80 FR 51147 - Revision to the California State Implementation Plan; San Joaquin Valley; Demonstration of Creditable Emission Reductions from Economic Incentive Programs
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 163 (August 24, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 163 (August 24, 2015)
| Page Range | 51147-51151 | |
| FR Document | 2015-20749 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 51147-51151] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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 NO X 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
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51147
confidentiality, please refer to 21 CFR SIP. We are taking comments on this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
10.20. proposal and plan to follow with a final Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’
action. and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
C. Information Identifying the Person
Submitting the Comment DATES: Written comments must be Table of Contents
received on or before September 23, I. Background
Please note that your name, contact
2015. II. The State’s Submittal
information, and other information III. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s Submittal
identifying you will be posted on ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, A. SIP Procedural Requirements
http://www.regulations.gov if you identified by Docket ID Number EPA–R B. EPA Policy on Economic Incentives
include that information in the body of 09–OAR–2015–0489, by one of the C. Sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act
your comments. For electronic following methods: IV. Proposed Action and Public Comment
comments submitted to http:// V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow
www.regulations.gov, FDA will post the the on-line instructions for submitting I. Background
body of your comment on http:// comments.
www.regulations.gov along with your On July 18, 1997, EPA established
2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov new national ambient air quality
State/province and country (if
provided), the name of your 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel standards (NAAQS) for particles less
representative (if any), and the category (AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (mm) in
identifying you (e.g., individual, Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne diameter (PM2.5), including an annual
consumer, academic, industry). For Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic
Deliveries are only accepted during the meter (mg/m3) based on a 3-year average
written submissions submitted to the
Regional Office’s normal hours of of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations,
Division of Dockets Management, FDA
operation. and a 24-hour (daily) standard of 65 mg/
will post the body of your comments on
Instructions: All comments will be m3 based on a 3-year average of 98th
http://www.regulations.gov, but you can
included in the public docket without percentile 24-hour PM2.5
put your name and/or contact
change and may be made available concentrations.1 EPA established these
information on a separate cover sheet
online at http://www.regulations.gov, standards after considering substantial
and not in the body of your comments.
including any personal information evidence from numerous health studies
Dated: August 18, 2015. demonstrating that serious health effects
provided, unless the comment includes
Leslie Kux, Confidential Business Information (CBI) are associated with exposures to PM2.5
Associate Commissioner for Policy. or other information whose disclosure is concentrations above these levels.
[FR Doc. 2015–20759 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am] restricted by statute. Information that Following promulgation of a new or
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P you consider CBI or otherwise protected revised NAAQS, EPA is required under
should be clearly identified as such and Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) to
should not be submitted through http:// designate areas throughout the nation as
www.regulations.gov or email. http:// attaining or not attaining the NAAQS.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.regulations.gov is an anonymous On January 5, 2005, EPA published
AGENCY
initial air quality designations for the
access system, and EPA will not know
40 CFR Part 52 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
your identity or contact information
using air quality monitoring data for the
[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0489; FRL–9932–74– unless you provide it in the body of
three-year periods of 2001–2003 and
Region 9] your comment. If you send email
2002–2004.2 These designations became
directly to EPA, your email address will
effective April 5, 2005.3 EPA designated
Revision to the California State be automatically captured and included
the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) area 4 as
Implementation Plan; San Joaquin as part of the public comment. If EPA
nonattainment for both the 1997 annual
Valley; Demonstration of Creditable cannot read your comment due to
PM2.5 standard (15.0 mg/m3) and the
Emission Reductions from Economic technical difficulties and cannot contact
1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard (65 mg/
Incentive Programs you for clarification, EPA may not be m3).5
able to consider your comment. Between 2007 and 2011, California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Docket: Generally, documents in the made six SIP submittals to address
docket for this action are available nonattainment area planning
ACTION: Proposed rule. electronically at www.regulations.gov
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 1 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997) and 40 CFR 50.7.
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, Effective December 18, 2006, EPA strengthened the
California. While all documents in the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 35
demonstration of creditable emission mg/m3. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR
reductions submitted by California for docket are listed at 50.13. Effective March 18, 2013, EPA strengthened
approval into the San Joaquin Valley www.regulations.gov, some information the annual PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to
may be publicly available only at the 12 mg/m3. 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013) and 40
(SJV) portion of the California State CFR 50.18. In this preamble, all references to the
Implementation Plan (SIP). This SIP hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted PM2.5 NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, are to
submittal demonstrates that certain state material, large maps), and some may not the 1997 24-hour standard (65 mg/m3) and annual
mobile source incentive funding be publicly available in either location standard (15.0 mg/m3) as codified in 40 CFR 50.7.
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
programs have achieved specified (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 2 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005).
3 Id.
amounts of reductions in emissions of materials, please schedule an
4 The SJV area encompasses over 23,000 square
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and fine appointment during normal business
miles and includes all or part of eight counties in
particulate matter (PM2.5) in the SJV area hours with the contact listed in the FOR California’s central valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
by 2014. The effect of this action would FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and Kern.
For a precise description of the geographic
be to approve these amounts of emission FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment
reductions for credit toward an emission Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, perez. area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
reduction commitment in the California idalia@epa.gov, (415) 972–3248. 5 40 CFR 81.305.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 Aug 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM 24AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51310/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51149
TABLE 1—Continued
Applicable guideline
Project type (relevant portions)
Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program, Final Guidelines for Implementation,
2010, Section II, ‘‘ARB Program Administration,’’ Section III, ‘‘Local Agency Project Proposal,’’ Sec-
tion 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 local funds to reduce air pollution from hearing held by the State on October 24,
contain CARB’s demonstrations that the equipment statewide, e.g., by replacing 2014. On October 24, 2014, CARB
identified portions of the Carl Moyer older trucks with newer, cleaner trucks, adopted the Emission Reduction Report
Program and Prop 1B Program retrofitting controls on existing engines, as a revision to the California SIP and
guidelines adequately address EPA’s and encouraging the early retirement of submitted it to EPA on November 17,
recommended ‘‘integrity elements’’ by older, more polluting vehicles.19 2014 for action pursuant to CAA section
ensuring that the resulting emission The Prop 1B Program is a California 110(k) of the Act. We find that the
reductions are quantifiable, surplus, grant program established in 2007, as a process followed by CARB in adopting
enforceable, and permanent.17 We refer result of State bond funding approved the Emission Reduction Report
to these analyses as the State’s ‘‘integrity by voters, which provides $1 billion in complies with the procedural
demonstrations’’ for these components funding to CARB to reduce air pollution requirements for SIP revisions under
of the Carl Moyer Program and Prop 1B emissions and health risks from freight CAA section 110 and EPA’s
Program. movement along California’s priority implementing regulations.
Third, Appendix H lists each of the trade corridors. Under the enabling
832 Carl Moyer Program projects and legislation (California Senate Bill 88 and B. EPA Policy on Economic Incentives
1,454 Prop 1B Program projects funded Assembly Bill 201 (2007)), CARB The CAA explicitly provides for the
pursuant to the identified program awards grants to fund projects proposed use of economic incentives as one tool
guidelines that the State has relied upon by local agencies that are involved in for states to use to achieve attainment of
in the Emission Reduction Report. For freight movement or air quality the NAAQS.21 Economic incentive
each of these projects, Appendix H improvements associated with goods programs (EIPs) use market-based
identifies the ‘‘equipment project ID,’’ movement activities. Upon receipt of strategies to encourage the reduction of
contract term (project life), post- such grants, the local agencies are then emissions from stationary, area, and/or
inspection date, adoption year of the responsible for providing financial mobile sources in an efficient manner.
applicable incentive program guideline, incentives to owners of equipment used EPA has promulgated regulations for
and NOX and/or PM2.5 emission in freight movement to upgrade to statutory EIPs required under section
reductions achieved in 2014, in pounds cleaner technologies, consistent with 182(g) of the Act and has issued
per year (lbs/yr). program guidelines adopted by CARB.20 guidance for discretionary EIPs.22 In
The Carl Moyer Program is a light of the increasing incremental cost
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s
California grant program established in associated with further stationary and
Submittal
1998 that provides funding to encourage mobile source emission reductions and
the voluntary purchase of cleaner-than- A. SIP Procedural Requirements the difficulty of identifying such
required engines, equipment, and other Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the additional sources of emissions
emission reduction technologies.18 In its Act require that revisions to a SIP be reductions in many areas, EPA
first 12 years, the Carl Moyer Program adopted by the State after reasonable encourages innovative approaches to
provided over $680 million in state and notice and public hearing. EPA has reducing emissions through EIPs and
promulgated specific procedural other nontraditional measures and
17 Under longstanding EPA guidance, emission
requirements for SIP revisions in 40 programs, including ‘‘voluntary’’ and
reductions achieved through economic incentives
and other nontraditional emission reduction CFR part 51, subpart F. These ‘‘emerging’’ measures.23
measures must be quantifiable, surplus, requirements include publication of We provide below a summary of our
enforceable, and permanent in order to qualify for notices, by prominent advertisement in evaluation of the Emission Reduction
SIP emission reduction credit under the CAA. See, the relevant geographic area, of a public Report and related incentive program
e.g., ‘‘Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile
Source Emission Reduction Programs in State hearing on the proposed revisions, a
Implementation Plans (SIPs),’’ October 24, 1997 public comment period of at least 30 21 See, e.g., CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) (requiring
(‘‘1997 VMEP’’) at 6–7; ‘‘Improving Air Quality with days, and an opportunity for a public that each SIP ‘‘include enforceable emission
Economic Incentive Programs,’’ U.S. EPA, Office of limitations and other control measures, means, or
hearing. techniques (including economic incentives such as
Air and Radiation, January 2001 (EPA–452/R–01–
001) (‘‘2001 EIP Guidance’’) at section 4.1; CARB’s November 17, 2014 SIP fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions
‘‘Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures submittal includes public process rights), as well as schedules and timetables for
in a State Implementation Plan,’’ September 2004 documentation for the Emission compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(‘‘2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures meet the applicable requirements of [the Act]’’); see
Reduction Report, including also sections 172(c)(6), 183(e)(4).
Guidance’’) at 3–4; and ‘‘Diesel Retrofits:
Quantifying and Using Their Emission Benefits in documentation of a duly noticed public 22 See 59 FR 16690 (April 7, 1994) (codified at 40
SIPs and Conformity,’’ February 2014 (‘‘2014 Diesel CFR part 51, subpart U) and 2001 EIP Guidance.
Retrofits Guidance’’) at 27–29. 19 Id. 23 See generally 1997 VMEP; 2004 Emerging and
18 See generally CARB, ‘‘The Carl Moyer Program 20 See generally ‘‘Strategic Growth Plan Bond Voluntary Measures Guidance; 2014 Diesel Retrofits
Guidelines, Approved Revisions 2011,’’ Release Accountability, Goods Movement Emission Guidance; and ‘‘Guidance on Incorporating
Date: February 8, 2013, at Chapter 1 (available Reduction Program,’’ Approved February 27, 2008 Bundled Measures in a State Implementation Plan,’’
electronically at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ (available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/bonds/gmbond/ August 16, 2005 (‘‘2005 Bundled Measures
moyer/moyer.htm). docs/gm_accountability_with_links_2-27-08.pdf). Guidance’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 Aug 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM 24AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51310/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51151
SIP commitment have in fact been We will accept comments from the Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
achieved, not to satisfy a future public on this proposed action until the tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
emission reduction requirement. date noted in the DATES section above. Indian country, the proposed rule does
Accordingly, it is not necessary to not have tribal implications and will not
V. Statutory and Executive Order
require the State to submit additional impose substantial direct costs on tribal
Reviews
commitments for this purpose. governments or preempt tribal law as
Under the Clean Air Act, the specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
C. Sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act Administrator is required to approve a FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
SIP submission that complies with the
Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
provisions of the Act and applicable
EPA from approving any SIP revision
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); Environmental protection, Air
that would interfere with any applicable
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP pollution control, Incorporation by
requirement concerning attainment and
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve reference, Intergovernmental relations,
RFP or any other applicable CAA state choices, provided that they meet Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
requirement. The Emission Reduction the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Reporting and recordkeeping
Report documents CARB’s bases for Accordingly, this proposed action requirements.
concluding that specific incentive merely approves state law as meeting
projects implemented by January 1, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Federal requirements and does not
2014, in accordance with the identified impose additional requirements beyond Dated: August 6, 2015.
portions of the Carl Moyer Program and those imposed by state law. For that Jared Blumenfeld,
Prop 1B Program guidelines, have reason, this proposed action: Regional Administrator, Region IX.
achieved a total of 7.8 tpd of NOX • Is not a significant regulatory action [FR Doc. 2015–20749 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am]
emission reductions and 0.2 tpd of subject to review by the Office of BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PM2.5 emission reductions in the SJV Management and Budget under
area which may be credited toward the Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
State’s 2014 emission reduction October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
commitment in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. January 21, 2011); AGENCY
These calculations of emission • does not impose an information
reductions are based on actions taken by collection burden under the provisions 40 CFR Part 52
grantees before January 1, 2014 which of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 [EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0556; FRL–9932–94–
reduced emissions of NOX and PM2.5 in U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Region 7]
the SJV (e.g., through replacement of • is certified as not having a
older, higher-polluting vehicles significant economic impact on a Approval and Promulgation of Air
operating in the SJV area with newer, substantial number of small entities Quality Implementation Plans; State of
cleaner vehicles). The Emission under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Missouri; Cross-State Air Pollution
Reduction Report does not establish or U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Rule
revise any emission limitation, control • does not contain any unfunded
measure, or other requirement in the mandate or significantly or uniquely AGENCY: Environmental Protection
applicable SIP. We propose to affect small governments, as described Agency (EPA).
determine that our approval of the in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ACTION: Proposed rule.
Emission Reduction Report would of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
comply with CAA section 110(l) • does not have Federalism SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
because the proposed SIP revision implications as specified in Executive Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
would not interfere with the on-going Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, revisions to the State Implementation
process for ensuring that requirements 1999); Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of
for attainment of the NAAQS and other • is not an economically significant Missouri in a letter dated March 30,
CAA provisions are met. regulatory action based on health or 2015. This SIP revision provides
safety risks subject to Executive Order Missouri’s state-determined allowance
Section 193 of the Act does not apply allocations for existing electric
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
to this proposed action because the
• is not a significant regulatory action generating units (EGUs) in the state for
Emission Reduction Report does not the 2016 control period and replaces
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
modify any SIP-approved control certain allowance allocations for the
28355, May 22, 2001);
requirement in effect before November • is not subject to requirements of 2016 control periods established by EPA
15, 1990. Section 12(d) of the National under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
IV. Proposed Action and Public Technology Transfer and Advancement (CSAPR). The CSAPR addresses the
Comment Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision of the Clean
application of those requirements would Air Act (CAA or Act) that requires states
Under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; to reduce the transport of pollution that
EPA is proposing to fully approve the and significantly affects downwind air
submitted Emission Reduction Report • does not provide EPA with the quality. In this action EPA is proposing
and, based on CARB’s documentation discretionary authority to address, as to approve Missouri’s SIP revision,
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
therein of actions taken by grantees in appropriate, disproportionate human incorporating the state-determined
accordance with the identified incentive health or environmental effects, using allocations for the 2016 control periods
program guidelines, to approve 7.8 tpd practicable and legally permissible into the SIP, and amending the
of NOX emission reductions and 0.2 tpd methods, under Executive Order 12898 regulatory text of the CSAPR Federal
of PM2.5 emission reductions for credit (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Implementation Plan (FIP) to reflect this
toward the State’s 2014 emission In addition, the SIP is not approved approval and inclusion of the state-
reduction commitment in the 2008 to apply on any Indian reservation land determined allocations. EPA is
PM2.5 Plan. or in any other area where EPA or an proposing to take direct final action to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 Aug 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM 24AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51310/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 10:55:06
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 10:55:06
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Written comments must be received on or before September 23, 2015. | |
| Contact | Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, [email protected], (415) 972-3248. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 51147 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Particulate Matter and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR