The EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, s igned the following proposed rule on August 6, 2015 and

EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accu racy of this version of this rule, it is not the officia l version. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication appearing on the Government Printing Of fice website, http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action , and on www.regulations.gov in Docket Number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0715.
Billing Code: 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0715; FRL-____-_ Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict;

Employer Based Trip Reduction Programs
AGENCY : Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION : Proposed rule.
SUMMARY : The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is prop osing to approve a regulation submitted for incorporation into the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Distri ct (SJVUAPCD or District) portion of the California State Implem entation Plan (SIP). The regulation, Rule 9410 (Employer Based Tr ip Reduction), establishes requirements for employers in the San Joaquin Valley to implement programs encouraging em ployees to use ridesharing and alternative transportation meth ods to reduce air pollution. The effect of this action would be t o make the requirements of Rule 9410 federally enforceable as part of the California SIP.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before [ Insert date 30 days from date of publication ].2

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Aug ust 6, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EP AR09-OAR-2014-0715, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov

. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comm ents. 2. E-mail: Jeffrey Buss at buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 3. Mail: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U .S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawt horne, San Francisco, California 94105.
4. Hand or Courier Delivery: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planni ng Section (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San Francisco, California 94105. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Region al Office’s normal hours of operation. Special arrange ments should be made for deliveries of boxed information. **Instructions:** Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09- OAR-2014-0715. EPA's policy is that all comments re ceived 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 i nformation claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CB I) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted b y statute. Do not submit information through www.regulations.gov or e-mail that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected from3

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Aug ust 6, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

disclosure. The www.regulations.gov website is an anonymous access system, which means EPA will not know your i dentity or contact information unless you provide it in the bo dy of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available o n the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact inform ation in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM yo u submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical diffi culties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not b e able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoi d the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
**Docket:** Generally, documents in the docket for this actio n are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov , some information may be publicly available for viewing o nly at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, lar ge maps), and some may not be publicly available at either locati on (e.g.,4

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Aug ust 6, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
CBI). To inspect the docket materials in person, p lease schedule an appointment during normal business hour s with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air Planning, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reg ion 9, (415) 947-4152, e-mail: buss.jeffrey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Background II. The State Submittal III. Evaluation of the State Submittal IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background The San Joaquin Valley (SJV) 1 is currently designated as nonattainment for several of the national ambient a ir quality standards (NAAQS) promulgated by EPA under the Clea n Air Act (CAA) for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ).

1 The SJV area encompasses over 23,000 square miles and includes all or part of eight counties in California’s central valley: S an Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and Kern.5

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Aug ust 6, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
Specifically, the SJV area is designated and classi fied as extreme nonattainment for the 1-hour, 1997 8-hour, and 2008 8- hour ozone NAAQS; designated and classified as seri ous nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS; and designated and classified as moderate nonattainment for the 2006 a nd 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305. Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires that all nonattainment areas implement, as expeditiously as practicable, reasonably available control measures (RACM) includ ing such reductions in emissions from existing sources in th e area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology (RACT). Additionally, Section 189(a)(1)(C) of the Act requires that moderate PM 2.5 nonattainment areas implement RACM (including RACT) and section 1 89(b)(1)(B) requires that serious PM 2.5 nonattainment areas implement best available control measures (BACM), including best a vailable control technology (BACT). The SJV area is subject to all of these control requirements as a result of its desig nations and classifications for the ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. For an ozone nonattainment area classified as severe or above, s ection 182(d)(1)(B) also provides that a state may, in its discretion, submit a SIP revision requiring employers to implem ent programs6

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Aug ust 6, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
to reduce work-related vehicle trips and miles trav elled by employees. Despite numerous air pollution control measures and programs that the SJVUAPCD has implemented over the years to reduce air pollution, the SJV continues to experien ce some of the worst air quality in the nation. **See, e.g.,** 80 FR 1482 (Jan. 12, 2015) (discussing recent PM 2.5 air quality trends in SJV). As a result, the District has increasingly relied upon nontraditional emission reduction strategies to red uce air pollution in the SJV. **See, e.g.,** 79 FR 28650 (May 19, 2014) (proposed action on SJV Rule 9610 concerning incent ive programs) and 80 FR 19020 (April 9, 2015) (final action on SJ V Rule 9610). EPA supports state efforts to implement nontraditio nal and innovative strategies for reducing air pollutant em issions, including commuter programs to reduce the frequency that employees drive alone to work. **See, e.g.,** U.S. EPA, Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Tran sportation and Air Quality, “Commuter Programs: Quantifying an d Using Their Emission Benefits in SIPs and Conformity” (February 2014). II. The State Submittal Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal w ith the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency a nd submitted by CARB.7

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Aug ust 6, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Table 1 - Submitted Rule Local Agency Rule # Rule Title Adopted Submitted

SJVUAPCD 9410 Employer Based Trip Reduction 12/17/09 05/17/10

On November 17, 2010, the submittal for Rule 9410 w as deemed by operation of law under CAA section 110(k) (1)(B) to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Ap pendix V. There are no previous versions of Rule 9410 in the SIP. The Rule 9410 SIP submittal includes Rule 9410 (as adopted December 17, 2009), the District’s “Final Staff Rep ort: Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction)” dated Decembe r 17, 2009 (Final Staff Report), public process documentation, and technical support materials. CARB and the District submitted this rule to satisfy a SIP-approved regulatory comm itment in the

PM 2.5 plan for the SJV. **See** 76 FR 69896 at 69926 (November 9, 2011) (PM 2.5 control measure commitments, codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(A)( **2** )).8

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Aug ust 6, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
The California Health and Safety Code specifically authorizes the District to adopt rules and regulati ons to reduce vehicle trips and requirements for certain business es employing at least 100 people to establish rideshare programs . See Final Staff Report at 9 (citing California H&SC sections 40601(d) and 40612). Consistent with these authorities, Rule 941 0 requires certain employers with at least 100 “eligible emplo yees” 2 at a work site to establish programs to reduce employee commuterelated vehicle travel, referred to in the rule as “employer trip reduction implementation plans” or “ETRIPs.” 3 According to the District, approximately 36% of employees in the SJV are employed at worksites with 100 or more employees. **See** Final Staff Report at B-6. Employers subject to the rule must, among other things, register with the SJVUAPCD, submit an ETRIP for each worksite to the District, and submit annual co mpliance reports to the District. **See** Rule 9410, sections 6.1, 6.3, and 6.5. III. Evaluation of the State Submittal

2 “Eligible employees” do not include emergency heal th and safety employees, farm workers, field construction workers, on-call e mployees, part-time employees, seasonal employees, and volunteers, amon g others. **See** Rule 9410, sections 3.19 and 3.31. 3 Rule 9410 defines ETRIP as a “group of measures im plemented by an employer, designed to provide transportation information, ass istance, and/or incentives to employees” and intended to “reduce mobile source emissions by reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled to the worksite.” Rule 9410, section 3.28.9

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Aug ust 6, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
A. SIP Procedural Requirements CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state to provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of a SI P or SIP revision. To meet this requirement, every SIP submi ttal should include evidence that adequate public notice was gi ven and an opportunity to request a public hearing was provide d consistent with EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.10 2. Both the District and CARB have satisfied applicab le statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonabl e public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of this SIP revision. The District conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held public hearings pr ior to the adoption of Rule 9410 on December 17, 2009. **See** SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 09-12-19 (December 1 7, 2009). CARB provided the required public notice and opport unity for public comment prior to its public hearing on the p lan. See CARB Executive Order S-10-001 (May 17, 2010). The SIP submittal includes proof of publication fo r notices of the District and CARB public hearings, a s evidence that all hearings were properly noticed. We therefo re find that the submittal meets the procedural requirements of CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l).10

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Aug ust 6, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
B. Enforceability Requirements Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires that each SIP “include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques (including economic i ncentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of e missions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for co mpliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applica ble requirements of [the Act].” EPA generally considers a requirement to be enforceable if it contains a clea r statement as to applicability; specifies the standard that mu st be met; states compliance timeframes sufficient to meet the standard; specifies sufficient methods to determine complianc e, including appropriate monitoring, record keeping and reportin g provisions; and recognizes relevant enforcement consequences. **See** “Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enf orceability and Legal Sufficiency,” September 23, 1987 (“1987 P otter Memo”) and “Guidance on Enforceability Requirements for Li miting Potential to Emit through SIP and Section 112 Rules and General Permits,” January 25, 1995 (“1995 PTE Policy”) at 5 , 6. Rule 9410 adequately addresses these recommendation s for enforceability. First, section 2.1 of the rule clea rly states that the requirements of the rule “apply to each em ployer in the [SJV] Air Basin with at least 100 Eligible Employee s at a11

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Aug ust 6, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
worksite for at least 16 consecutive weeks during t he employer’s previous fiscal year” that is located: (1) within a n incorporated city with a population of at least 10, 000; (2) within an incorporated city with a population of le ss than 10,000, and more than 50 percent of their employees work at least 2,040 hours per year; or (3) within the uninc orporated area of a county, and more than 50 percent of their employees work at least 2,040 hours per year (section 2.1). Second, sections 5.0 and 6.0 of the rule specify th e requirements that must be met by employers subject to the rule –
**e.g.,** the requirements to implement an ETRIP for each wor ksite with 100 or more “eligible employees” (section 5.1) ; to include in each ETRIP measures from several dozen listed st rategies by specified implementation deadlines (section 5.2); t o submit to the District no later than July 1, 2010 or within 1 80 days after becoming subject to the rule a complete “employer r egistration form” containing specific types of information abou t the employer’s business (section 6.1); and to verify an d report commuter activity to the District on an annual basi s (sections 6.4 and 6.5). Third, sections 6.0 and 8.0 of the rule specify app ropriate compliance timeframes, including deadlines for empl oyer registration (section 6.1), submittal of the ETRIPs and related12

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Aug ust 6, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
updates (section 6.3), and submittal of annual repo rts regarding commuter activity (section 6.5). Finally, section 6.0 of the rule specifies sufficie nt methods to determine compliance, including requirem ents for employers to annually collect information on the mo des of transportation used for each eligible employee’s co mmutes to and from work for each day of the “commute verification period” 4 (section 6.4.1); requirements for employers to “kee p records of steps taken to implement measures... included in the ETRIP on file for at least five years” and to make such records a vailable to the District and EPA upon request (section 6.3.5); and requirements for employers to submit annual reports to the District containing detailed information about the results of their commute verifications, implemented ETRIP meas ures, and any updates to an ETRIP (section 6.5). All of these requirements are enforceable against c overed employers under state law ( **see** Final Staff Report at A-13, citing California H&SC sections 42402-42403) and, upon app roval

4 Section 3.11 of the rule generally defines “commut e verification period” as “[a] period of at least one week, selected by the e mployer to represent a typical work week,” or in certain cases a two-week pay period, that does not contain a federal, state, or local holiday.13

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Aug ust 6, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

into the California SIP, would also be enforceable under sections 113 and 304 of the CAA. C. Section 110(l) of the Act Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits EPA from appro ving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicab le requirement concerning attainment and RFP or any ot her applicable CAA requirement. The requirements and pr ocedures in Rule 9410 are designed to reduce mobile source emis sions in the SJV by requiring certain businesses to implement pr ograms that encourage employees to reduce their vehicle trips a nd miles traveled to and from worksites. Rule 9410 does not revise any requirement in the applicable SIP. We propose to de termine that our approval of Rule 9410 would comply with CAA sec tion 110(l) because the proposed SIP revision would not interfe re with the on-going process for ensuring that requirements for attainment of the NAAQS and other CAA provisions are met. D. Estimated Emission Reductions SJVUAPCD estimates that the ETRIP program reduced N O x , VOC and PM 2.5 emissions by 0.6, 0.6 and 0.05 tons per day (tpd), respectively, in 2014 and will further reduce emiss ions of these pollutants by 0.3, 0.4 and 0.06 tpd, respectively, in 2023. **See** Final Staff Report at Appendix B, Table B-4. We fin d these emission reduction estimates technically sound and generally14

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Aug ust 6, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
consistent with the planning assumptions in the Dis trict’s 2008

PM 2.5 Plan. **See generally id.** at Appendix B and 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, tables B-1, B-2, and B-4. We note that Rule 9610 requires each employer subj ect to the rule to submit, beginning March 31, 2015, an an nual compliance report identifying the measures the empl oyer implemented and the results of the annual commute v erification surveys distributed to employees. **See** Rule 9410, section 6.5. We recommend that the District periodically reassess t he effectiveness of the ETRIP program and update its e stimates of the associated emissions reductions based on these submitted reports and using the most recent EPA-approved vers ion of the EMFAC model. 5 IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is proposi ng to fully approve the submitted rule as a revision to t he California SIP. We will accept comments from the public on thi s proposal for the next 30 days. V. Incorporation by Reference. In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final

5 EMFAC is the motor vehicle emissions factor model that EPA has approved for use in California SIPs (78 FR 14533, March 6, 2013)
.15

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Aug ust 6, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporatio n by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CF R 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the SJ VUAPCD rule described in Table 1 of this notice. The EPA has ma de, and will continue to make, these documents available electro nically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this pream ble for more information). VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is requi red to approve a SIP submission that complies with the pro visions 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 mee t the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this ac tion merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal re quirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed actio n:

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Execut ive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 135 63 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);16

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Aug ust 6, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

• does not impose an information collection burden un der the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C . 3501 **et seq.** );

• is certified as not having a significant economic i mpact on a substantial number of small entities under the Re gulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 **et seq** .);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significan tly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 10 4-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999 );

• is not an economically significant regulatory actio n based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Orde r 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to E xecutive 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 A ir Act;
and17

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Aug ust 6, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authori ty to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human hea lth or environmental effects, using practicable and legall y permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (5 9 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on an y Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdictio n. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specifi ed by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 200 0). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ca rbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernme ntal relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compou nds.

Dated: August 6, 2015. _________//s//____________

___ Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.18

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on Aug ust 6, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.