The EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, signed 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 accuracy 

of this version of this rule, it is not the official version. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR 

publication appearing on the Government Printing Office 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 District; 

Employer Based Trip Reduction Programs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 

to approve a regulation submitted for incorporation into the San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD 

or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The regulation, Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip 

Reduction), establishes requirements for employers in the San 

Joaquin Valley to implement programs encouraging employees to 

use ridesharing and alternative transportation methods to reduce 

air pollution. The effect of this action would be to 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 August 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. EPAR09-OAR-2014-0715, by one of the following methods:

1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 

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 Hawthorne, 

San Francisco, California 94105. 

4. Hand or Courier Delivery: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning 

Section (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San Francisco, California 94105. 

Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. Special arrangements 

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 received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 

information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information through www.regulations.gov or e-mail 

that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected from 
3 

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on August 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 identity or 

contact information unless you provide it in the body 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 on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other contact information in the 

body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If 

EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and 

cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 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 action 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 only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and 

some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., 
4 

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on August 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, please 

schedule an appointment during normal business hours 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, Region 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 air quality 

standards (NAAQS) promulgated by EPA under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). 

 

1 The SJV area encompasses over 23,000 square miles and includes all or part 

of eight counties in California’s central valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, 

Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and Kern. 
5 

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on August 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 classified as 

extreme nonattainment for the 1-hour, 1997 8-hour, and 2008 8-

hour ozone NAAQS; designated and classified as serious 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; and designated and 

classified as moderate nonattainment for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5

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) including such 

reductions in emissions from existing sources in the 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 PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas implement RACM (including RACT) and section 189(b)(1)(B) 

requires that serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas implement best 

available control measures (BACM), including best available 

control technology (BACT). The SJV area is subject to all of 

these control requirements as a result of its designations and 

classifications for the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. For an ozone 

nonattainment area classified as severe or above, section 

182(d)(1)(B) also provides that a state may, in its discretion, 

submit a SIP revision requiring employers to implement programs 
6 

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on August 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 travelled 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 experience some of 

the worst air quality in the nation. See, e.g., 80 FR 1482 (Jan. 

12, 2015) (discussing recent PM2.5 air quality trends in SJV). As 

a result, the District has increasingly relied upon

nontraditional emission reduction strategies to reduce air 

pollution in the SJV. See, e.g., 79 FR 28650 (May 19, 2014) 

(proposed action on SJV Rule 9610 concerning incentive programs) 

and 80 FR 19020 (April 9, 2015) (final action on SJV Rule 9610). 

EPA supports state efforts to implement nontraditional and 

innovative strategies for reducing air pollutant emissions, 

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 Transportation 

and Air Quality, “Commuter Programs: Quantifying and Using Their 

Emission Benefits in SIPs and Conformity” (February 2014). 

II. The State Submittal 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the 

dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted 

by CARB. 
7 

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on August 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 was 

deemed by operation of law under CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) to 

meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix 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 Report: Rule 

9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction)” dated December 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 commitment in the 

PM2.5 plan for the SJV. See 76 FR 69896 at 69926 (November 9, 

2011) (PM2.5 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 August 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 regulations to reduce 

vehicle trips and requirements for certain businesses 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 9410 requires 

certain employers with at least 100 “eligible employees”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 compliance 

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 health and safety employees, 

farm workers, field construction workers, on-call employees, part-time 

employees, seasonal employees, and volunteers, among others. See Rule 9410, 

sections 3.19 and 3.31. 

3 Rule 9410 defines ETRIP as a “group of measures implemented by an employer, 

designed to provide transportation information, assistance, 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 August 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 SIP or SIP 

revision. To meet this requirement, every SIP submittal should 

include evidence that adequate public notice was given and an 

opportunity to request a public hearing was provided consistent 

with EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102. 

 Both the District and CARB have satisfied applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable 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 prior to the 

adoption of Rule 9410 on December 17, 2009. See SJVUAPCD 

Governing Board Resolution No. 09-12-19 (December 17, 2009). 

CARB provided the required public notice and opportunity for 

public comment prior to its public hearing on the plan. See CARB 

Executive Order S-10-001 (May 17, 2010). 

 The SIP submittal includes proof of publication for 

notices of the District and CARB public hearings, as evidence 

that all hearings were properly noticed. We therefore 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 August 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 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].” EPA generally considers a 

requirement to be enforceable if it contains a clear statement 

as to applicability; specifies the standard that must be met; 

states compliance timeframes sufficient to meet the standard; 

specifies sufficient methods to determine compliance, including 

appropriate monitoring, record keeping and reporting provisions; 

and recognizes relevant enforcement consequences. See “Review 

of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability 

and Legal Sufficiency,” September 23, 1987 (“1987 Potter Memo”) 

and “Guidance on Enforceability Requirements for Limiting 

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 recommendations for 

enforceability. First, section 2.1 of the rule clearly states 

that the requirements of the rule “apply to each employer in the 

[SJV] Air Basin with at least 100 Eligible Employees at a 
11 

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on August 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 the employer’s 

previous fiscal year” that is located: (1) within an 

incorporated city with a population of at least 10,000; (2) 

within an incorporated city with a population of less than 

10,000, and more than 50 percent of their employees work at 

least 2,040 hours per year; or (3) within the unincorporated 

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 the 

requirements that must be met by employers subject to the rule – 

e.g., the requirements to implement an ETRIP for each worksite 

with 100 or more “eligible employees” (section 5.1); to include 

in each ETRIP measures from several dozen listed strategies by 

specified implementation deadlines (section 5.2); to submit to 

the District no later than July 1, 2010 or within 180 days after 

becoming subject to the rule a complete “employer registration 

form” containing specific types of information about the 

employer’s business (section 6.1); and to verify and report 

commuter activity to the District on an annual basis (sections 

6.4 and 6.5). 

Third, sections 6.0 and 8.0 of the rule specify appropriate 

compliance timeframes, including deadlines for employer 

registration (section 6.1), submittal of the ETRIPs and related 
12 

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on August 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 reports regarding 

commuter activity (section 6.5). 

Finally, section 6.0 of the rule specifies sufficient 

methods to determine compliance, including requirements for 

employers to annually collect information on the modes of 

transportation used for each eligible employee’s commutes to and 

from work for each day of the “commute verification period”4

(section 6.4.1); requirements for employers to “keep records of 

steps taken to implement measures... included in the ETRIP on file 

for at least five years” and to make such records available 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 measures, and any 

updates to an ETRIP (section 6.5). 

All of these requirements are enforceable against covered 

employers under state law (see Final Staff Report at A-13, 

citing California H&SC sections 42402-42403) and, upon approval 

 

4 Section 3.11 of the rule generally defines “commute verification period” as 

“[a] period of at least one week, selected by the employer 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 August 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 approving any 

SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and RFP or any other 

applicable CAA requirement. The requirements and procedures in 

Rule 9410 are designed to reduce mobile source emissions in the 

SJV by requiring certain businesses to implement programs that 

encourage employees to reduce their vehicle trips and miles 

traveled to and from worksites. Rule 9410 does not revise any 

requirement in the applicable SIP. We propose to determine that 

our approval of Rule 9410 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 attainment 

of the NAAQS and other CAA provisions are met. 

D. Estimated Emission Reductions 

SJVUAPCD estimates that the ETRIP program reduced NOx, VOC 

and PM2.5 emissions by 0.6, 0.6 and 0.05 tons per day (tpd),

respectively, in 2014 and will further reduce emissions 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 find these 

emission reduction estimates technically sound and generally 
14 

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on August 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 District’s 2008 

PM2.5 Plan. See generally id. at Appendix B and 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix B, tables B-1, B-2, and B-4. 

 We note that Rule 9610 requires each employer subject to 

the rule to submit, beginning March 31, 2015, an annual 

compliance report identifying the measures the employer 

implemented and the results of the annual commute verification 

surveys distributed to employees. See Rule 9410, section 6.5. We 

recommend that the District periodically reassess the 

effectiveness of the ETRIP program and update its estimates of 

the associated emissions reductions based on these submitted 

reports and using the most recent EPA-approved version of the 

EMFAC model.5

IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment 

 Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is proposing to 

fully approve the submitted rule as a revision to the California 

SIP. We will accept comments from the public on this 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 August 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 incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the 

EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the SJVUAPCD rule 

described in Table 1 of this notice. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate 

EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more 

information).

VI. 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 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 

Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011); 
16 

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on August 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 under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 
17 

This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on August 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 authority to 

address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable and legally 

permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. 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 specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon 

monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 

relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 

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 August 6, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.