53300 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1The 2014 emission reduction commitments are 

codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2) and 

52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2). 76 FR 69896, 69926 

(November 9, 2011). 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PROVISIONS

CO date Title SIP rule EPA approval Explanation 

*******

9/8/2015 ............................. Abengoa Bioenergy of Indiana.N.A .................................... 8/12/2016, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Alternative control technology requirements. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–19032 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0489; FRL–9950–19– 

Region 9] 

Revision to the California State 

Implementation Plan; San Joaquin 

Valley; Demonstration of Creditable 

Emission Reductions From Economic 

Incentive Programs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of a 

demonstration of creditable emission 

reductions submitted by California for 

approval into the San Joaquin Valley 

(SJV) portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This SIP 

submittal demonstrates that certain state 

incentive funding programs have 

achieved specified amounts of 

reductions in emissions of nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) in the SJV area by 2014. The 

effect of this action would be to approve 

specific amounts of emission reductions 

for credit toward an emission reduction 

commitment in the California SIP. We 

are approving these emission reductions 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 

Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 30, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2015– 

0489 for this action. Generally, 

documents in the docket for this action 

are available electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

While all documents in the docket are 

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

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

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

multi-volume reports), and some may 

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

confidential business information 

(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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

3248, Perez.Idalia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On August 24, 2015 (80 FR 51147), 

the EPA proposed to approve the 

‘‘Report on Reductions Achieved from 

Incentive-based Emission Reduction 

Measures in the San Joaquin Valley’’ 

(Emission Reduction Report) and, based 

on California’s documentation therein of 

actions taken by grantees in accordance 

with the identified incentive program 

guidelines, to approve 7.8 tpd of NOX

emission reductions and 0.2 tpd of 

PM2.5 emission reductions for credit 

toward the State’s 2014 emission 

reduction commitments in its 2008 plan 

to provide for attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin 

Valley (hereafter ‘‘2008 PM2.5 Plan’’).1

The California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) adopted the Emission Reduction 

Report on October 24, 2014 and 

submitted it to EPA as a revision to the 

California SIP on November 17, 2014. 

We proposed to approve the Emission 

Reduction Report based on a 

determination that it satisfied the 

applicable CAA requirements. Our 

proposed action contains more 

information on the Emission Reduction 

Report and our evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. During 

this period, we received comments from 

Adenike Adeyeye, Earthjustice, by email 

dated and received September 16, 2015. 

The comments and our responses are 

summarized below. 

Comment 1: Earthjustice asserts that 

the emission reductions identified in 

the Emission Reduction Report are not 

enforceable by the public and therefore 

should not be approved into the SIP. 

According to Earthjustice, the Carl 

Moyer program allows air districts to 

enter into emission reduction 

agreements with grant recipients, with 

CARB added to contracts as a third 

party with enforcement rights, but does 

not enable the public to enforce these 

emission reduction agreements entered 

into among CARB, the air district, and 

the grant recipient. Earthjustice argues 

that the EPA’s enforceability criteria 

require that citizens have access to all 

emissions-related information obtained 

from participating sources and be able 

to file suit against a responsible entity 

for violations, and that the Emission 

Reduction Report does not meet these 

criteria. 

Response 1: We agree with the 

commenter’s statement that the public 

cannot enforce the agreements entered 

into among CARB, an air district and a 

grant recipient but disagree with the 

commenter’s suggestion that this 

renders the Emission Reduction Report 

inconsistent with the EPA’s 

enforceability criteria. This Emission 

Reduction Report was submitted to 

demonstrate that that a portion of the 

emission reductions required under a 

previously approved SIP commitment 

have in fact been achieved—not to 

satisfy a future emission reduction 

requirement—and thus it does not need 

to provide a citizen enforcement 

mechanism. 

As we explained in our proposed rule, 

where a state relies on a discretionary 

economic incentive program (EIP) or 

other voluntary measure to satisfy an 

attainment planning requirement under 

the CAA (e.g., to demonstrate that 

specific amounts of emission reductions 

will occur by a future milestone date), 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53301 

the state must take responsibility for 

assuring that SIP emission reduction 

requirements are met through an 

enforceable commitment, which 

becomes federally enforceable upon 

approval into the SIP. 80 FR 51147, 

51150. Thus, had CARB submitted the 

Emission Reduction Report to satisfy a 

future emission reduction requirement 

under the CAA, an enforceable state 

commitment to assure that the required 

emission reductions occur would be 

necessary to satisfy the Act’s 

enforceability requirements. The 

purpose of the Emission Reduction 

Report, however, is to demonstrate that 

a portion of the emission reductions 

required under a previously-approved 

SIP commitment have in fact been 

achieved, not to satisfy a future 

emission reduction requirement. See id. 

at 51150–51151. Accordingly, it is not 

necessary to require the State to submit, 

as part of this particular SIP submission, 

additional commitments to achieve 

future emission reductions. 

The EPA evaluated the Emission 

Reduction Report in accordance with 

the Agency’s guidance on discretionary 

EIPs. See 80 FR 51147, 51149–50 (citing, 

inter alia, U.S. EPA, ‘‘Improving Air 

Quality with Economic Incentive 

Programs,’’ January 2001 (hereafter 

‘‘2001 EIP Guidance’’)). A discretionary 

EIP uses market-based strategies to 

encourage the reduction of emissions 

from stationary, area, and/or mobile 

sources in an efficient manner. See 2001 

EIP Guidance at 3. To qualify for 

approval as a discretionary EIP, 

emission reductions or actions leading 

to reductions must be enforceable either 

by the State or by the EPA, and the State 

must be directly responsible for 

ensuring that program elements are 

implemented. See id. at 157–158 (states 

may use the 2001 EIP Guidance where 

‘‘[a]ctions and/or emission reductions 

by identifiable sources are enforceable 

by [the State] and/or by the EPA’’). 

A ‘‘financial mechanism EIP’’ is an 

EIP that indirectly reduces emissions by 

increasing costs for high emitting 

activities—e.g., through subsidies 

targeted at promoting pollutionreducing activities or products. See 

2001 EIP Guidance at 119–122. The EPA 

has identified several attributes that 

may make subsidy financial mechanism 

EIPs successful, including: (1) The 

relevant governmental body possesses 

legal authority to provide subsidies; (2) 

the subsidies address activities 

reasonably related to actual emissions or 

potential emissions; (3) where projected 

emission reductions are based on 

changes in behavior, methods for 

verifying that such reductions have 

taken place to the degree projected are 

generally accepted as unbiased and 

trustworthy; and (4) if needed, adequate 

penalty provisions are in place to ensure 

that the subsidy is used as expected. See 

2001 EIP Guidance at 27 (‘‘Attributes 

That Make Subsidy Financial 

Mechanism EIPs Successful’’). 

As explained further in Response 2 

below, the portions of the Proposition 

1B: Goods Movement Emission 

Reduction Program (Prop 1B program) 

and Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality 

Standards Attainment Program (Carl 

Moyer Program) guidelines discussed in 

the Emission Reduction Report are 

consistent with the EPA’s 

recommendations for ‘‘financial 

mechanism EIPs’’ in the 2001 EIP 

Guidance. First, CARB and the District 

are directly responsible for ensuring that 

the Prop 1B program and Carl Moyer 

Program are implemented in accordance 

with State law. See 2010 Prop 1B 

guidelines at 1–4 (‘‘Overview’’) and 

2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines at 

Chapter 1 (‘‘Program Overview’’). 

Second, the incentive programs 

discussed in the Emission Reduction 

Report address actions reasonably 

related to actual air pollutant emissions, 

e.g., by requiring grant recipients to 

purchase and operate newer, cleaner 

vehicles or equipment in place of older, 

more-polluting vehicles or equipment, 

subject to detailed contract 

requirements. Third, the relevant 

portions of the 2008 and 2010 Prop 1B 

guidelines and the 2005, 2008 and 2011 

Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 

establish a number of methods for 

verifying that projected emission 

reductions have taken place through 

compliance with the terms and 

conditions of each funding contract. 

Finally, under the applicable guidelines, 

actions by grantees that lead to emission 

reductions are directly enforceable by 

the State and/or the District—e.g., CARB 

and/or the District may assess fiscal 

penalties and take certain corrective 

actions where contract violations are 

identified. Consistent with the EPA’s 

recommendations for ‘‘financial 

mechanisms EIPs,’’ these provisions in 

the 2008 and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines 

and the 2005, 2008 and 2011 Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines are adequate to 

ensure that program funds are used as 

expected—i.e., to reduce emissions from 

higher-polluting vehicles and 

equipment by replacing them with 

newer, lower-polluting equipment and 

vehicles. Based on our more detailed 

evaluations of 11 randomly selected 

projects from among those listed in the 

Emission Reduction Report, we find that 

the projects identified in the Emission 

Reduction Report were implemented as 

required under the applicable program 

guidelines and achieved the emission 

reductions projected for those projects, 

with the exception of one source 

category. See Response 2. 

In sum, although an enforceable state 

commitment would ordinarily be 

necessary for a SIP submission that 

relies on a discretionary EIP to satisfy 

CAA enforceability requirements, such a 

commitment is not necessary in this 

case because the Emission Reduction 

Report was not submitted to satisfy a 

future emission reduction requirement 

and, instead, demonstrates only that 

certain Prop 1B program and Carl Moyer 

Program incentive projects achieved 

specified amounts of emission 

reductions in the past. The portions of 

the Prop 1B program and Carl Moyer 

Program guidelines that apply to the 

identified incentive projects ensure that 

program funds are used as expected and 

that the EPA and citizens have access to 

all emissions-related information 

obtained from participating sources. 

Based on our review of the available 

project records for a subset of the 

projects identified in the Emission 

Reduction Report, we find that the 

identified projects achieved the 

necessary emission reductions, with the 

exception of one source category 

discussed further below. Therefore, it is 

not necessary for the Emission 

Reduction Report to provide a 

mechanism for citizen suits against a 

responsible entity. 

Comment 2: Earthjustice argues that, 

based on the information presented in 

the Emission Reduction Report, citizens 

cannot even obtain the information 

necessary to quantify and verify 

emission reductions. For example, 

Earthjustice states that the total project 

life for each stationary and portable 

farm engine funded through the Carl 

Moyer program varies from two years to 

ten years and that project life varies, in 

part, because emission reductions 

cannot be counted as surplus after the 

compliance date for a regulation 

applicable to that project. Earthjustice 

states that CARB is required to ensure 

that emission reductions from projects 

are no longer counted as SIP-creditable 

emission reductions after that 

compliance date but argues that 

‘‘[n]either EPA nor the public has any 

way of knowing whether or not these 

projects were counted during only the 

years in which they were surplus 

because CARB does not provide enough 

information to determine a project’s 

compliance date.’’ 

According to Earthjustice, to 

determine whether the stationary and 

portable farm engine projects were 

counted only for the years during which 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
53302 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

they could be considered surplus, one 

would need to know: What type of 

engine was used as a replacement; the 

horsepower of the engine used as a 

replacement; tier of the original 

agricultural engine; and fleetwide 

particulate matter (PM) levels. 

Response 2: We disagree with the 

commenter’s claim that citizens cannot 

obtain the information necessary to 

quantify and verify emission reductions. 

As we explained in the technical 

support document supporting our 

proposed rule and as explained in 

further detail below, the emission 

reductions identified in the Emission 

Reduction Report can be independently 

verified and the public has access to 

emissions-related information due to 

several requirements in the 2008 and 

2010 Prop 1B guidelines and the 2005, 

2008 and 2011 Carl Moyer Program 

guidelines. See U.S. EPA Region 9, Air 

Division, ‘‘Technical Support Document 

for EPA’s Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking for the California State 

Implementation Plan, Report on 

Reductions Achieved from IncentiveBased Emission Reduction Measures in 

the San Joaquin Valley,’’ August 2015 

(‘‘Proposal TSD’’) at 7–15. We discuss 

the relevant guideline provisions in 

more detail below. 

First, actions required of grantees 

under the applicable portions of the 

Prop 1B and Carl Moyer Program 

guidelines are independently verifiable 

through (1) pre-project and post-project 

on-site inspections (with photographic 

documentation) that the District and/or 

CARB must carry out pursuant to the 

applicable guidelines, and (2) 

documents that each grantee is required 

to maintain and/or submit to the District 

in accordance with detailed contract 

provisions. See generally 2008 Prop 1B 

guidelines at Section III.D (‘‘Local 

Agency Project Implementation 

Requirements’’), Section IV (‘‘General 

Equipment Project Requirements’’), and 

Appendix A, Section C (‘‘Recordkeeping 

Requirements’’) and Section D (‘‘Annual 

Reporting Requirements’’); 2010 Prop 

1B guidelines at Section IV.A (‘‘Project 

Implementation Requirements’’), 

Section VI (‘‘General Equipment Project 

Requirements’’), and Appendix A, 

Section F (‘‘Recordkeeping 

Requirements’’) and Section G (‘‘Annual 

Reporting Requirements’’); 2005 Carl 

Moyer Guidelines, Part I, Chapter 2 

(‘‘Administration of the Carl Moyer 

Program’’); 2008 Carl Moyer Guidelines, 

Part III (‘‘Program Administration’’) and 

2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Part I, Chapter 3 (‘‘Program 

Administration’’). 

For example, the 2008 and 2010 Prop 

1B guidelines require, among other 

things, that (1) all project applications 

include documentation of current 

equipment and activity information (e.g. 

engine make, model, horsepower and 

fuel type, annual vehicle miles of travel 

(VMT) in California, and estimated 

percentage of annual VMT in trade 

corridors); (2) that the District conduct 

a ‘‘pre-inspection’’ of each application 

deemed eligible for funding, to verify 

information regarding the baseline 

engine, vehicle, or equipment; (3) that 

the District conduct a ‘‘post-inspection’’ 

of each funded project to record, among 

other things, identifiers and 

specifications for the new engine/

equipment (e.g., Vehicle Identification 

Numbers (VIN) for new trucks, serial 

numbers for new engines), and 

verification that the new engine/

equipment is operational and consistent 

with the old/replaced equipment, where 

applicable; and (4) that the District’s 

pre-inspection and post-inspection 

project files include photographic 

documentation of each piece of 

equipment being inspected, including 

an engine serial number, visible 

distinguishing identification (e.g., a 

license plate), and a full view of the 

equipment. See 2008 Prop 1B guidelines 

at Section III.D.8 (‘‘Equipment project 

pre-inspections’), Section III.D.14 

(‘‘Equipment project post-inspections’’), 

Section IV.D (‘‘Equipment Project 

Application Requirements’’) and 

Appendix A, Section F (‘‘Application 

Information’’); 2010 Prop 1B guidelines 

at Section IV.A.10 (‘‘Equipment project 

pre-inspections’’), Section IV.A.16 

(‘‘Equipment project post-inspections’’), 

Section VI.D (‘‘Equipment Project 

Application Requirements’’) and 

Appendix A, Section F (‘‘Application 

Information’’); see also Proposal TSD at 

14–15. 

Similarly, the 2005, 2008 and 2011 

Carl Moyer Program Guidelines require, 

among other things, that (1) all project 

applications include documentation of 

existing engine usage in previous years 

(e.g. miles traveled, hours operated, or 

fuel consumed per year); (2) that the 

District conduct a ‘‘pre-inspection’’ of 

each application deemed eligible for 

funding, to verify information regarding 

the baseline engine, vehicle, or 

equipment; (3) that the District conduct 

a ‘‘post-inspection’’ of each funded 

project to record, among other things, 

information regarding the new engines, 

vehicles/equipment, and retrofit devices 

as needed to provide a basis for 

emission calculations and to ensure 

contract enforceability; and (4) that the 

District’s pre-inspection and postproject files include photographic 

documentation of the engine, vehicle, or 

equipment information, including a 

legible serial number and/or other 

identifying markings. See 2005 Carl 

Moyer Program Guidelines, Part I, 

Chapter 2 at Section V.D (‘‘Project 

Applications’’), Section IX.A (‘‘PreInspection’’), and Section IX.B (‘‘PostInspection’’); 2008 Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines, Part III, Part II at Section 26 

(‘‘Minimum Project Application 

Requirements’’), Section 30 (‘‘Project 

Pre-Inspections’’), and Section 31 

(‘‘Post-Inspection’’); 2011 Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines, Part I, Chapter 3, at 

Section W (‘‘Minimum Project 

Application Requirements’’), Section 

AA (‘‘Project Pre-Inspection’’), and 

Section BB (‘‘Project Post-Inspection’’); 

see also Proposal TSD at 8–9. 

Second, the applicable portions of the 

2008 and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines and 

the 2005, 2008 and 2011 Carl Moyer 

Program guidelines specifically define 

the required elements of each contract 

and the types of actions that constitute 

violations of such contracts. For 

example, under the 2008 and 2010 Prop 

1B guidelines, each equipment project 

contract must include: (1) A unique 

‘‘tracking number’’; (2) the equipment 

owner’s contact information; (3) the 

original application submitted by the 

equipment owner; (4) requirements for 

the equipment owner to submit reports 

to the local agency annually or 

biennially; (5) the equipment owner’s 

agreement to allow ongoing evaluations 

and audits of equipment and 

documentation by the District, CARB, or 

their designated representative(s); and 

(6) requirements for the equipment 

owner to retain all records pertaining to 

the program (i.e., invoices, contracts, 

and correspondence) for at least two 

years after the equipment project ends 

or three years after final payment, 

whichever is later. See 2008 Prop 1B 

guidelines at Section III.D.10 

(‘‘Equipment project contracts’’) and 

2010 Prop 1B guidelines at Section 

IV.A.11 (‘‘Equipment project 

contracts’’); see also Proposal TSD at 

14–15. Additionally, under the same 

guidelines, the following actions (among 

others) are specifically identified as 

contract violations: (1) Failure to meet 

the terms and conditions of an executed 

equipment project contract, including 

equipment operating conditions and 

geographic restrictions; (2) failure to 

allow for an electronic monitoring 

device or tampering with an installed 

device or data; (3) insufficient, 

incomplete, or faulty equipment project 

documentation; and (4) failure to 

provide required documentation or 

reports in a timely manner. See 2008 

Prop 1B guidelines at Section IV.G 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53303 

(‘‘Equipment Project Non-Performance’’) 

and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines at VI.I 

(‘‘Equipment Project NonPerformance’’); see also Proposal TSD at 

14–15. 

Similarly, under the 2005, 2008 and 

2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

each equipment project contract must 

include: (1) The name and contact 

information of the grantee; (2) specified 

timeframes for ‘‘project completion’’ 

(the date the project post-inspection 

confirms that the project has become 

operational) and ‘‘project 

implementation’’ (the project life used 

in the project cost-effectiveness 

calculation); (3) detailed information on 

both baseline and new vehicles, 

equipment, and/or engines, including 

documentation adequate to establish 

historical annual usage; (4) 

requirements for the grantee to maintain 

the vehicle, equipment and/or engine 

according to the manufacturer’s 

specifications for the life of the project; 

(5) annual reporting requirements; (6) a 

provision authorizing the District, 

CARB, and their designees to conduct 

fiscal audits and to inspect the project 

engine, vehicle, and/or equipment and 

associated records during the contract 

term, and (7) requirements to maintain 

and retain project records for at least 

two years after contract expiration or 

three years after final project payment, 

whichever is later. See 2005 Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines, Part I, Chapter 2 at 

Section VIII (‘‘Minimum Contract 

Requirements’’); 2008 Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines, Part III, Part III at 

Section 29 (‘‘Minimum Contract 

Requirements’’); and 2011 Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines, Part I, Chapter 3 at 

Section Z (‘‘Minimum Contract 

Requirements’’). Additionally, the 2011 

Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 

explicitly require that each contract 

‘‘specify that by executing the contract, 

the grantee understands and agrees to 

operate the vehicle, equipment, and/or 

engine according to the terms of the 

contract’’ and describe the potential 

repercussions to the grantee for noncompliance with contract requirements. 

See 2011 Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines, Part I, Chapter 3 at Section 

Z.11 (‘‘Repercussions for NonPerformance’’) and Section FF 

(‘‘Nonperforming Projects’’); see also 

2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Part I, Chapter 2 at Section VIII.G 

(‘‘Repercussions for Nonperformance’’); 

and 2008 Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines, Part III, Part III at Section 35 

(‘‘Nonperforming Projects’’). The 2011 

Carl Moyer Program Guidelines also 

specifically identify types of actions on 

the part of the District that CARB may 

treat as violations of program 

requirements—e.g., misuse of Carl 

Moyer Program funds and insufficient, 

incomplete, or inaccurate project 

documentation. See 2011 Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines at Section U 

(‘‘Program Non-Performance’’). 

Third, the applicable portions of the 

Prop 1B guidelines and Carl Moyer 

Program guidelines require that all 

grantees submit specific types of project 

records to the District and also require 

the District to maintain such records for 

specified periods of time. Specifically, 

as discussed above, under the 2008 Prop 

1B guidelines, the 2010 Prop 1B 

guidelines, and the 2005, 2008 and 2011 

Carl Moyer Program guidelines, each 

contract executed by the District must 

require the grantee to maintain project 

records for at least two years after 

contract expiration or three years after 

final project payment, whichever is 

later, and to submit annual or biennial 

reports to the District. See 2008 Prop 1B 

guidelines at Section III.D.10 

(‘‘Equipment project contracts’’), 2010 

Prop 1B guidelines at Section IV.A.11 

(‘‘Equipment project contracts’’), 2005 

Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Part I, 

Chapter 2 at Section VIII (‘‘Minimum 

Contract Requirements’’); 2008 Carl 

Moyer Program Guidelines, Part III, Part 

III at Section 29 (‘‘Minimum Contract 

Requirements’’); and 2011 Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines, Part I, Chapter 3 at 

Section Z (‘‘Minimum Contract 

Requirements’’); see also Proposal TSD 

at 8–9 and 14–15. Additionally, the 

2008 Prop 1B guidelines require the 

District to retain all ‘‘program records’’ 

(e.g., invoices, contracts, and 

correspondence) for at least two years 

after the project ends or three years after 

final payment, whichever is later. See 

2008 Prop 1B guidelines, Chapter II, 

Section D.10.b (‘‘General Program 

provisions’’). The 2010 Prop 1B 

guidelines require the District to retain 

‘‘program records’’ for 35 years after the 

bond issuance date providing the funds 

for the grant, or to send all records to 

CARB by the end date of the grant 

agreement. See 2010 Prop 1B guidelines, 

Chapter II, Section E.10.b (‘‘General 

Program provisions’’). Under the Carl 

Moyer Program Guidelines, the District 

must keep each ‘‘project file’’ for a 

minimum of two years after the end of 

the contract term or a minimum of three 

years after final payment, whichever is 

later. See 2011 Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines, Chapter 3, Section V (‘‘ARB 

Audit of Air Districts’’) at 3–25. A 

‘‘project file’’ generally includes a copy 

of the application, a completed pre- and 

post-inspection form, and the annual 

reports submitted by the grantee. See id. 

at Section X.6, Section AA.4, Section 

BB.1.(G), and Section DD.3. These 

requirements of the Carl Moyer Program 

and Prop 1B guidelines ensure that 

grantees submit, and that the District 

maintains, project documents sufficient 

for the EPA and the public to verify the 

emission reductions attributed to these 

projects in the Emission Reduction 

Report. 

To demonstrate how the public can 

quantify and verify the emission 

reductions identified in the Emission 

Reduction Report, we randomly selected 

0.5% of the projects in Appendix H of 

the Emission Reduction Report and 

requested that CARB provide to us the 

information necessary to verify the 

emission reduction calculations for 

these projects. From Appendix H.1, 

which lists the Carl Moyer projects 

included in the Emission Reduction 

Report, we randomly selected the 

projects identified in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—SELECTION OF CARL MOYER PROJECTS FROM THE EMISSION REDUCTION REPORT

Project No. Carl Moyer 

Guideline year Source category Technology 

Post 

inspection 

date 

Project life 2014 NOX

(tpy) 

2014 PM2.5

(tpy) 

G–0014–A ......... 2008 Off-Road Equipment—Construction.Retrofit .............. 12/28/10 5 0.000 0.018 

S–1301 ............. 2005 Off-Road Equipment—Mobile Agricultural.Repower ........... 10/16/09 

08/17/09 

7 

7 

2.610 

4.040 

0.092 

0.120 

C–2570 ............. 2005 Stationary and Portable Agricultural 

Engines.

Repower ........... 01/12/10 

01/12/10 

10 

5 

9.880 

7.070 

0.331 

0.129 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
53304 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

2Personal information has been redacted from 

each document for privacy reasons. 

3These project documents are labeled with the 

District-only identification number ‘‘P–0442.’’ 

According to CARB, the Goods Movement Online 

Database (GMOD) includes both the District 

identifier (P–0442) and the CARB Equipment 

Project ID (G07GMCT3_01246). See email dated 

May 9, 2016, from Austin Hicks (CARB) to Idalia 

Pe ́rez (USEPA Region 9), RE: ‘‘Prop 1B Application 

I Numbers’’ and Memorandum dated May 2, 2016, 

from Idalia Pe ́rez (USEPA Region 9) to File, RE: 

‘‘Call with ARB regarding questions on Prop 1B 

documentation.’’ 

4Personal information has been redacted from 

each document for privacy reasons. 

TABLE 1—SELECTION OF CARL MOYER PROJECTS FROM THE EMISSION REDUCTION REPORT—Continued 

Project No. Carl Moyer 

Guideline year Source category Technology 

Post 

inspection 

date 

Project life 2014 NOX

(tpy) 

2014 PM2.5

(tpy) 

C–14205 ........... 2011 Stationary and Portable Agricultural 

Engines.

Repower ........... 04/25/14 10 1.570 0.055 

From Appendix H.2, which lists the 

Prop 1B Heavy Duty Diesel Truck 

Replacement projects included in the 

Emission Reduction Report, we 

randomly selected the projects 

identified in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—SELECTION OF PROP 1B PROJECTS FROM THE EMISSION REDUCTION REPORT

Equipment project ID Prop 1B 

Guideline year Contract term 

Postinspection 

date 

2014 NOX

(lbs/yr) 

2014 PM2.5

(lbs/yr) 

G08GMCT1_03079 .............................................................. 2010 5 01/02/13 10281 .31771 229 .6259777 

G08GMCT1_00642 .............................................................. 2010 5 08/21/12 1724 .9954 164 .035448 

G08GMCT1_02930 .............................................................. 2010 5 07/25/13 0 0 

G07GMCT3_01246 .............................................................. 2008 5 06/01/10 8012 .6276 235 .703448 

G07GMCT3_00301 .............................................................. 2008 5 09/30/10 394 .2153 22 .0965876 

G07GMCT3_00437 .............................................................. 2008 5 01/01/11 3756 .22742 110 .4951004 

G07GMCT3_00377 .............................................................. 2008 5 03/04/11 2909 .28645 92 .691702 

We independently calculated the 

emission reductions for the selected 

projects using additional project 

information submitted by CARB at our 

request and found that the emission 

reduction calculations for all of the 

selected projects were replicable, with 

the exception of one project that was 

erroneously included in the Emission 

Reduction Report and accounted for 0 

reductions. See U.S. EPA Region 9, 

Memorandum to File dated April 26, 

2016, ‘‘Sample emission reduction 

calculations for selected Carl Moyer and 

Prop 1B projects,’’ Docket No. EPA– 

R09–OAR–2015–0489 and references 

therein. Additionally, at our request, 

CARB submitted the project application, 

grant agreement and documentation of 

destruction for one Carl Moyer Program 

project (Project Number C–2570, 

Stationary and Portable Agricultural 

Engines, Repower, 2005 Carl Moyer 

Guidelines) and one Prop 1B Program 

project (Equipment Project ID 

G07GMCT3_01246, Heavy Duty Diesel 

Truck Replacement, 2008 Prop 1B 

Guidelines). See email dated April 19, 

2016, from Sylvia Vanderspek (CARB) 

to Jeanhee Hong (USEPA Region 9), 

including attachments. We evaluated 

the information contained in these 

project records to verify CARB’s 

emission reduction calculations in the 

Emission Reduction Report. 

For Carl Moyer project C–2570, the 

project application contains information 

about the existing and new engine 

(including engine make, model year, 

horsepower, and tier), engine function 

and type (e.g., stationary or portable), 

the project life, the hours of operation, 

and percentage of usage in the San 

Joaquin Valley. See San Joaquin Unified 

Valley Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD), Application C–2570, 

Heavy-Duty Engine Program 

Agricultural Pump Engine Component, 

Diesel Engine to Electric Motor Repower 

Option (‘‘Carl Moyer Application C– 

2570’’) at section 2, section 3 and 

accompanying table (‘‘For Internal Use 

Only’’)).2 The project agreement, which 

is the contract between the grantee and 

the SJVUAPCD, includes a description 

of the engines, a requirement to destroy 

the existing engine, the duration of the 

terms of the agreement, annual reporting 

requirements, a noncompliance 

provision for reporting, and provisions 

concerning District audits. See 

SJVUAPCD, Agreement C–2570, HeavyDuty Engine Emission Reduction 

Incentive Program Funding Agreement 

(Electric Agricultural Pump Motor 

Repower), July 30, 2009 (‘‘Carl Moyer 

Agreement C–2570’’) at section 2, 

section 3, section 5, section 6, and 

section 21. Finally, pre- and postinspection monitoring reports for 

project C–2570 include photographic 

evidence of engine information and 

destruction of the old engine. See 

Heavy-Duty Program Monitoring Report, 

pre-inspection and post inspection, 

project number C–2570 (‘‘Carl Moyer 

Monitoring Reports C–2570’’). 

Consistent with the requirements of the 

2005 Carl Moyer Program guidelines at 

Part I, chapter 2, sections V.D, VIII, and 

IX, these project records contain all of 

the information necessary to verify 

whether project C–2570 was 

implemented as required and achieved 

the emission reductions calculated for 

this project. 

Similarly, for Prop 1B project 

G07GMCT3_01246, the project 

application contains information about 

the existing and new engine (including 

engine make, model year, gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR), Vehicle 

Identification Number (VIN), and 

horsepower), the annual vehicle-milestraveled (VMT) for both the existing and 

new engine, and percentage of usage in 

the San Joaquin Valley. See SJVUAPCD, 

Application P–0442,3 Proposition 1B: 

Good Movement Emission Reduction 

Program Component, Truck 

Replacement (‘‘Prop 1B Application 

G07GMCT3_01246’’) at sections 2–4.4

The project agreement, which is the 

contract between the grantee and the 

SJVUAPCD, includes a description of 

the existing and new engines, a 

requirement to destroy the existing 

engine, the duration of the terms of the 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53305 

5Because the existing uncertified engine for 

project C–2570 engine #2 was replaced with an 

electric unit, this project did achieve some surplus 

emission reductions beyond those required by the 

Stationary Engine ATCM. 

6See 17 CCR § 93115.8, Table 7 and Table 8. 

agreement, annual reporting 

requirements, nonperformance 

provisions, and provisions concerning 

District audits. See SJVUAPCD, 

Agreement P–0442–A, Proposition 1B: 

Goods Movement Emission Reduction 

Program Funding Agreement (Truck 

Replacement), March 16, 2010 (‘‘Prop 

1B Agreement G07GMCT3_01246’’) at 

sections 2, 3, 5, 6.F, 7, 12, and 23. 

Finally, post-inspection monitoring 

reports for project G07GMCT3_01246 

include photographic evidence of 

engine information and destruction of 

the old engine. See Proposition 1B 

Program Truck Replacement Option, 

Exist (Old) Truck Post-Monitoring 

Inspection, Project Number P–0442–A 

(‘‘Prop 1B Monitoring Reports 

G07GMCT3_01246’’). Consistent with 

the requirements of the 2008 Prop 1B 

Guidelines at sections III.D.10, III.D.14, 

IV.D and Appendix A, Section F, these 

project records contain all of the 

information necessary to verify whether 

Project G07GMCT3_01246 was 

implemented as required and achieved 

the emission reductions calculated for 

this project. 

Any member of the public can obtain 

project-related documents maintained 

by the State and/or District by 

submitting a request for such documents 

under the California Public Records Act. 

See Ca. Gov’t Code §§ 6250–6276.48. 

Accordingly, the EPA and citizens can 

obtain the information necessary to 

quantify and verify the emission 

reductions identified in the Emission 

Reduction Report. 

We also disagree with Earthjustice’s 

assertion that there is no way to verify 

whether the emission reductions 

attributed to the projects identified in 

the Emission Reduction Report are 

‘‘surplus’’ to existing requirements. As 

an initial matter, we note that both the 

Carl Moyer Program guidelines and the 

Prop 1B guidelines generally require 

that funded projects achieve emission 

reductions not required by any federal, 

state or local regulation or other legal 

mandate. See 2005 Carl Moyer 

Guidelines, Part I, Section VIII.D; 2008 

Carl Moyer Guidelines, Part III, Section 

(27)(i); 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Part 

1, Chapter 2; 2008 Prop 1B Guidelines, 

Section III.B.1 at 47; and 2010 Prop 1B 

Guidelines, Section III.B.1 at 57. 

Earthjustice highlights ‘‘stationary 

and portable farm engines’’ as a source 

category for which the project life varies 

from two to ten years and claims that 

there is no way to know whether or not 

these projects were counted for only the 

years in which their emission 

reductions were surplus. We assume the 

commenter intended to refer to the 

‘‘Stationary and Portable Agricultural 

Engines’’ source category under the Carl 

Moyer Program. Two of the Carl Moyer 

projects that we randomly selected for 

evaluation (identified in Table 1) are 

within this source category (project 

numbers C–2570 and C–14205). 

According to CARB, these two projects 

were of the equipment type ‘‘Stationary 

Agricultural Irrigation Pump.’’ See 

email dated November 12, 2015, from 

Sylvia Vanderspek (CARB) to Andrew 

Steckel (USEPA Region 9). These 

engines are subject to CARB’s Airborne 

Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for 

Stationary Compression Ignition (CI) 

Engines in title 17, sections 93115— 

93115.15 of the California Code of 

Regulations (17 CCR §§ 93115— 

93115.15) (hereafter ‘‘Stationary Engine 

ATCM’’). Table 7 of the Stationary 

Engine ATCM provides a summary of 

requirements for in-use noncertified 

stationary diesel-fueled engines used in 

agricultural operations and Table 8 of 

the Stationary Engine ATCM provides a 

summary of requirements for certified 

in-use Tier 1 and Tier 2 engines used in 

agricultural operations. See 17 CCR 

§ 93115.8, Table 7 and Table 8. 

The emission reductions attributed to 

project C–14205 and project C–2570 

engine #1 during the January 1– 

December 31, 2014 timeframe were 

surplus to the requirements of the 

Stationary Engine ATCM because they 

occurred before the earliest ATCM 

compliance deadline applicable to these 

engines, which was December 31, 2014. 

The emission reductions attributed to 

project C–2570 engine #2 during the 

January 1–December 31, 2014 

timeframe, however, were not entirely 

surplus because that engine was 

required to comply with the Stationary 

Engine ATCM’s NOX and PM2.5

emission limits for in-use noncertified 

stationary diesel-fueled engines used in 

agricultural operations by December 31, 

2010.5 See Table 3. 

TABLE 3—STATIONARY ENGINE ATCM COMPLIANCE DEADLINES APPLICABLE TO CARL MOYER PROGRAM PROJECTS C– 

2570 AND C–14205 

Project No. Equipment 

identifier Fuel type Horsepower Existing engine certification 

Deadline for compliance 

with stationary engine 

ATCM 6

New engine Project life 

Post 

inspection 

date 

C–2570 ....... 1 Diesel ......... 385 Tier 1 Standard Later of 12/31/14 or 12 

years after the date of 

initial installation.

Electric ....... 10 01/12/10 

C–2570 ....... 2 Diesel ......... 420 Uncontrolled 

(uncertified).

12/31/10 ......................... Electric ....... 5 01/12/10 

C–14205 ..... 1 Diesel ......... 335 Tier 3 Standard N/A ................................. Electric ....... 10 04/25/14 

Source: Email dated December 3, 2015 from Austin Hicks (CARB) to Andrew Steckel (USEPA Region 9), RE: ‘‘Additional information request 

to support final action on ARB Incentive Report,’’ including attachments. 

Given this information, we have 

assumed conservatively that all 

emission reductions attributed to Carl 

Moyer Program projects in the 

‘‘Stationary and Portable Agricultural 

Engines’’ source category in the 

Emission Reduction Report are not 

surplus and, therefore, are not creditable 

for SIP purposes at this time. Stationary 

and portable agricultural engine projects 

account for 2.829 tpd of the NOX

emission reductions and 0.066 tpd of 

the direct PM2.5 emission reductions 

identified in the Emission Reduction 

Report as shown in Table 4. See 

Emission Reduction Report, Appendix 

H1 at pp. 8–29. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
53306 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4—EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM CARL MOYER STATIONARY AND PORTABLE AGRICULTURAL ENGINE REPOWER

PROJECTS

Carl Moyer guideline year 2014 NOX

(tpd) 

2014 PM2.5

(tpd) 

2005 ................................................................................................................................................................. 2.675 0.063 

2008 ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.132 0.002 

2011 ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.022 0.001 

Total Reductions ....................................................................................................................................... 2.829 0.066 

Source: Emission Reduction Report, Appendix H1 at pp. 27–29. 

We are therefore subtracting these 

amounts from the total amounts of NOX

and direct PM2.5 emission reductions 

identified in the Emission Reduction 

Report (7.8 tpd of NOX emission 

reductions and 0.2 tpd direct PM2.5

emission reductions), and crediting the 

Emission Reduction Report with only 

4.971 tpd of NOX emission reductions 

and 0.134 tpd of direct PM2.5 emission 

reductions toward the State’s 2014 

emission reduction commitment in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

Earthjustice argues that in order to 

determine whether these projects were 

counted only for the years during which 

they could be considered surplus, one 

would need to know the type of engine 

that was used as a replacement; the 

horsepower of the engine used as a 

replacement; the tier of the original 

agricultural engine; and fleetwide 

particulate matter (‘‘PM’’) levels. We 

agree that information about the type of 

engine that was used as a replacement, 

the horsepower of the new engine, and 

the tier of the original agricultural 

engine is necessary to determine 

whether the emission reductions 

attributed to a particular Carl Moyer 

project are surplus. As explained above, 

project documents that the District is 

required to maintain under the Carl 

Moyer and Prop 1B program guidelines, 

which CARB submitted to the EPA at 

our request, identify all of this 

information. With respect to fleetwide 

PM levels, we note that this information 

is not necessary to determine the ATCM 

compliance date applicable to a 

stationary agricultural engine, because 

the requirements of the Stationary 

Engine ATCM do not vary based on 

fleetwide PM levels. See generally 17 

CCR §§ 93115–93115.15. Carl Moyer 

projects C–2570 and C–14205 are 

stationary agricultural engines subject to 

the Stationary Engine ATCM. See email 

dated November 12, 2015, from Sylvia 

Vanderspek (CARB) to Andrew Steckel 

(USEPA Region 9). Thus, information 

about fleetwide PM levels is not 

necessary to determine whether these 

projects achieved surplus emission 

reductions. We agree with Earthjustice 

that information concerning fleetwide 

PM levels is necessary to determine 

certain compliance dates under the 

ATCM for diesel particulate matter from 

portable engines. See 17 CCR § 93116.3. 

To the extent the commenter intended 

to argue that this information is 

necessary to determine whether a Carl 

Moyer project for a portable engine will 

achieve emission reductions that are 

surplus to existing requirements, we 

understand that CARB would provide 

such information upon request under 

the California Public Records Act and 

that the public can, therefore, verify 

whether the emission reductions 

attributed to any such project are 

surplus. 

Based on these reviews, we find that 

the Emission Reduction Report contains 

information adequate to enable the EPA 

and citizens to obtain emissions-related 

information necessary to quantify and 

verify the emission reductions 

attributed to the identified Carl Moyer 

Program and Prop 1B projects. 

Comment 3: Earthjustice states that 

incentive programs should not ‘‘be 

approved into the SIP as a replacement 

for emission reductions from regulations 

without fulfilling the four fundamental 

integrity elements’’ and urges the EPA 

to require that emission reductions be 

enforceable and quantifiable before 

approving them into the SIP. 

Response 3: This action does not 

incorporate any portion of the Prop 1B 

program or Carl Moyer Program, or any 

related guidelines, into the SIP. To the 

extent Earthjustice intended to state that 

the EPA should not approve emission 

reductions from the projects identified 

in the Emission Reduction Report for 

credit toward a SIP commitment unless 

the applicable incentive programs 

satisfy the EPA’s integrity elements, we 

agree. As explained in our proposed 

rule and further in Responses 1 and 2 

above, the portions of the Prop 1B 

program and Carl Moyer Program 

guidelines that apply to the projects 

identified in the Emission Reduction 

Report adequately address the EPA’s 

recommended integrity elements for 

discretionary EIPs. Based on our review 

of project-specific documentation 

submitted by CARB at our request, 

however, we have found that the 

emission reductions attributed to one 

Carl Moyer Program project within the 

‘‘Stationary and Portable Agricultural 

Engines’’ category were not entirely 

surplus to existing requirements and, 

therefore, are not creditable for SIP 

purposes at this time, or until properly 

adjusted to account for existing 

regulations. As a result, we have 

conservatively assumed that all of the 

Stationary and Portable Agricultural 

Engine Carl Moyer projects identified in 

the Emission Reduction Report are not 

SIP-creditable and subtracted the 

emission reductions attributed to these 

projects from the total amounts of NOX

and direct PM2.5 emission reductions 

identified in the Emission Reduction 

Report. See Response 2. We find that, 

with this one exception, the Carl Moyer 

Program and Prop 1B projects identified 

in the Emission Reduction Report have 

achieved the NOX and PM2.5 emission 

reductions attributed to them in the 

Emission Reduction Report. We are 

therefore approving 4.971 tpd of NOX

emission reductions and 0.134 tpd of 

PM2.5 emission reductions for credit 

toward the State’s 2014 emission 

reduction commitment in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan. 

III. EPA Action 

Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of 

the Act, the EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of the 

Emission Reduction Report and 

crediting the incentive projects 

identified therein with 4.971 tpd of NOX

reductions and 0.134 tpd of PM2.5

reductions toward the State’s 2014 

emission reduction commitments in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan. We are finalizing a 

limited approval of the Emission 

Reduction Report because it largely 

satisfies the applicable CAA 

requirements. We are simultaneously 

finalizing a limited disapproval of the 

Emission Reduction Report because the 

demonstration therein concerning the 

Carl Moyer Stationary and Portable 

Agricultural Engines source category 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53307 

does not satisfy CAA requirements for 

SIP credit. Our reasons for disapproving 

the submitted demonstration on this 

basis are explained in our responses to 

comments above. 

This limited disapproval does not 

trigger any sanctions clocks under CAA 

section 179(a) because the Emission 

Reduction Report was not submitted to 

address a requirement of part D, title I 

of the Act or in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 

CAA section 110(k)(5) (i.e., a ‘‘SIP 

Call’’). The limited disapproval also 

does not trigger any obligation on the 

EPA to promulgate a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) because the 

disapproval does not create any 

deficiency in the SIP that must be 

corrected. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because the SIP is not 

approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 11, 2016. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 21, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(477) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(477) The following plan revision was 

submitted on November 17, 2014 by the 

Governor’s designee. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
53308 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional Material. 

(A) California Air Resources Board. 

(1) ‘‘Report on Reductions Achieved 

from Incentive-based Emission 

Reduction Measures in the San Joaquin 

Valley,’’ adopted on October 24, 2014, 

including appendices F–H. 

[FR Doc. 2016–18903 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0464; FRL–9950–49– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Louisiana; Interstate Transport of Air 

Pollution for the 2008 Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is disapproving the 

portion of a Louisiana State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

pertaining to interstate transport of air 

pollution which will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) in other states. Disapproval 

will establish a 2-year deadline, under 

Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 110(c), for 

the EPA to promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for Louisiana 

to address the CAA interstate transport 

requirements pertaining to significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in other states, 

unless the EPA approves a SIP that 

meets these requirements. Disapproval 

does not start a mandatory sanctions 

clock for Louisiana. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 12, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0464. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202– 

2733. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sherry Fuerst 214–665–6454, 

fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

I. Background 

This rulemaking addresses an 

infrastructure SIP submittal from the 

State of Louisiana addressing, among 

other things, the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as 

the good neighbor provision, with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The 

background for this action is discussed 

in detail in our June 7, 2016 proposal 

(81 FR 36496). In that action we 

proposed to disapprove the portion of 

the June 4, 2013 Louisiana SIP submittal 

pertaining to CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

which requires that the State prohibit 

the interstate transport of air pollution 

which will significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in other states. 

In proposing to disapprove the State’s 

SIP submittal as to the good neighbor 

provision, we noted two specific 

deficiencies in the Louisiana 

submission. First, Louisiana cited the 

State’s approved Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) SIP as support for its 

conclusion that the State satisfied its 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligation with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

However, as explained in our proposal, 

CAIR was invalidated by the D.C. 

Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 

F.3d 896 (2008). Even if Louisiana could 

rely on its CAIR SIP the modeling and 

rulemaking conducted for both CAIR, or 

its successor, the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 

(August 8, 2011) addressed the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, not the more stringent 

2008 ozone NAAQS at issue in this 

action. Because the Louisiana submittal 

addressed by this action concerns the 

State’s interstate transport obligations 

for a different and more stringent 

standard (the 2008 ozone NAAQS), we 

stated it is not sufficient to merely cite 

to older EPA or state implemented 

programs as evidence of compliance 

with the current 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Second, the State’s submittal lacked any 

technical analysis evaluating or 

demonstrating whether emissions in 

Louisiana impacts air quality in another 

state. As such, we proposed that the 

submittal did not provide us with a 

basis to agree with the State’s 

conclusion that the State already has 

adequate provisions in the SIP to 

address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. We did not receive any 

comments regarding our proposal. 

II. Final Action 

EPA is disapproving a portion of a 

June 4, 2013 SIP submittal from 

Louisiana pertaining to interstate 

transport of air pollution which will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in other states. Disapproval will 

establish a 2-year deadline, under the 

CAA Section 110(c), for the EPA to 

promulgate a FIP for Louisiana to 

address the CAA interstate transport 

requirements pertaining to significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in other states, 

unless the EPA approves a SIP that 

meets these requirements. Disapproval 

does not start a mandatory sanctions 

clock for Louisiana pursuant to CAA 

section 179 because this action does not 

pertain to a part D plan for 

nonattainment areas required under 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP call 

pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5). 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This final action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ because it is not 

categorized as ‘‘significant’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 

and therefore was not submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget for 

review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This final action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because it does not contain any 

information collection activities. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action merely 

disapprove a SIP submission as not 

meeting the CAA. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES