[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51147-51151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20749]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0489; FRL-9932-74-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: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve 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 mobile source 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 these amounts of emission reductions for credit
toward an emission reduction commitment in the California SIP. We are
taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 23,
2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R09-OAR-2015-0489, by one of the following methods:
1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected]
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901. Deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or email. http://www.regulations.gov is an
anonymous access system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., 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 Perez, EPA Region IX,
[email protected], (415) 972-3248.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. The State's Submittal
III. EPA's Evaluation of the State's Submittal
A. SIP Procedural Requirements
B. EPA Policy on Economic Incentives
C. Sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act
IV. Proposed Action and Public Comment
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On July 18, 1997, EPA established new national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers
([micro]m) in diameter (PM2.5), including an annual standard
of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) based on a 3-year
average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour
(daily) standard of 65 [micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of 98th
percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations.\1\ EPA established
these standards after considering substantial evidence from numerous
health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated
with exposures to PM2.5 concentrations above these levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997) and 40 CFR 50.7. Effective
December 18, 2006, EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 [micro]g/m\3\. 71 FR 61144
(October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR 50.13. Effective March 18, 2013, EPA
strengthened the annual PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level
to 12 [micro]g/m\3\. 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013) and 40 CFR 50.18.
In this preamble, all references to the PM2.5 NAAQS,
unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour standard (65
[micro]g/m\3\) and annual standard (15.0 [micro]g/m\3\) as codified
in 40 CFR 50.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) to designate areas throughout
the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On January 5, 2005,
EPA published initial air quality designations for the 1997 annual and
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, using air quality monitoring data for
the three-year periods of 2001-2003 and 2002-2004.\2\ These
designations became effective April 5, 2005.\3\ EPA designated the San
Joaquin Valley (SJV) area \4\ as nonattainment for both the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard (15.0 [micro]g/m\3\) and the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 standard (65 [micro]g/m\3\).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005).
\3\ Id.
\4\ 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. For a precise description of the geographic
boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area, see 40 CFR
81.305.
\5\ 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 2007 and 2011, California made six SIP submittals to
address nonattainment area planning
[[Page 51148]]
requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.\6\ We
refer to these submittals collectively as the ``2008 PM2.5
Plan.'' On November 9, 2011, EPA approved all elements of the 2008
PM2.5 Plan except for the contingency measures, which EPA
disapproved.\7\ As part of this action, EPA approved, inter alia,
commitments by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the
SJVUAPCD to achieve specific amounts of NOX and
PM2.5 emission reductions by 2014.\8\ In July 2013, the
State submitted a revised PM2.5 contingency measure plan for
the SJV, which EPA fully approved in May 2014.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 76 FR 69896 at n. 2 (November 9, 2011).
\7\ Id. at 69924.
\8\ 76 FR 69896, 69926 (codified at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2) and 52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2)).
\9\ 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 20, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its
decision in a challenge to EPA's November 9, 2011 action on the 2008
PM2.5 Plan.\10\ In Committee for a Better Arvin et. al v.
EPA (Case Nos. 11-73924 and 12-71332) (CBA), the court held that EPA
violated the CAA by approving the 2008 PM2.5 Plan even
though the plan did not include certain state-adopted mobile source
emission standards on which the plan relied to achieve its emission
reduction goals.\11\ The CBA court remanded EPA's action on the 2008
PM2.5 Plan for further proceedings consistent with the
decision but did not vacate EPA's action.\12\ Thus, absent an EPA
rulemaking to withdraw or revise the Agency's November 2011 approval of
the emission reduction commitments in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan,
these commitments remain enforceable components of the California
SIP.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Committee for a Better Arvin et al v. EPA, Case Nos. 11-
73924 and 12-71332, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8295 (9th Cir. 2015).
\11\ Id.
\12\ Id.
\13\ See n. 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The State's Submittal
CARB adopted the ``Report on Reductions Achieved from Incentive-
based Emission Reduction Measures in the San Joaquin Valley'' (Emission
Reduction Report) on October 24, 2014 and submitted it to EPA as a
revision to the California SIP on November 17, 2014. On May 17, 2015,
the Emission Reduction Report submittal became complete by operation of
law under CAA section 110(k)(1)(B).
The purpose of the Emission Reduction Report is to demonstrate that
certain mobile source incentive funding programs implemented in the SJV
area have achieved specified amounts of NOX and
PM2.5 emission reductions by January 1, 2014 and to thereby
satisfy a portion of the 2014 emission reduction commitments approved
into the SIP as part of EPA's November 2011 action on the 2008
PM2.5 Plan.\14\ Specifically, the Emission Reduction Report
documents the State's bases for concluding that a total of 2,286
incentive projects implemented in the SJV pursuant to the Carl Moyer
Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program)
and the Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program (Prop
1B Program) have achieved a total of 7.8 tons per day (tpd) of
NOX emission reductions and 0.2 tpd of PM2.5
emission reductions in the SJV, which may be credited toward the
State's 2014 emission reduction commitment.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Emission Reduction Report at 1-2.
\15\ Emission Reduction Report at 24, Table 3 (``Total 2014
Incentive-Based Emission Reductions''), Appendix H.1 (``SIP
Creditable Incentive Projects in the San Joaquin Valley (Moyer
Program)'') and Appendix H.2 (``SIP Creditable Incentive Projects in
the San Joaquin Valley (Prop 1B)'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SIP submittal for the Emission Reduction Report includes eight
appendices containing documentation to support the State's conclusions.
First, Appendix A through Appendix E contain relevant excerpts from the
Carl Moyer Program and Prop 1B Program guidelines \16\ that apply to
specifically identified types of incentive projects. Table 1 identifies
the selected project types and relevant portions of the incentive
program guidelines that govern their implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Under both the Carl Moyer Program and the Prop 1B Program,
CARB adopts or approves program ``guidelines'' that specify, among
other things, terms and conditions that must apply to each grant of
incentive funds to an applicant. See California Health & Safety Code
sections 44275 et seq. (establishing Carl Moyer Program) and 39625
et seq. (establishing Prop 1B Program).
Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable guideline (relevant
Project type portions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Moyer Program: Off-road The Carl Moyer Program
equipment repower, replacement, and Guidelines, Approved Revision
retrofit projects. 2005, part I, ``Program Overview
and Administrative
Requirements,'' and part II,
chapter 5, ``Compression-
Ignition Off-Road Equipment''.
The Carl Moyer Program
Guidelines, Approved Revision
2008, part I, chapter 5, ``Off-
Road Compression-Ignition
Equipment,'' and Part III,
``Program Administration''.
The Carl Moyer Program
Guidelines, Approved Revisions
2011, part I, chapter 3,
``Program Administration,'' and
chapter 7, ``Off-Road
Compression-Ignition
Equipment''.
Carl Moyer Program: Portable and The Carl Moyer Program
stationary agricultural source Guidelines, Approved Revision
repower projects. 2005, part I, ``Program Overview
and Administrative
Requirements,'' and part II,
chapter 10, ``Agricultural
Sources''.
The Carl Moyer Program
Guidelines, Approved Revision
2008, part I, chapter 10,
``Agricultural Sources,'' and
Part III, ``Program
Administration''.
The Carl Moyer Program
Guidelines, Approved Revisions
2011, part I, chapter 3,
``Program Administration,'' and
chapter 10, ``Portable and
Stationary Agricultural
Sources''.
Prop 1B Program: On-road vehicle Proposition 1B: Goods Movement
replacement projects. Emission Reduction Program,
Final Guidelines for
Implementation, 2008, Section
II, ``ARB Program
Administration,'' Section III,
``Local Agency Project,''
Section IV, ``General Equipment
Project Requirements,'' and
appendix A, ``Trucks Serving
Ports and Intermodal Rail
Yards''.
Proposition 1B: Goods Movement
Emission Reduction Program,
Final Guidelines for
Implementation, 2008, Section
II, ``ARB Program
Administration,'' Section III,
``Local Agency Project,''
Section IV, ``General Equipment
Project Requirements,'' and
appendix B, ``Other Heavy Duty
Diesel Trucks''.
[[Page 51149]]
Proposition 1B: Goods Movement
Emission Reduction Program,
Final Guidelines for
Implementation, 2010, Section
II, ``ARB Program
Administration,'' Section III,
``Local Agency Project
Proposal,'' Section IV, ``Local
Agency Project Implementation,''
Section V, ``State Agency
Project Implementation,''
Section VI, ``General Equipment
Project Requirements,'' and
appendix A, ``Heavy Duty Diesel
Trucks''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Emission Reduction Report at 5, 10, 14, and 17.
Second, Appendix F and Appendix G contain CARB's demonstrations
that the identified portions of the Carl Moyer Program and Prop 1B
Program guidelines adequately address EPA's recommended ``integrity
elements'' by ensuring that the resulting emission reductions are
quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, and permanent.\17\ We refer to
these analyses as the State's ``integrity demonstrations'' for these
components of the Carl Moyer Program and Prop 1B Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Under longstanding EPA guidance, emission reductions
achieved through economic incentives and other nontraditional
emission reduction measures must be quantifiable, surplus,
enforceable, and permanent in order to qualify for SIP emission
reduction credit under the CAA. See, e.g., ``Guidance on
Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in
State Implementation Plans (SIPs),'' October 24, 1997 (``1997
VMEP'') at 6-7; ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive
Programs,'' U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, January 2001
(EPA-452/R-01-001) (``2001 EIP Guidance'') at section 4.1;
``Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State
Implementation Plan,'' September 2004 (``2004 Emerging and Voluntary
Measures Guidance'') at 3-4; and ``Diesel Retrofits: Quantifying and
Using Their Emission Benefits in SIPs and Conformity,'' February
2014 (``2014 Diesel Retrofits Guidance'') at 27-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, Appendix H lists each of the 832 Carl Moyer Program projects
and 1,454 Prop 1B Program projects funded pursuant to the identified
program guidelines that the State has relied upon in the Emission
Reduction Report. For each of these projects, Appendix H identifies the
``equipment project ID,'' contract term (project life), post-inspection
date, adoption year of the applicable incentive program guideline, and
NOX and/or PM2.5 emission reductions achieved in
2014, in pounds per year (lbs/yr).
The Carl Moyer Program is a California grant program established in
1998 that provides funding to encourage the voluntary purchase of
cleaner-than-required engines, equipment, and other emission reduction
technologies.\18\ In its first 12 years, the Carl Moyer Program
provided over $680 million in state and local funds to reduce air
pollution from equipment statewide, e.g., by replacing older trucks
with newer, cleaner trucks, retrofitting controls on existing engines,
and encouraging the early retirement of older, more polluting
vehicles.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See generally CARB, ``The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines,
Approved Revisions 2011,'' Release Date: February 8, 2013, at
Chapter 1 (available electronically at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/moyer.htm).
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Prop 1B Program is a California grant program established in
2007, as a result of State bond funding approved by voters, which
provides $1 billion in funding to CARB to reduce air pollution
emissions and health risks from freight movement along California's
priority trade corridors. Under the enabling legislation (California
Senate Bill 88 and Assembly Bill 201 (2007)), CARB awards grants to
fund projects proposed by local agencies that are involved in freight
movement or air quality improvements associated with goods movement
activities. Upon receipt of such grants, the local agencies are then
responsible for providing financial incentives to owners of equipment
used in freight movement to upgrade to cleaner technologies, consistent
with program guidelines adopted by CARB.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See generally ``Strategic Growth Plan Bond Accountability,
Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program,'' Approved February 27,
2008 (available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/bonds/gmbond/docs/gm_accountability_with_links_2-27-08.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. EPA's Evaluation of the State's Submittal
A. SIP Procedural Requirements
Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the Act require that revisions to
a SIP be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public
hearing. EPA has promulgated specific procedural requirements for SIP
revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These requirements include
publication of notices, by prominent advertisement in the relevant
geographic area, of a public hearing on the proposed revisions, a
public comment period of at least 30 days, and an opportunity for a
public hearing.
CARB's November 17, 2014 SIP submittal includes public process
documentation for the Emission Reduction Report, including
documentation of a duly noticed public hearing held by the State on
October 24, 2014. On October 24, 2014, CARB adopted the Emission
Reduction Report as a revision to the California SIP and submitted it
to EPA on November 17, 2014 for action pursuant to CAA section 110(k)
of the Act. We find that the process followed by CARB in adopting the
Emission Reduction Report complies with the procedural requirements for
SIP revisions under CAA section 110 and EPA's implementing regulations.
B. EPA Policy on Economic Incentives
The CAA explicitly provides for the use of economic incentives as
one tool for states to use to achieve attainment of the NAAQS.\21\
Economic incentive programs (EIPs) use market-based strategies to
encourage the reduction of emissions from stationary, area, and/or
mobile sources in an efficient manner. EPA has promulgated regulations
for statutory EIPs required under section 182(g) of the Act and has
issued guidance for discretionary EIPs.\22\ In light of the increasing
incremental cost associated with further stationary and mobile source
emission reductions and the difficulty of identifying such additional
sources of emissions reductions in many areas, EPA encourages
innovative approaches to reducing emissions through EIPs and other
nontraditional measures and programs, including ``voluntary'' and
``emerging'' measures.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See, e.g., CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) (requiring that each
SIP ``include enforceable emission limitations and other control
measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such
as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as
well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary
or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of [the Act]'');
see also sections 172(c)(6), 183(e)(4).
\22\ See 59 FR 16690 (April 7, 1994) (codified at 40 CFR part
51, subpart U) and 2001 EIP Guidance.
\23\ See generally 1997 VMEP; 2004 Emerging and Voluntary
Measures Guidance; 2014 Diesel Retrofits Guidance; and ``Guidance on
Incorporating Bundled Measures in a State Implementation Plan,''
August 16, 2005 (``2005 Bundled Measures Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We provide below a summary of our evaluation of the Emission
Reduction Report and related incentive program
[[Page 51150]]
guidelines. Our Technical Support Document (TSD) contains a more
detailed evaluation of the SIP submittal.
1. Programmatic ``integrity elements''
Where a State relies upon a discretionary EIP or other
nontraditional emission reduction measure in a SIP submittal, EPA
evaluates the programmatic elements of the measure to determine whether
the resulting emission reductions are quantifiable, surplus,
enforceable and permanent.\24\ These four fundamental ``integrity
elements,'' which apply to all discretionary EIPs and other innovative
measures relied on for SIP purposes, are designed to ensure that such
measures satisfy the applicable requirements of the Act.\25\ EPA has
generally defined the four fundamental integrity elements for
discretionary EIPs and other innovative emission reduction programs as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See, e.g., 2001 EIP Guidance at section 4.1.
\25\ See, e.g., 2001 EIP Guidance at section 4.1; 1997 VMEP at
6-7; 2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance at 3-4; and 2014
Diesel Retrofits Guidance at 27-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantifiable: emission reductions are quantifiable if they
can be measured in a manner that is reliable and replicable by
different users;
Surplus: Emission reductions are surplus if they are not
otherwise required by or assumed in a SIP-related program (e.g., an
attainment or reasonable further progress plan or a transportation
conformity demonstration), any other adopted State air quality program,
a consent decree, or a federal rule designed to reduce emission of a
criteria pollutant or its precursors (e.g., a new source performance
standard or federal mobile source requirement); additionally, emission
reductions are ''surplus'' only for the remaining useful life of the
vehicle, engine, or equipment being replaced.
Enforceable: emission reductions and other required
actions are enforceable if they are independently verifiable; program
violations are defined; those liable can be identified; the State and
EPA may apply penalties and secure appropriate corrective action where
applicable; citizens have access to all emissions-related information
obtained from participating sources; citizens may file suit against a
responsible entity for violations; and the required reductions/actions
are practicably enforceable consistent with EPA guidance on practical
enforceability.
Permanent: emission reductions are permanent if the State
and EPA can ensure that the reductions occur for as long as they are
relied upon in the SIP. The time period that the emission reductions
are used in the SIP can be no longer than the remaining useful life of
the retrofitted or replaced engine, vehicle, or equipment.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See 2001 EIP Guidance at Section 4.1; 1997 VMEP at 6-7;
2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance at 3-4; and 2014
Diesel Retrofits Guidance at 27-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emission Reduction Report documents CARB's bases for concluding
that the portions of the incentive program guidelines identified in
Table 1 adequately address each of these integrity elements. First,
with respect to quantification, the Emission Reduction Report
references and describes the formulas that the guidelines require
applicants to use to determine annual emissions (i.e., baseline
emissions, based on existing equipment or new equipment certified by
CARB to current emission standards) and annual emission reductions
(i.e., the difference between baseline emissions and reduced emissions
from new/upgraded equipment).\27\ These requirements ensure that
program participants will calculate emission reductions reliably, using
widely available methods and assumptions, and in a manner that can be
replicated by different users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Emission Reduction Report at 7-8, 11-12, 15, 19-20,
Appendix F, and Appendix G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, with respect to additionality (i.e., ensuring that
reductions are ``surplus'' or non-duplicative to existing
requirements), the Emission Reduction Report references and describes
the provisions in the guidelines that prohibit the use of program funds
for emission reductions that are required by any federal, state or
local regulation or other legal mandate and requirements to ensure that
equipment or engines being replaced are still in usable form and would
not have been replaced by normal fleet turnover.\28\ These provisions
ensure that projects funded under these guidelines will achieve
emission reductions that are not otherwise required by or assumed in a
SIP-related program and that are surplus to federal, state, and local
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Emission Reduction Report at 9, 12, 15-16, 20, Appendix F,
and Appendix G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, with respect to enforceability, the Emission Reduction
Report references and describes the funding criteria in the guidelines
that are designed to ensure that emission reductions will be
independently verifiable and practicably enforceable by CARB and the
District, including detailed requirements for project applications,
contracts, pre- and post-project inspections, and recordkeeping and
reporting by both the grantees and the implementing local agencies.\29\
These requirements ensure that emission reductions can be independently
verified, that the public has access to emissions-related information,
and that required actions are practicably enforceable consistent with
EPA guidance on practical enforceability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Emission Reduction Report at 6-7, 10-11, 15, 17-19,
Appendix F, and Appendix G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, with respect to permanence, the Emission Reduction Report
references and describes requirements in the guidelines for program
applicants to demonstrate that both the baseline (old) and replacement
(new/upgraded) equipment are used similarly in the nonattainment area
and to document the destruction of the baseline (old) equipment, as
well as requirements to identify in each contract the timeframe during
which the State/District attribute emission reductions to the
project.\30\ These requirements ensure that emission reduction
calculations are based on reasonable assumptions concerning equipment/
vehicle activity; that baseline (old) equipment and vehicles do not
continue in operation; and that EPA and the public can determine
whether emission reductions attributed to a project adequately cover
the period for which those reductions are relied upon in a SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Emission Reduction Report at 9-10, 13-14, 16, 21-22,
Appendix F, and Appendix G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these evaluations, we find that the portions of the Carl
Moyer Program and Prop 1B Program guidelines identified in Table 1
establish emission reduction quantification protocols, grant
conditions, recordkeeping and reporting obligations, and other
requirements that adequately address EPA's recommended integrity
elements for economic incentive programs.
2. Enforceable Commitment
Where a State relies on a discretionary 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), 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.\31\ The purpose of the Emission Reduction
Report, however, is to demonstrate that a portion of the emission
reductions required under a previously-approved
[[Page 51151]]
SIP commitment have in fact been achieved, not to satisfy a future
emission reduction requirement. Accordingly, it is not necessary to
require the State to submit additional commitments for this purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See, e.g., 1997 VMEP at 4-7; 2004 Emerging and Voluntary
Measures Guidance at 8-12; and 2005 Bundled Measures Guidance at 7-
12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Sections 110(l) and 193 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 Emission Reduction Report documents CARB's bases for concluding
that specific incentive projects implemented by January 1, 2014, in
accordance with the identified portions of the Carl Moyer Program and
Prop 1B Program guidelines, have achieved a total of 7.8 tpd of
NOX emission reductions and 0.2 tpd of PM2.5
emission reductions in the SJV area which may be credited toward the
State's 2014 emission reduction commitment in the 2008 PM2.5
Plan. These calculations of emission reductions are based on actions
taken by grantees before January 1, 2014 which reduced emissions of
NOX and PM2.5 in the SJV (e.g., through
replacement of older, higher-polluting vehicles operating in the SJV
area with newer, cleaner vehicles). The Emission Reduction Report does
not establish or revise any emission limitation, control measure, or
other requirement in the applicable SIP. We propose to determine that
our approval of the Emission Reduction Report 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.
Section 193 of the Act does not apply to this proposed action
because the Emission Reduction Report does not modify any SIP-approved
control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990.
IV. Proposed Action and Public Comment
Under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is proposing to fully
approve the submitted Emission Reduction Report and, based on CARB'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 commitment in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.
We will accept comments from the public on this proposed action
until the date noted in the DATES section above.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 6, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-20749 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P