

for 2012 no longer have meaning or 

purpose, and therefore EPA proposes to 

find that the requirement for them is 

now moot. 

2. Contingency Measures for Failure To 

Attain 

The Contingency Measure SIP 

identifies projected emission reductions 

for 2015 on which the District is relying 

to meet the CAA’s attainment 

contingency measure requirement for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. These projected 

emission reductions are categorized as 

follows: (1) Surplus emission reductions 

from adopted and implemented State 

and District regulatory measures, i.e., 

emission reductions not relied on for 

RFP or attainment; (2) emission 

reductions from a contingency provision 

in the District woodburning rule; (3) 

emission reductions resulting from the 

District’s implementation of incentive 

programs, and (4) substitution of 

surplus direct PM2.5 contingency 

reductions for NOX contingency 

reductions. We address each of these 

categories of emission reductions below. 

a. Regulatory Measures and Programs 

The SJV PM2.5 SIP, which EPA 

partially approved and partially 

disapproved in November 2011 (76 FR 

69896), provided for the continuing 

implementation of existing CARB 

mobile source measures that will 

achieve 21 tpd of NOX reductions in 

2015. See 76 FR 41338, 41359 (Table 9) 

and Final TSD for SJV PM2.5 SIP, p. 135. 

These mobile source emission 

reductions are surplus to the reductions 

relied upon to demonstrate attainment 

because they occur in 2015 (after 

implementation of all control measures 

necessary for expeditious attainment) 12

and will achieve approximately twothirds of the NOX emission reductions 

needed to achieve one-year’s worth of 

RFP. The Contingency Measure SIP also 

identifies these same mobile source 

emissions reductions as attainment 

contingency measures, and EPA agrees 

that these emission reductions qualify 

for approval as attainment contingency 

measures. 

Additionally, the SJV PM2.5 SIP 

showed that continuing implementation 

of CARB’s mobile source control 

program and District rules would 

provide 3 tpd of SOX reductions beyond 

the levels needed for expeditious 

attainment in 2015. See 76 FR 41338, 

41359 (Table 10) and Final TSD for SJV 

PM2.5 SIP, p. 135. These surplus 

reductions are primarily due to the lowsulfur content requirements in CARB 

diesel fuel regulations for on- and offroad equipment13 and SOX limits in 

District Rule 4320 (Advanced Emission 

Reduction Option for Boilers) and Rule 

4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces).14 The 

Contingency Measure SIP also identifies 

these SOX reductions from State and 

District control measures as attainment 

contingency measures, and EPA agrees 

that these measures provide 3 tpd of 

SOX reductions that are not relied on for 

RFP or attainment and, therefore, 

qualify for approval as attainment 

contingency measures. 

Finally, the SJV PM2.5 SIP included a 

contingency provision in section 5.6.5 

of District Rule 4901 (Wood Burning 

Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters). 

This provision requires that 60 days 

after EPA finds the SJV has failed to 

attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

District will lower the level at which 

mandatory curtailment of residential 

wood burning is required from a 

predicted level of 30 mg/m3 to 20 mg/m3. 

EPA approved this rule, including the 

contingency provision, on November 10, 

2009 (74 FR 57907). 

As part of the SJV PM2.5 SIP, the 

District had preliminarily estimated the 

emissions reduction from this 

contingency provision at 1.6 tons of 

direct PM2.5 per average annual day. 

This estimate was derived by reviewing 

2006 air quality data to determine how 

many additional curtailment days 

would be required at the lower (20 mg/ 

m3) threshold. As part of the revised 

analysis contained in the Contingency 

Measure SIP, the District reviewed 

ambient air quality data for the 2009– 

2013 period to determine the numbers 

of ‘‘No Burn’’ days that it would have 

required had the lower mandatory 

curtailment level (20 mg/m3) been 

effective during these years. Based on 

these updated data, the District revised 

the estimated additional emission 

reductions expected from the Rule 4901 

contingency provision to 3.12 tpd of 

direct PM2.5 and 0.32 tpd of NOX. See 

Contingency Measure SIP, pp. 4 to 6. 

EPA now finds that these updated 

calculations of the projected emission 

reductions from Rule 4901 are 

reasonable and, therefore, agrees with 

the District that Rule 4901 provides 3.1 

tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions and 0.3 

tpd of NOX reductions that qualify for 

approval as attainment contingency 

measures. 

In sum, taking into account surplus 

emission reductions in the SJV PM2.5

SIP that EPA previously identified as 

available for contingency measure 

purposes and the District’s revised 

estimate of emissions reduction from 

the contingency provision in the SIPVerDate Mar<15>2010 14:58 Aug 27, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28AUP1.SGM 28AUP1

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53118 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

15A ‘‘discretionary economic incentive program’’ 

is ‘‘any EIP submitted to the EPA as an 

implementation plan revision for purposes other 

than to comply with the statutory requirements of 

sections 182(g)(3), 182(g)(5), 187(d)(3), or 187(g) of 

the Act’’ (40 CFR 51.491). 

approved Rule 4901, the total amount of 

emission reductions from regulatory 

control measures that we are proposing 

to approve as part of the Contingency 

Measure SIP are as follows: 21.3 tpd of 

NOX reductions from the continuing 

implementation of CARB’s mobile 

source control program and District 

Rule 4901; 3.1 tpd of direct PM2.5

reductions from the contingency 

provision in District Rule 4901; and 3 

tpd of surplus SOX reductions from 

District rules limiting SOX emissions 

and CARB’s mobile source control 

program, including its low-sulfur diesel 

fuel regulation. 

b. Discretionary Economic Incentive 

Programs 

The Contingency Measure SIP states 

that NOX and PM2.5 emission reductions 

to be achieved through the 

implementation of specific incentive 

programs in the San Joaquin Valley are 

available for contingency measure 

purposes in 2015. See Contingency 

Measure SIP, pp. 7 to 9. The incentive 

programs identified in the Contingency 

Measure SIP for this purpose are as 

follows: the Carl Moyer Memorial Air 

Quality Standards Attainment Program 

(Carl Moyer Program), implemented 

through a partnership between CARB 

and local air districts; the Proposition 

1B: Goods Movement Emission 

Reduction Program (Prop 1B), also 

implemented through a partnership 

between CARB and local air districts; 

and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service’s (NRCS) Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program (EQIP), 

implemented by NRCS. See id. We are 

proposing to approve 4.15 tpd of NOX

reductions and 0.10 tpd of direct PM2.5

reductions from specific Carl Moyer 

Program and Prop 1B projects, as 

identified in the Contingency Measure 

SIP and in this proposed rule, for 

purposes of satisfying the contingency 

measure requirement for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

The CAA explicitly provides for the 

use of economic incentives as one tool 

for states to use to achieve attainment of 

the NAAQS. See, e.g., CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) (requiring that each SIP 

‘‘include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques (including 

economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance, as may 

be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of [the Act]’’); 

see also sections 172(c)(6), 183(e)(4). 

Economic incentive programs (EIPs) use 

market-based strategies to encourage the 

reduction of emissions from stationary, 

area, and/or mobile sources in an 

efficient manner. EPA has promulgated 

regulations for statutory EIPs required 

under section 182(g) of the Act and has 

issued guidance for discretionary 

EIPs.15 See 59 FR 16690 (April 7, 1994) 

(codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart U) 

and ‘‘Improving Air Quality with 

Economic Incentive Programs,’’ U.S. 

EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, 

January 2001 (EPA–452/R–01–001) 

(‘‘2001 EIP’’). Where a State relies upon 

a discretionary EIP in a SIP submission, 

EPA evaluates the programmatic 

elements of the EIP to determine 

whether the resulting emission 

reductions are quantifiable, surplus, 

enforceable and permanent. See 2001 

EIP at Section 4.1. These four 

fundamental ‘‘integrity elements,’’ 

which apply to all EIPs and other 

incentive/voluntary measures relied on 

for SIP purposes, are designed to ensure 

that such programs and measures satisfy 

the applicable requirements of the Act. 

See id.; see also ‘‘Guidance on 

Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source 

Emission Reduction Programs in State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs),’’ October 

24, 1997 (‘‘1997 VMEP’’); ‘‘Incorporating 

Voluntary Stationary Source Emission 

Reduction Programs Into State 

Implementation Plans—Final Policy,’’ 

January 19, 2001; ‘‘Incorporating 

Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP),’’ 

September 2004; ‘‘Guidance on 

Incorporating Bundled Measures in a 

State Implementation Plan,’’ August 16, 

2005; and ‘‘Roadmap for Incorporating 

Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy 

Policies and Programs into State and 

Tribal Implementation Plans,’’ July 

2012. 

We are evaluating the incentive-based 

emission reductions in the Contingency 

Measure SIP in accordance with these 

fundamental integrity elements as 

applied, in particular, to discretionary 

‘‘financial mechanism EIPs’’ and 

‘‘voluntary mobile source emission 

reduction programs’’ (VMEPs). See 2001 

EIP at Section 8.0 (describing ‘‘financial 

mechanism EIP’’ as a mechanism that 

indirectly reduces emissions by 

increasing costs for high emitting 

activities—e.g., through fees/taxes on 

emissions and subsidies targeted at 

promoting pollution-reducing activities 

or products) and 1997 VMEP at p. 3 

(describing ‘‘VMEP’’ as a mobile source 

strategy that complements existing 

regulatory programs through voluntary, 

nonregulatory changes in local 

transportation sector activity levels or 

changes in in-use vehicle and engine 

fleet composition). A discretionary EIP 

or VMEP submission must be 

accompanied by sufficient technical 

support for EPA to determine that the 

statutory criteria for approval are met— 

e.g., procedures designed to compare 

projected emission reductions with 

actual emission reductions achieved; 

State commitments to monitor, assess, 

and report on program implementation 

and actual emission reductions 

achieved; and procedures for the State 

to remedy emission reduction shortfalls 

in a timely manner. See 2001 EIP at 

Section 5.0 and 1997 VMEP at pp. 6, 7. 

The State must also demonstrate that it 

has adequate personnel and program 

resources to implement the program and 

that the EIP or VMEP does not interfere 

with other requirements of the Act. See 

id. and 2001 EIP at Section 11.0. With 

respect to VMEPs, EPA has in the past 

generally limited the amount of 

emission reductions allowed in a SIP to 

three percent (3 percent) of the total 

projected future year emission 

reductions required to attain the 

relevant NAAQS, and for any particular 

SIP submittal to demonstrate attainment 

or maintenance of the NAAQS or 

progress toward attainment (RFP), 3 

percent of the specific statutory 

requirement. See 1997 VMEP at 5. 

i. Overview of SJVUAPCD’s IncentiveBased Emission Reductions 

The Carl Moyer Program is a 

California grant program established in 

1998 that provides funding to encourage 

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

emission reduction technologies. See 

generally CARB, ‘‘The Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines, Approved 

Revisions 2011,’’ Release Date: February 

8, 2013, at Chapter 1 (available 

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

msprog/moyer/moyer.htm). In its first 

12 years, the Carl Moyer Program 

provided over $680 million in state and 

local funds to reduce air pollution from 

equipment statewide, e.g., by replacing 

older trucks with newer, cleaner trucks, 

retrofitting controls on existing engines, 

and encouraging the early retirement of 

older, more polluting vehicles. Id. 

The Prop 1B program is a California 

grant program established in 2007, as a 

result of State bond funding approved 

by voters, which provides $1 billion in 

funding to CARB to reduce air pollution 

emissions and health risks from freight 

movement along California’s priority 

trade corridors. Under the enabling 

legislation (California Senate Bill 88 and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 53119 

16The Contingency Measure SIP references 

‘‘proposed’’ Rule 9610 because the rule was not yet 

adopted at the time the District was developing the 

Contingency Measure SIP. Rule 9610, as adopted by 

the SJVUAPCD Governing Board on June 20, 2013, 

is substantively unchanged from the proposed rule 

that the District made available for public comment 

on May 21, 2013, and section 7.0 of the adopted 

rule is identical to the text in the proposed rule. 

Unless otherwise noted, all references to Rule 9610 

herein are to the rule as adopted June 20, 2013. 

17EPA is not proposing at this time to act on Rule 

9610 itself. To the extent the Contingency Measure 

SIP relies upon emission reductions that are 

quantified and tracked pursuant to the requirements 

of Rule 9610, however, EPA has reviewed relevant 

provisions of Rule 9610 and related support 

documents, consistent with the District’s intent. See 

email dated July 24, 2013 from Samir Sheikh, 

SJVUAPCD, to Kerry Drake, EPA Region 9, ‘‘RE: Per 

our conversation earlier.’’ 

18The District’s Board Resolution adopting the 

Contingency Measure SIP broadly identifies ‘‘the 

incentive program guidelines identified in Section 

3.1 of Rule 9610, the 2013 Draft Annual 

Demonstration Report, and the Manual of 

Procedures to quantify SIP-creditable emission 

reductions relied upon to satisfy the PM2.5

contingency measure requirement for 2015 in the 

amount of 4.15 tons per day (tpd) of NOX

reductions and 0.10 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions. 

. . .’’ and the Contingency Measure SIP similarly 

identifies the Carl Moyer Program, Prop 1B, and 

EQIP (NRCS) in their entirety as the basis for the 

District’s claimed NOX and direct PM2.5 emission 

reductions. See SJVUAPCD Board Resolution No. 

13–6–18, p. 3 and Contingency Measure SIP, p. 7. 

In this proposed rule, however, EPA is evaluating 

only a subset of these guidelines (i.e., specified 

portions of those Carl Moyer Program and Prop 1B 

guidelines identified herein), as the Contingency 

Measure SIP does not contain adequate technical 

documentation for EPA to fully evaluate all of the 

incentive programs referenced in the SIP 

submission. 

Assembly Bill 201 (2007)), CARB 

awards grants to fund projects proposed 

by local agencies that are involved in 

freight movement or air quality 

improvements associated with goods 

movement activities. Upon receipt of 

such grants, the local agencies are then 

responsible for providing financial 

incentives to owners of equipment used 

in freight movement to upgrade to 

cleaner technologies, consistent with 

program guidelines adopted by CARB. 

See generally ‘‘Strategic Growth Plan 

Bond Accountability, Goods Movement 

Emission Reduction Program,’’ 

Approved February 27, 2008 (available 

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

bonds/gmbond/docs/gm_

accountability_with_links_2–27–08.pdf). 

The Contingency Measure SIP states 

that a total of 10.9 tpd of NOX

reductions and 0.44 tpd of direct PM2.5

reductions, to be achieved in 2015 

through implementation of the Carl 

Moyer Program, Prop 1B, and EQIP, are 

available for contingency measure 

purposes and that these emission 

reductions exceed the 4.15 tpd of NOX

reductions and 0.10 tpd of direct PM2.5

reductions needed to satisfy the 

contingency measure requirement for 

2015. See Contingency Measure SIP, p. 

7. To support the District’s conclusion 

that these NOX and direct PM2.5

reductions from incentive programs are 

quantifiable, surplus, enforceable and 

permanent, the Contingency Measure 

SIP cites specified requirements in 

SJVUAPCD Rule 9610, a regulation 

adopted by the District on June 20, 2013 

to establish administrative processes 

and criteria for documenting emission 

reductions achieved through incentive 

programs for CAA SIP purposes. See id. 

at 7, 8 (citing Proposed SJVUAPCD Rule 

9610, section 7.0). According to the 

District, the 4.15 tpd of NOX reductions 

and 0.10 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions 

from incentive programs that it is 

relying upon to satisfy the attainment 

contingency measure requirement (for 

2015) satisfy the requirements of section 

7.0 of proposed Rule 961016 and, 

therefore, qualify for SIP credit under 

the CAA. 

Under section 7.0 of Rule 9610,17 each 

SIP submission as to which the District 

relies on projections of emission 

reductions from incentive programs to 

satisfy a CAA SIP requirement must 

include a demonstration that each 

applicable incentive program guideline 

continues to provide for ‘‘SIP-creditable 

emission reductions’’—i.e., emission 

reductions that are quantifiable, surplus, 

enforceable, and permanent, as those 

terms are defined in Rule 9610. See Rule 

9610, section 7.0 and section 2.25 

(definition of ‘‘SIP-Creditable Emission 

Reduction’’). In addition, each such SIP 

submission must include an enforceable 

commitment that: (1) Identifies 

incentive program guidelines used to 

generate projected SIP-creditable 

emission reductions; (2) identifies 

emission reductions ‘‘projected to be 

achieved through the use of secured or 

reasonably anticipated incentive 

program funding’’ and estimated 

numbers of projects and willing 

participants; (3) is specifically adopted 

by the District as part of the SIP and 

accounted for in subsequent annual 

demonstration reports; and (4) states 

that ‘‘if either the District or EPA finds 

that there is a SIP shortfall for a 

particular year, the District will adopt 

and submit to EPA, by specified dates, 

substitute rules and measures that will 

achieve equivalent emission reductions 

as expeditiously as practicable and no 

later than any applicable 

implementation deadline in the Clean 

Air Act or EPA’s implementing 

regulations.’’ See Rule 9610, sections 7.1 

through 7.4. 

Consistent with these criteria, the 

Contingency Measure SIP contains the 

State’s and District’s demonstrations 

that specified portions of the following 

Prop 1B and Carl Moyer Program 

guidelines 18 provide for emission 

reductions that are quantifiable, surplus, 

enforceable, and permanent: (1) 

‘‘Proposition 1B: Goods Movement 

Emission Reduction Program, Final 

2010 Guidelines for Implementation,’’ 

adopted March 25, 2010; (2) 

‘‘Proposition 1B: Goods Movement 

Emission Reduction Program, Final 

Guidelines for Implementation,’’ 

adopted February 28, 2008; and (3) ‘‘The 

Carl Moyer Program Guidelines,’’ 

approved April 28, 2011. See email 

dated July 24, 2013 from Samir Sheikh, 

SJVUAPCD, to Kerry Drake, EPA Region 

9, ‘‘RE: Per our conversation earlier.’’ In 

addition, the Contingency Measure SIP 

contains an enforceable commitment by 

the District: (1) to ‘‘account for’’ the 

District’s claimed 4.15 tpd of NOX

reductions and 0.10 tpd of direct PM2.5

reductions ‘‘in annual demonstration 

reports pursuant to the requirements of 

Rule 9610’’; and (2) if there is a shortfall 

in emission reductions from these 

incentive programs, to ‘‘adopt and 

submit to EPA substitute rules and 

measures that will achieve equivalent 

emission reductions as expeditiously as 

practicable and no later than any 

applicable implementation deadline in 

the CAA or EPA’s implementing 

regulations, by no later than December 

31, 2016.’’ See SJVUAPCD Board 

Resolution No. 13–6–18 at p. 3. 

Finally, information provided to 

support the Contingency Measure SIP 

demonstrates that the District has 

adequate personnel and program 

resources to implement the Carl Moyer 

Program and Prop 1B programs. See, 

e.g., ‘‘The Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines’’ (approved April 28), 

Chapter 3 (‘‘Program Administration’’); 

‘‘2011 Proposition 1B: Goods Movement 

Emission Reduction Program, Final 

2010 Guidelines for Implementation’’ 

(adopted March 25, 2010) at Chapter III 

(‘‘Local Agency Project Proposal’’); and 

letter dated January 2, 2013 from James 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to 

Seyed Sadredin, Air Pollution Control 

Officer, SJVUAPCD, enclosing 

‘‘Incentive Program Review Report, San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District Fiscal Years 2006–07 through 

2009–10.’’ 

ii. Evaluation of Applicable Incentive 

Program Guidelines and Projects 

We have evaluated specific portions 

of the three incentive program 

guidelines identified above (the 2008 

and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines and 2011 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53120 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

19Relevant excerpts of these three guidelines are 

available in EPA’s docket for this rulemaking. 

20Section 2.27 of Rule 9610 defines the term 

‘‘surplus’’ as follows: ‘‘for purposes of this rule, 

emission reductions are surplus when they are not 

otherwise required by any federal, state, or local 

regulation, or other legal mandate, and are in excess 

of the baseline emission inventories underlying a 

SIP attainment demonstration.’’ 

21Section 2.19 of Rule 9610 defines the term 

‘‘project’’ as follows: ‘‘for purposes of this rule, 

actions taken to reduce emissions through incentive 

programs, as contracted between the Grantee and 

the District, NRCS, or CARB using incentive 

program guidelines at the time of contracting. Such 

actions include, but are not limited to, 

replacements, retrofits, new purchases, new 

practices, and repower.’’ 22EPA is not reviewing projects funded through 

the EQIP program at this time because the 

Contingency Measure SIP does not contain 

adequate documentation regarding this program. 

See n. 18, supra. 

23Available at http://www.valleyair.org/MOP/

docs/9610ProjectDataforPublicUNLOCKED8–7– 

13.xlsx. 

24 In the Data Sheet, these Prop 1B projects are 

listed under the following columns: (1) Component: 

‘‘On-Road Prop 1B’’; (2) Component Option: 

‘‘Vehicle Replacement’’ and ‘‘Vehicle Replacement 

2 for 1’’; and (3) Applicable Guideline: ‘‘Prop 1B 

2008’’ and ‘‘Prop 1B 2010.’’ EPA has compiled these 

Prop 1B projects into a separate document which 

identifies each project by its unique ‘‘project 

identification’’ code and information regarding the 

emission reductions it will achieve over its lifetime, 

in tons. See Proposal TSD at Attachment A (‘‘Prop 

1B: On-Road Vehicle Replacement projects 

achieving emission reductions through 2015’’). 

25California uses the term ‘‘reactive organic 

gases’’ (ROGs) to refer generally to volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) as defined in 40 CFR 51.100(s). 26 In the Data Sheet, these Carl Moyer Program 

projects are listed under the following columns: (1) 

Component: ‘‘Off-Road’’; (2) Component Option: 

‘‘Vehicle Replacement’’; and (3) Applicable 

Guideline: ‘‘Carl Moyer 2011.’’ EPA has compiled 

these Carl Moyer Program projects into a separate 

document which identifies each project by its 

unique ‘‘project identification’’ code and 

information regarding the emission reductions it 

will achieve over its lifetime, in tons. See Proposal 

TSD at Attachment B (‘‘Carl Moyer Program: OffRoad Vehicle Replacement projects achieving 

emission reductions through 2015’’). 

Carl Moyer Program guideline) 19 and 

believe, with one exception, that they 

provide for emission reductions that are 

quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, and 

permanent consistent with the 

requirements of the CAA. The one 

exception is the option for the State to 

grant a longer project life on a case-bycase basis ‘‘if an applicant provides 

justifying documentation.’’ See, e.g., 

‘‘The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines,’’ 

approved April 28, 2011, Chapter 9 (OffRoad Equipment Replacement) at 

section C.1(C)(5) (‘‘Project Life’’). This 

option to grant a longer project life on 

a case-by-case basis provides the State 

with broad discretion to extend the 

duration of emission reductions claimed 

from an equipment replacement project 

without any EPA oversight or public 

process. Because these case-by-case 

determinations could undermine the 

integrity of the program (e.g., by 

undermining EPA’s ability to limit SIP 

credit to the period during which the 

emission reductions are ‘‘surplus’’ to 

other requirements), EPA cannot grant 

SIP credit for emission reductions from 

projects subject to such a determination 

unless the District submits the 

individual determination for EPA 

review and approval through the SIP 

process. 

With the limited exception of these 

provisions regarding case-by-case 

determinations, the portions of the 

identified program guidelines that we 

have reviewed establish clear criteria 

that enable the District to quantify the 

emission reductions attributed to 

specified projects with a reasonable 

level of accuracy; verify that those 

emission reductions are ‘‘surplus’’ as 

that term is defined in section 2.27 of 

Rule 9610 20; enforce the conditions of 

program grants to ensure that contracted 

emission reductions are achieved; and 

monitor the continuing implementation 

of program grants to ensure that 

emission reductions are ‘‘permanent’’ 

throughout the life of each project. For 

a more detailed discussion of EPA’s 

review of the relevant portions of these 

three program guidelines, see Proposal 

TSD, pp. 29 to 42. 

Additionally, we have evaluated the 

District’s documentation for specific 

projects 21 funded through the Prop 1B 

program and Carl Moyer Program that 

provide an adequate basis for the 

District’s claimed NOX and direct PM2.5

emission reductions for 2015.22 The 

Contingency Measure SIP states that it 

relies on incentive-based emission 

reductions to be achieved from 

‘‘already-executed, legally binding 

contracts’’ rather than on projections of 

future funding and participation rates. 

See Contingency Measure SIP at 7, 8. 

According to the 2013 Annual 

Demonstration Report and associated 

‘‘Data Sheet,’’ 23 on-road vehicle 

replacement projects that have been 

funded through the Prop 1B program 

and off-road vehicle replacement 

projects that have been funded through 

the Carl Moyer Program are expected to 

achieve NOX and direct PM2.5 emission 

reductions in amounts adequate to cover 

the incentive-related emission 

reductions claimed by the District in the 

Contingency Measure SIP (i.e., the 4.15 

tpd of NOX reductions and 0.10 tpd of 

direct PM2.5 reductions claimed for 

2015). Each of these funded projects is 

subject to one of the three incentive 

program guidelines identified above 

(i.e., the 2008 Prop 1B guideline, 2010 

Prop 1B guideline, or 2011 Carl Moyer 

Program guideline). 

Specifically, the Data Sheet identifies 

1243 ‘‘on-road vehicle replacement’’ 

projects funded through the Prop 1B 

program that have a ‘‘project life’’ 

ending on or after January 1, 2016 and 

therefore will continue to achieve 

emission reductions at least through the 

end of 2015.24 Collectively, these 1243 

funded projects are projected to achieve 

3.78 tpd of NOX reductions and 0.15 tpd 

of PM reductions in 2015. See 

Memorandum from Idalia Perez to File 

dated July 22, 2013. These totals are 

consistent with the emission reduction 

estimates for 2015 provided in Table 18 

of the 2013 Annual Demonstration 

Report, which identifies the total 

reductions, in tons per day, of NOX,

particulate matter (PM) and ‘‘reactive 

organic gases’’ (ROGs) 25 that the District 

expects will be achieved by Prop 1B 

projects related to on-road trucks 

between 2009 and 2020. See 2013 

Annual Demonstration Report at 40, 

Table 18 (‘‘SIP-Creditable IncentiveBased Emission Reductions for On-Road 

Trucks’’). Additionally, the Data Sheet 

indicates that 853 of these 1243 projects 

subject to Prop 1B funds have a project 

life ending after December 31, 2016 and 

will, therefore, continue to generate 

emission reductions through at least the 

end of 2016. See Proposal TSD at 

Attachment A (‘‘Prop 1B: On-Road 

Vehicle Replacement projects achieving 

emission reductions through 2015’’) and 

Memorandum from Idalia Perez to File 

dated July 22, 2013. These funded 

projects are expected to achieve 2.35 tpd 

of NOX reductions and 0.09 tpd of PM 

reductions in 2016. See id. and 2013 

Annual Demonstration Report at 40, 

Table 18. 

Similarly, the Data Sheet identifies 

675 ‘‘off-road vehicle replacement’’ 

projects funded through the Carl Moyer 

Program that have a ‘‘project life’’ 

ending on or after January 1, 2021 and 

therefore will continue to achieve 

emission reductions well past the end of 

2015.26 Collectively, these 675 funded 

projects are projected to achieve 1.23 

tpd of NOX reductions and 0.06 tpd of 

PM reductions in 2015. See 

Memorandum from Idalia Perez to File 

dated July 22, 2013. These totals are 

consistent with the emission reduction 

estimates for 2015 provided in Table 13 

of the 2013 Annual Demonstration 

Report, which identifies the total 

reductions, in tons per day, of NOX, PM 

and ROGs that the District expects will 

be achieved by Carl Moyer Program 

projects related to off-road vehicle 

replacement between 2009 and 2020. 

See 2013 Annual Demonstration Report 

at 37, Table 13 (‘‘SIP-Creditable 

Incentive-Based Emission Reductions 

for Off-Road Compression-Ignition 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 53121 

27See, e.g., ‘‘The Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines,’’ approved April 28, 2011, Chapter 9 

(Off-Road Equipment Replacement) at section 

C.1(C)(5) (‘‘Project Life’’). 

28Rule 9610 specifically prohibits the use of any 

case-by-case determination to quantify emission 

reductions for SIP purposes ‘‘unless such 

determination is reviewed through a public process 

and submitted to EPA in accordance with Section 

7.0 [of Rule 9610].’’ See Rule 9610 at section 3.2.2; 

see also 2013 Annual Demonstration Report at 11. 

Neither the 2013 Annual Demonstration Report nor 

the Contingency Measure SIP specifically identifies 

any case-by-case determination for EPA review. 

29The SJV PM2.5 SIP projects the total amounts 

of emission reductions needed to attain the PM2.5

NAAQS, from a 2005 base year to a 2014 attainment 

year, are as follows: 284.2 tpd of NOX reductions; 

22.7 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions; and 1.8 tpd of 

SOX reductions. See 76 FR 69896, 69923 (Table 4, 

line A) and Final TSD for SJV PM2.5 SIP, p. 113 

(Table G–2, line C). Thus, the incentive program 

reductions identified in the Contingency Measure 

SIP amount to approximately 1.5 percent of the 

NOX reductions and 0.4 percent of the direct PM2.5

reductions needed for timely attainment of the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

Equipment Replacement Claimed 

Pursuant to Section 3.1’’). All of these 

funded projects are expected to 

continue achieving emission reductions 

through at least 2021. See Proposal TSD 

at Attachment B (‘‘Carl Moyer Program: 

Off-Road Vehicle Replacement projects 

achieving emission reductions through 

2015’’) and Memorandum from Idalia 

Perez to File dated July 22, 2013. 

Although Chapter 9 of the 2011 Carl 

Moyer Program guideline contains 

several provisions allowing for case-bycase determinations,27 we understand 

that the District’s 2015 emission 

reduction estimates for Carl Moyer 

projects in Table 13 of the 2013 Annual 

Demonstration Report do not rely on 

any projects subject to case-by-case 

determinations, as such determinations 

are not eligible for SIP credit unless 

reviewed through a public process and 

submitted to EPA as part of a SIP 

submission meeting the requirements of 

Rule 9610.28

We conclude that the District’s 

documentation regarding these Prop 1B 

and Carl Moyer Program projects is 

adequate to ensure that the associated 

NOX and direct PM2.5 emission 

reductions can be monitored and 

verified. In any future SIP that relies on 

incentive-based emission reductions 

quantified pursuant to the requirements 

of Rule 9610, we expect the District will 

specifically identify the types of projects 

relied upon to generate the emission 

reductions and the specific incentive 

program guidelines that apply to those 

projects and we expect the subsequent 

annual demonstration reports will then 

list the individual projects relied upon 

to achieve those reductions, as provided 

in our Proposal TSD. We note that the 

4.15 tpd of NOX reductions and 0.10 tpd 

of direct PM2.5 reductions attributed to 

the Carl Moyer Program and Prop 1B in 

2015 for contingency measure purposes 

each amount to less than 2 percent of 

the total projected emission reductions 

of each pollutant needed to attain the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.29

iii. Evaluation of SJVUAPCD’s 

Enforceable Commitments 

We have evaluated the Board 

commitments submitted as part of the 

Contingency Measure SIP and find that 

they establish clear obligations on the 

District’s part to monitor, assess, and 

report on program implementation and 

actual emission reductions achieved 

and to remedy any emission reduction 

shortfalls in a timely manner, consistent 

with EPA policy. Specifically, 

SJVUAPCD Board Resolution No. 13–6– 

18 contains two key components 

designed to ensure that the 4.15 tpd of 

NOX reductions and 0.10 tpd of direct 

PM2.5 reductions claimed in the 

District’s Contingency Measure SIP are 

enforceable under the CAA. 

The first key component is a 

commitment to ‘‘account for’’ these 

emission reductions ‘‘in annual 

demonstration reports pursuant to the 

requirements of Rule 9610.’’ SJVUAPCD 

Board Resolution No. 13–6–18 at p. 3. 

Rule 9610 specifically requires the 

District to submit to EPA, no later than 

August 31 of each year, an ‘‘annual 

demonstration report’’ that includes the 

following elements: (1) Identification of 

SIP-creditable emission reductions 

generated through incentive programs 

implemented in the preceding year(s), 

summarized by pollutant, years that the 

emission reductions occur (project life), 

cost effectiveness, funding amount, 

incentive program guideline, and 

project type; (2) identification of SIP 

commitment(s) that the District has 

satisfied, in whole or in part, through 

SIP-creditable emission reductions from 

the identified incentive programs; (3) 

identification and quantification of SIP 

commitment shortfalls, if any, and 

remedies for addressing said shortfalls; 

(4) detailed information about each 

specific project achieving SIP-creditable 

emission reductions, e.g., unique project 

identification numbers, implementation 

dates, applicable incentive program 

guideline(s), and quantified emission 

reductions per year and aggregated over 

the project life, by pollutant; and (5) a 

summary of monitoring and 

enforcement activities conducted during 

the reporting period for incentive 

projects for which SIP-creditable 

emission reductions are being claimed. 

See Rule 9610, sections 4.1–4.6 and 5.0. 

The second key component is a 

commitment to adopt and submit to 

EPA, no later than December 31, 2016, 

‘‘substitute rules and measures that will 

achieve equivalent emission reductions 

as expeditiously as practicable and no 

later than any applicable 

implementation deadline in the CAA or 

EPA’s implementing regulations,’’ if 

there is a shortfall in emission 

reductions. SJVUAPCD Board 

Resolution No. 13–6–18, p. 3. Consistent 

with this commitment, EPA expects the 

District to confirm as part of its 2014 

and 2015 Annual Demonstration 

Reports whether the claimed 4.15 tpd of 

NOX reductions and 0.10 tpd of direct 

PM2.5 reductions are expected to occur 

in 2015 as projected, and to provide the 

basis for its conclusion—e.g., 

information about actual program 

participation rates, actual reported 

activity data, project audits, usage 

reports, and other project monitoring 

activities consistent with the 

requirements of Rule 9610, section 4.0. 

If the District finds that there may be a 

shortfall in the claimed emission 

reductions for 2015, the District will be 

required to identify in its 2014 or 2015 

Annual Demonstration Report both the 

estimated amount of the SIP shortfall (in 

tons per day, by pollutant) and the 

specific remedy to be implemented in 

the event of a shortfall—i.e., the 

substitute rules and measures that will 

achieve equivalent emission reductions, 

to be submitted to EPA no later than 

December 31, 2016. See Rule 9610, 

section 4.4 (‘‘The District shall identify 

and quantify SIP commitment shortfalls, 

if any, and remedies for addressing said 

shortfalls’’ as part of the annual 

demonstration report). Finally, EPA 

expects the District’s 2016 Annual 

Demonstration Report will either 

confirm that the claimed 4.15 tpd of 

NOX reductions and 0.10 tpd of direct 

PM2.5 reductions actually occurred in 

2015 as projected or identify and 

quantify the specific SIP shortfalls and 

specific remedies to be implemented 

consistent with the District’s 

commitment. Any conclusion that the 

District’s claimed 4.15 tpd of NOX

reductions and 0.10 tpd of PM2.5

reductions actually occurred in 2015 

must be supported by documentation of 

actual emissions, based on historical 

annual usage (i.e., reported activity 

data), actual program participation rates, 

project audits, and other information 

consistent with the requirements of 

sections 4.0 to 4.6 of Rule 9610. For a 

more detailed discussion of our 

evaluation of these commitments, see 

Proposal TSD, pp. 42 to 44. 

These Board commitments obligate 

the District to monitor, assess, and 

report on program implementation and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53122 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

30EPA approved this air quality modeling as part 

of its approval of the attainment demonstration in 

the SJV PM2.5 Plan. See 76 FR 41338, 41349 and 76 

FR 69896, 69924. 

31EPA has previously approved the use of this 

ratio for use in transportation conformity 

determinations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

SJV. See 76 FR 69896, 69923. See also 76 FR 41338, 

41349 (noting adequacy of CARB’s ratio for 

purposes of assessing the effect of ‘‘area-wide 

emissions changes,’’ e.g., to address RFP, 

contingency measures, and conformity budgets). 

actual emission reductions achieved 

and, ultimately, enable EPA and the 

public to determine whether the 

District’s claimed emission reductions 

(4.15 tpd of NOX reductions and 0.10 

tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions) actually 

occurred in 2015. Based on the District’s 

long history of successful 

implementation and enforcement of 

Prop 1B and Carl Moyer Program grants 

and the detailed requirements in the 

associated incentive program 

guidelines, we fully expect that 

SJVUAPCD will achieve the required 

emission reductions in 2015 as 

projected. However, should EPA find 

based on the 2014 or 2015 Annual 

Demonstration Report that the District’s 

claimed 4.15 tpd of NOX reductions and 

0.10 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions may 

not occur in 2015 as projected, EPA will 

promptly notify the District of its 

potential obligation to adopt and submit 

substitute rules and measures consistent 

with its Board commitment no later 

than December 31, 2016, so that the 

District has ample time to develop and 

adopt such rules/measures consistent 

with this deadline. Subsequently, 

should EPA determine that the SJV area 

has failed to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date of April 

5, 2015, the District will be obligated to 

verify through its next annual report 

(i.e., the 2016 Annual Demonstration 

Report) whether the 4.15 tpd of NOX

reductions and 0.10 tpd of PM2.5

reductions identified in the Contingency 

Measure SIP occurred in 2015, and if 

not, to adopt and submit substitute rules 

and measures to EPA consistent with its 

Board commitment no later than 

December 31, 2016. 

iv. Conclusion on SJVUAPCD’s 

Incentive-Based Emission Reductions 

Based on our evaluation of the 

District’s commitments regarding the 

Carl Moyer Program and Prop 1B and 

related technical documentation 

provided by the District in its SIP 

submission, we propose to find that the 

2015 emission reductions associated 

with these specific incentive programs 

satisfy the statutory criteria for SIP 

credit and to approve these emission 

reductions as attainment contingency 

measures for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the SJV. Upon EPA’s final approval of 

the Contingency Measure SIP, the 

District’s commitments will become 

federally enforceable and will obligate it 

to monitor, assess, and report to EPA on 

implementation of the Carl Moyer 

Program and Prop 1B program grants 

with respect to the specific Prop 1B and 

Carl Moyer projects identified in EPA’s 

Proposal TSD. See Proposal TSD at 

Attachment A (‘‘Prop 1B: On-Road 

Vehicle Replacement projects achieving 

emission reductions through 2015’’) and 

Attachment B (‘‘Carl Moyer Program: 

Off-Road Vehicle Replacement projects 

achieving emission reductions through 

2015’’). 

EPA supports and encourages the 

continuing efforts by CARB, the District, 

and NRCS to make incentive programs 

and voluntary measures an effective part 

of the SJV’s strategy for clean air. We 

commit to continue our work with these 

agencies to establish reliable procedures 

for documenting the emission 

reductions associated with voluntary 

and incentive programs for SIP 

purposes, in particular through the 

District’s implementation of Rule 9610, 

which EPA intends to act on in the near 

future. Our collective goal is to establish 

a process that ensures that the emission 

reductions resulting from voluntary and 

incentive programs are quantifiable, 

surplus, enforceable, and permanent 

consistent with CAA requirements as 

interpreted in EPA guidance. We 

welcome public comments on how best 

to achieve this goal. 

c. Substitution of Direct PM2.5

Reductions for NOX Reductions 

The District estimated, based on 

monitored air quality over the past five 

winter seasons, that triggering the 

contingency provision in the District’s 

woodburning rule would reduce direct 

PM2.5 emissions by a further 3.12 tpd. 

See Contingency Measure SIP, p. 6. This 

level of reduction exceeds the 2.5 tpd of 

direct PM2.5 reductions needed to meet 

the CAA contingency requirement for 

this pollutant by 0.62 tpd. Taking into 

account the 0.1 tpd of direct PM2.5

reductions from incentive programs 

discussed above in section III.C.2.b, the 

District then converted the total amount 

of surplus direct PM2.5 reductions (0.72 

tpd) into NOX reductions at a ratio of 9 

tons of NOX for each ton of direct PM2.5.

Based on this PM2.5 to NOX conversion, 

the District concluded that a 0.72 tpd 

reduction in direct PM2.5 emissions has 

the same ambient air quality impact as 

a 6.48 tpd reduction in NOX emissions. 

Using the Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) modeling application 

underlying the attainment 

demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 Plan,30

CARB developed an equivalency ratio 

between emission reductions of direct 

PM2.5 and of NOX. For each pollutant, 

CARB modeled the ambient effect of a 

10 percent reduction of emissions over 

the modeling domain. The 

concentration change per emission 

change gave a precursor effectiveness 

value for NOX and an effectiveness 

value for direct PM2.5. The ratio of these 

two effectiveness values provided the 

NOX-PM2.5 equivalency ratio. 

Emission reductions of direct PM2.5

from the District’s wood burning 

restrictions tend to be concentrated in 

the SJV’s urban areas. These urban areas 

also typically record the highest PM2.5

ambient levels in the SJV. As explained 

above, the District is proposing to 

substitute these urban-centered direct 

PM2.5 reductions for region-wide NOX

reductions. Because these wood burning 

reductions are concentrated in areas 

most like to experience high levels of 

ambient PM2.5, their impact on these 

ambient levels will likely be greater 

than the same amount of PM2.5

reductions distributed over the entire 

nonattainment area. CARB’s full 

modeling domain approach, which 

assumed distributed PM2.5 reductions, 

will therefore tend to underestimate the 

impact of direct PM2.5 reductions from 

wood burning restrictions on ambient 

concentrations. As a result the 9:1 ratio 

of NOX to PM2.5 emission reductions in 

this case gives a conservatively high 

estimate of the direct PM2.5 emission 

reductions needed to substitute for a 

given amount of NOX reductions. EPA 

proposes to approve the use of this ratio 

for purposes of quantifying emission 

reductions to satisfy the CAA section 

172(c)(9) attainment contingency 

measure requirement for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV.31 For further 

information, see the Proposal TSD, 

pp. 44–45. 

d. Summary 

In sum, EPA believes that the 

Contingency Measure SIP identifies SIPcreditable attainment contingency 

measures that will achieve a total of 

31.6 tpd of NOX, 2.5 tpd of direct PM2.5, 

and 3 tpd of SOX reductions in 2015. 

EPA believes that these emission 

reductions will equal or exceed oneyear’s worth of RFP as calculated in 

EPA’s 2011 final action on the SJV PM2.5

SIP. See Table 1. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 53123 

32See ibid. 

TABLE 1— SUMMARY OF 2015 EMISSION REDUCTIONS CREDITABLE AS ATTAINMENT CONTINGENCY MEASURES

[In tons per day] 

NOX Direct PM2.5 SOX

California/Federal Mobile Source 

Control Program.

21 ..................................................

Surplus SOX Reductions from 

CARB and District Rules.

....................................................... ....................................................... 3. 

[Incentive Programs] ...................... 4.15 ............................................... 0.1 

Contingency Provision in District 

Rule 4901.

0.3 ................................................. 3.1 

Substitution of surplus direct PM2.5

reductions for NOX reductions.

6.5 ................................................. ¥0.7 

TOTAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS:.31.9 ............................................... 2.5 ................................................. 3. 

Emission reductions equal to oneyear’s worth of RFP32.31.6 ............................................... 2.5 ................................................. 0.2. 

Contingency measure requirement 

met?.

Yes ................................................ Yes ................................................ Yes. 

Based on our evaluation, we are 

proposing to fully approve the 

Contingency Measure SIP as satisfying 

the attainment contingency measure 

requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San 

Joaquin Valley nonattainment area. All 

of the emission reductions relied on to 

meet the attainment contingency 

measure requirement are provided by 

control measures or incentive programs 

that are fully adopted under State law. 

These measures and programs provide 

SIP-creditable emission reductions that 

are not relied on in the SJV PM2.5 SIP 

to demonstrate RFP or attainment and 

provide for an appropriate level of 

continued emission reduction progress 

should the SJV area fail to attain by its 

statutory attainment date and 

necessitate additional planning. 

D. Clean Air Act Section 110(l) 

CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA 

from approving any SIP revision that 

would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

RFP or any other applicable CAA 

requirement. The Contingency Measure 

SIP corrects SIP deficiencies identified 

in EPA’s November 9, 2011 partial 

approval and partial disapproval of the 

SJV PM2.5 SIP (76 FR 69896). 

Specifically, the Contingency Measure 

SIP contains: (1) the District’s 

demonstration that actual emission 

levels in the SJV in 2012 were below the 

approved 2012 RFP milestone year 

targets and (2) identification of SIPcreditable emission reductions to be 

achieved in 2015 that are not relied on 

for RFP or expeditious attainment. The 

Contingency Measure SIP does not alter 

any existing emission limitation or other 

control requirement in the applicable 

SIP and only expands upon the 

contingency measure portion of the SJV 

PM2.5 SIP, which EPA had partially 

disapproved in November 2011. We 

propose to determine that our approval 

of the Contingency Measure SIP would 

comply with CAA section 110(l) 

because the proposed SIP revision 

would not interfere with the on-going 

process for ensuring that requirements 

for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS 

are met, and the submitted SIP corrects 

SIP deficiencies that were the basis for 

EPA’s November 9, 2011 partial 

disapproval of the SJV PM2.5 SIP. 

IV. Proposed Actions and Request for 

Public Comment 

For the reasons discussed above, we 

are proposing to conclude that the 

Contingency Measure SIP submitted by 

CARB on July 3, 2013, satisfies the 

attainment contingency measure 

requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San 

Joaquin Valley nonattainment area and 

to fully approve this submission into the 

California SIP. We are also proposing to 

conclude that the RFP contingency 

measure requirement in CAA section 

172(c)(9) for the 2012 milestone year is 

moot as applied to the San Joaquin 

Valley because the area achieved its 

approved emissions targets for the 2012 

RFP milestone year. Finally, we are 

proposing to approve enforceable 

commitments by the SJVUAPCD to 

monitor, assess, and report on actual 

NOX and direct PM2.5 emission 

reductions achieved through its 

implementation of specific Prop 1B and 

Carl Moyer Program grants and to 

remedy any identified emission 

reduction shortfall in a timely manner. 

Finalizing these proposals would 

correct the deficiencies that were the 

basis for EPA’s partial disapproval of 

the SJV PM2.5 SIP on November 9, 2011 

(76 FR 69896) and would, therefore, 

terminate the CAA section 179(b) 

sanction and sanction clocks triggered 

by that action and the obligation on EPA 

to promulgate a federal implementation 

plan under CAA section 110(c). 

We will accept comments from the 

public on these proposals for the next 

30 days. The deadline and instructions 

for submission of comments are 

provided in the ‘‘Date’’ and ‘‘Addresses’’ 

sections at the beginning of this 

preamble. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

(October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53124 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1The Bureau takes this action pursuant to its 

delegated authority. See 47 CFR 0.392. As noted 

elsewhere herein, the short time frame provided by 

this notice is warranted in light of the pressing need 

recognized by FirstNet and other commenters for 

expedition on reinitiating the currently suspended 

equipment authorization process. Moreover, this 

notice follows a full NPRM comment period. 

Accordingly, parties should submit any new 

arguments now in order to facilitate prompt action 

by the Commission. 

2See Implementing Public Safety Broadband 

Provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012, PS Docket No. 12–94, Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 2715 (2013) 

(Technical Service Rules NPRM), published in the 

Federal Register April 24, 2013 (78 FR 24138). The 

comment cycle closed on June 10, 2013. 

3See id. at 2716, 2721 ¶¶ 2, 17; see also 47 U.S.C. 

1424 (2012) (establishing FirstNet). FirstNet’s 

license also includes the 768–769/798–799 MHz 

band, id. 1401(14), 1421(a), which is currently 

designated under Commission rules as a guard band 

separating the broadband and narrowband segments 

of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum. See 47 CFR 

90.531(f). 

4See id. at 2725–26 ¶ 33. 

5See Comments of the First Responder Network 

Authority (FirstNet), PS Docket 12–94 at 4 (Aug. 2, 

2013). 

6See National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration, FirstNet Approves 

Resolutions on Spectrum Lease Agreement with 

LA–RICS and Personnel Acquisition Strategy, 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 

1999)); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885 (April 23, 1997)); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355 (May 22, 2001)); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)). 

In addition, this proposed action does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249 

(November 9, 2000)), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

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

Dated: August 15, 2013. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21010 Filed 8–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 27 and 90 

[PS Docket No. 12–94; PS Docket No. 06– 

229; and WT Docket No. 06–150; DA 13– 

1775] 

First Responder Network Authority 

Filing 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On August 19, 2013, the 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau of the Federal Communications 

Commission (Commission) released a 

public notice inviting public comment 

on a filing submitted by the First 

Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) 

on August 2, 2013, in PS Docket 12–94. 

The filing addressed consolidation of 

technical service rules for the 758–769 

and 788–799 MHz bands, 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

September 4, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by PS Docket 12–94, by any 

of the following methods: 

D Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://fjallfoss.

fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions 

for submitting comments. 

D Mail. 

D People With Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Procedural Matters section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gene Fullano, Federal Communications 

Commission, Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau, at (202)– 

418–0492 or genaro.fullano@fcc.gov; or 

Brian Hurley, Federal Communications 

Commission, Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau, at (202)– 

418–2220 or brian.hurley@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau of the Federal Communications 

Commission provides seven days for 

public comment on matters raised by 

the First Responder Network Authority 

(FirstNet) in its August 2, 2013, filing in 

PS Docket 12–94.1 FirstNet’s filing 

responds to a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks 

comment on, among other matters, the 

consolidation into Part 90 of technical 

service rules for the 758–769 and 788– 

799 MHz bands, which, heretofore, have 

been subject to regulation under both 

Parts 27 and 90.2 The rules at issue 

include power, emission, and field 

strength limits and interference 

coordination procedures designed to 

prevent interference to operations of 

other Commission licensees. This 

proposed rule consolidation is intended 

to ‘‘facilitate the transition’’ of spectrum 

to the First Responder Network 

Authority (FirstNet), the entity licensed 

to establish a nationwide public safety 

broadband network using both the 

public safety broadband spectrum (763– 

768/793–798 MHz) and the adjacent ‘‘D 

Block’’ (758–763/788–793 MHz) 

previously slated for commercial 

auction.3 In proposing this rule 

consolidation, the Commission further 

directed its Office of Engineering and 

Technology (OET) to suspend its 

acceptance and processing of 

applications for equipment 

authorization in these bands pending 

the adoption of technical service rules 

applicable to the combined band.4

In its filing, FirstNet supports 

‘‘consolidating the technical 

requirements for the former D Block into 

Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules’’ and 

recommends that the Commission ‘‘act 

quickly to amend its technical service 

rules to enable FirstNet to expedite the 

deployment of’’ its network.’’ 5

Additionally, FirstNet urges ‘‘swift 

Commission action to begin accepting 

and processing equipment 

authorizations in the newly combined 

spectrum,’’ citing ‘‘an imminent need 

for authorized equipment to meet the 

needs of jurisdictions that may deploy 

early’’ in FirstNet’s licensed spectrum 

under spectrum leases. FirstNet has 

already entered lease agreements with 

the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable 

Communications System (LA–RICS) and 

the State of New Mexico, and it has 

stated its intention to execute similar 

agreements with other public safety 

jurisdictions in the near future.6 While 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS