Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0715-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; Employer Based Trip Reduction Programs
Posted Date: 2015-08-24T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51153-51156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20750]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0715; FRL-9932-73-Region 9]

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 September 23, 
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R09-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. Email: 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 email that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 
protected from disclosure. The www.regulations.gov Web site 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 email comment directly to EPA without going through 
www.regulations.gov, your email 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., CBI). To inspect the docket materials in person, please

[[Page 51154]]

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, email: 
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). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 (January 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.

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title            Adopted         Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD............................            9410   Employer Based Trip            12/17/09         05/17/10
                                                        Reduction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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)).
    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 commute-related 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Evaluation of the State Submittal

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

[[Page 51155]]

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).

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 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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51156]]

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 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);
     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 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, 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.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-20750 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P