
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37741-37752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14918]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0384; FRL-9826-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; 
South Coast; Contingency Measures for 1997 PM2.5 Standards

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by California to address Clean Air Act (CAA) 
contingency measure requirements for the 1997 annual and 24-hour 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5) in the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin 
(South Coast). Final approval of this SIP revision would terminate the 
sanctions clocks and a federal implementation plan (FIP) clock that 
were triggered by EPA's partial disapproval of a related SIP submission 
on November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69928).

DATES: Any comments must arrive by July 24, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-

[[Page 37742]]

OAR-2013-0384, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions.
     Email: lo.doris@epa.gov.
     Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office of Air Planning (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 
San Francisco, CA 94105.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided, unless the comment 
includes 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 www.regulations.gov or email. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site 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 comments due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically on the www.regulations.gov Web site and in hard copy at 
EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105. 
While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some 
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location 
(e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at 
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 below.
    Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at 
the following locations:
     California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, 
California 95814, and
     South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. 
Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 972-3959, 
lo.doris@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of California Submittal
III. EPA Review of the SIP Revision
    A. SIP Procedural Requirements
    B. Substantive Requirements for Contingency Measures
    C. Section 110(l) of the Act
IV. Proposed Action and Public Comment
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established new national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5, particulate 
matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, including annual 
standards of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) based on a 
3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and 24-
hour (daily) standards of 65 [micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of 
the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 40 CFR 50.7. Effective 
April 5, 2005, EPA designated the ``Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin'' 
in California (South Coast), including Orange County, the southwestern 
two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino County, 
and western Riverside County, as nonattainment for the 1997 24-hour and 
annual PM2.5 standards. See 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005) and 
40 CFR 81.305.\1\ The local air district with primary responsibility 
for developing a plan to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS in this area 
is the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or 
District).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA has also designated the South Coast area as 
nonattainment for the more stringent 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 
of 35 [micro]g/m\3\, which EPA promulgated on October 17, 2006 and 
codified in 40 CFR 50.13. 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009). In this 
preamble, all references to the PM2.5 NAAQS, unless 
otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 
standards of 65 [micro]g/m\3\ and annual standards of 15 [micro]g/
m\3\ as codified in 40 CFR 50.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California has made numerous SIP submittals to address the South 
Coast area's nonattainment designation for the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS. The two principal ones are the SCAQMD's ``Final 2007 Air Quality 
Management Plan'' (South Coast 2007 AQMP), submitted on November 28, 
2007, and the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) ``State 
Strategy for California's 2007 State Implementation Plan'' (2007 State 
Strategy), submitted on November 16, 2007 and revised in 2009 and 2011 
through CARB's ``2009 State Strategy Status Report'' and ``2011 
Progress Report.''
    On November 9, 2011, EPA partially approved and partially 
disapproved the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy 
(collectively the ``South Coast PM2.5 SIP''). 76 FR 69928. 
As part of this action, EPA disapproved the contingency measure 
provisions in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP as failing to meet 
the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1012, which 
require that the SIP for each PM2.5 nonattainment area 
contain contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to 
make reasonable further progress (RFP) or to attain the NAAQS by the 
applicable attainment date. See 76 FR 41578-41580 (July 14, 2011) and 
76 FR 69947 (November 9, 2011). EPA found that the suggested 
contingency measures contained in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP 
did not meet the minimum CAA requirements because, among other things, 
the measures were not fully adopted and the District had failed to 
quantify the SIP-creditable emission reductions they would achieve. Id.
    As EPA explained in the proposed rule, contingency measures must be 
fully adopted rules or control measures that are ready to be 
implemented quickly without significant additional action by the State, 
must be measures not relied on in the plan to demonstrate RFP or 
attainment, and should provide SIP-creditable emissions reductions 
equivalent to one year of RFP. See 76 FR 41652 (July 14, 2011) at 
41578; see also ``Final Technical Support Document and Response to 
Comments, Final Rulemaking Action on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for 
PM2.5 and the South Coast Portions of the Revised 2007 State 
Strategy,'' Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, September 30, 2011 
(``Final TSD for South Coast PM2.5 SIP'') at pp. 123-130. 
Additionally, the SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for the 
contingency measures and specify a schedule for their implementation. 
Id.
    Although CARB's 2011 Progress Report demonstrated that existing 
CARB mobile source measures would achieve 24 tons per day (tpd) of 
NOX reductions and 13 tpd of VOC reductions in 2015, the 
year after the attainment year, EPA found that these measures alone 
were not adequate to satisfy the Act's contingency measure 
requirements. See 76 FR 41478-80 and 76 FR 69947-8, 69952. 
Specifically, EPA reviewed the information provided in the 2011 
Progress Report and found that these post-attainment year emission 
reductions were not sufficient to achieve one year's worth of RFP on a 
pollutant-specific basis.\2\ 76 FR 41579-

[[Page 37743]]

41580. EPA also found that the South Coast PM2.5 SIP did not 
address the contingency measure requirement for the 2012 RFP year. Id. 
at Table 9. Accordingly, EPA disapproved the contingency measure 
provisions in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP for failure to 
satisfy the Act's contingency measure requirements for the 2012 RFP 
year and for the 2015 attainment date. Id. at 41580 and 76 FR 69952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA estimated one year's worth of RFP to be approximately 49 
tpd of NOX, 29 tpd of VOC, 0.7 tpd of direct 
PM2.5 and 3.8 tpd of SOX reductions. See Final 
TSD at Table I-2 (pg. 128). Thus, the 24 tpd of NOX 
reductions and 13 tpd of VOC reductions achieved in 2015 by CARB's 
mobile source measures would amount to approximately half of those 
NOX and VOC measures needed to achieve one year's worth 
of RFP reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of California Submittal

    On November 14, 2011, CARB submitted the ``South Coast Air Quality 
Management District Proposed Contingency Measures for the 2007 PM2.5 
SIP'' (dated October 2011) (``Contingency Measures SIP'') as a revision 
to the California SIP. The November 14, 2011 submittal includes a copy 
of the Contingency Measures SIP itself; a letter dated November 14, 
2011 from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air 
Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, submitting the adopted 
Contingency Measures SIP for EPA review; CARB Executive Order S-11-023 
adopting the Contingency Measures SIP; a letter dated October 26, 2011 
from Barry R. Wallerstein, Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to James 
Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, submitting the adopted Contingency 
Measures SIP for CARB review and approval; SCAQMD Resolution No. 11-24 
approving the Contingency Measures SIP; and public process 
documentation.
    On April 24, 2013, the District submitted a technical clarification 
to the Contingency Measures SIP, including updated emissions data for 
2012. See letter dated April 24, 2013, from Elaine Chang, Deputy 
Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, 
EPA Region 9, Re: ``Update of the 2012 RFP Emissions and 2015 
Reductions from Contingency Measures for the 2007 Annual 
PM2.5 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air 
Basin,'' including attachments (hereinafter ``2013 Supplement'').
    The Contingency Measures SIP, as supplemented in 2013, contains: 
(1) The District's demonstration that actual emission levels in the 
South Coast in 2012 were below the RFP ``benchmarks'' for the 2012 RFP 
year; (2) identification of SIP-creditable control measures that will 
provide emission reductions in 2015 in excess of those relied on to 
demonstrate RFP and attainment; and (3) the SCAQMD's analysis of 
significant air quality improvements in the South Coast area that the 
District believes EPA should take into account in its review of and 
action on the SIP submission.

 III. EPA Review of the SIP Revision

A. SIP Procedural Requirements

    CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) 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 SIP submission includes public process documentation for the 
Contingency Measures SIP, including documentation of a duly noticed 
public hearing held by the District on October 7, 2011 on the proposed 
Contingency Measures SIP. On November 14, 2011, CARB adopted the 
Contingency Measures SIP as a revision to the California SIP and 
submitted it to EPA for action pursuant to CAA section 110(k).\3\ We 
find that the process followed by CARB and the District in adopting the 
Contingency Measures SIP complies with the procedural requirements for 
SIP revisions under CAA section 110 and EPA's implementing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 2013 Supplement is not subject to additional procedural 
requirements under the Act as it is a technical clarification that 
does not alter the substance of the Contingency Measures SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Substantive Requirements for Contingency Measures

    Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires that the SIP for each 
nonattainment area ``provide for the implementation of specific 
measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further 
progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable 
under [part D of title I]'' and requires that these measures ``take 
effect without further action by the State or EPA.'' The Act does not 
specify how many contingency measures are required or the magnitude of 
emissions reductions that must be provided by these measures. 
Consistent with the text of section 172(c)(9), however, these measures 
must be specific, adopted measures that are ready to be implemented 
quickly upon failure to meet RFP or failure of the area to meet the 
standard by its attainment date.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We refer to those measures addressing failure to make RFP as 
``RFP contingency measures'' and those measures addressing failure 
to attain as ``attainment contingency measures.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA provided guidance on the section 172(c)(9) contingency measure 
requirement in an interpretative document entitled ``State 
Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title 
I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 
1992) (``General Preamble''). As EPA explained in the General Preamble, 
``contingency measures should, at a minimum, ensure that an appropriate 
level of emissions reduction progress continues to be made if 
attainment [or] RFP is not achieved and additional planning by the 
State is needed.'' 57 FR 13511. These emission reductions would be in 
addition to those that were already scheduled to occur in accordance 
with the plan for the area. Id. at n. 2 and 13543-544. Additionally, 
States must show that their contingency measures can be implemented 
with minimal further action on their part and with no additional 
rulemaking actions such as public hearings or legislative review. In 
general, EPA expects all actions needed to effect full implementation 
of the measures to occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the State of 
its failure. 57 FR 13512 and 13543-544; see also 59 FR 41998 at 42014-
42015 (August 16, 1994)(``PM-10 Addendum'').
    Consistent with these longstanding interpretations of the Act, EPA 
explained in the preamble to its 2007 implementation rule for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS that the SIP should contain trigger mechanisms 
for the contingency measures, specify a schedule for implementation, 
and indicate that the measures will be implemented without significant 
further action by the State or EPA. See 72 FR 20586 at 20642-20645 
(April 25, 2007) and 40 CFR 51.1012.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia (DC Circuit) recently remanded this rule and directed EPA 
to re-promulgate it pursuant to subpart 4 of part D, title I of the 
CAA (see Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 
(D.C. Cir., Jan. 4, 2013)), the court's ruling in this case does not 
affect EPA's action on the Contingency Measures SIP. Subpart 4 of 
part D, title I of the Act contains no specific provision governing 
contingency measures for PM10 or PM2.5 
nonattainment areas that supersedes the general contingency measure 
requirement for all nonattainment areas in CAA section 172(c)(9). 
Thus, even if EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements to our 
evaluation of the Contingency Measures SIP and disregards the 
provisions of the 2007 PM2.5 implementation rule recently 
remanded by the court, the general requirement for contingency 
measures in CAA section 172(c)(9) and EPA's longstanding 
interpretation of it continue to apply.

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

[[Page 37744]]

    Contingency measures can include federal measures and local 
measures already scheduled for implementation that provide emissions 
reductions in excess of those needed to provide for RFP or expeditious 
attainment. The key is that the statute requires that contingency 
measures provide for additional emission reductions that are not relied 
on for RFP or attainment and that are not included in the RFP or 
attainment demonstrations. The purpose is ``to provide a cushion while 
the plan is being revised to meet the missed milestone.'' 72 FR 20642-
20643. Nothing in the statute precludes a State from implementing such 
measures before they are triggered. See, e.g., LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 
575 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding contingency measures that were 
previously required and implemented and which provided emissions 
reductions in excess of those in the attainment demonstration and RFP 
SIP).
    The EPA has approved numerous SIPs under this interpretation--i.e., 
SIPs that use as contingency measures one or more federal or local 
measures that are in place and provide reductions that are in excess of 
the reductions required by the attainment demonstration or RFP plan. 
See, e.g., 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997) (direct final rule approving 
Indiana ozone SIP revision); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997) (final 
rule approving Illinois ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) 
(direct final rule approving Rhode Island ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 
586 (January 3, 2001) (final rule approving District of Columbia, 
Maryland, and Virginia ozone SIP revisions); and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 
2001) (final rule approving Connecticut ozone SIP revision). The State 
may use the same measures for purposes of both RFP and attainment 
contingency if the measures will provide reductions in the relevant 
years. Should these measures first be triggered for failure to make 
RFP, however, the State would need to submit replacement contingency 
measures for attainment purposes. See 57 FR 13511.
    With respect to the level of emission reductions associated with 
contingency measures, EPA has recommended that states consider ``the 
potential nature and extent of any attainment shortfall for the area'' 
and the amount of actual emissions reductions required by the SIP 
control strategy to attain the standards. PM-10 Addendum at 42015; see 
also 72 FR 20643. The contingency measures are to be implemented in the 
event that the area does not meet RFP or attain the standards by the 
attainment date, and ``should represent a portion of the actual 
emissions reductions necessary to bring about attainment in [the] 
area.'' 72 FR 20643. Generally, EPA has recommended that the emissions 
reductions anticipated by the contingency measures should be equal to 
approximately 1 year's worth of emissions reductions necessary to 
achieve RFP for the area. See id. and PM-10 Addendum at 42015.
1. 2012 RFP Contingency Measures
    The Contingency Measures SIP states that the District has 
identified several already-adopted rules that will achieve additional 
emission reductions for the 2012 RFP year beyond those reductions 
already accounted for in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP. 
Additionally, the Contingency Measures SIP provides the District's 
rationale for concluding that significant PM2.5 air quality 
improvements in the South Coast area should be accounted for in 
evaluating the 2012 RFP contingency measure requirement for the area. 
See Contingency Measures SIP at 5-11. Finally, the 2013 Supplement to 
the Contingency Measures SIP provides a demonstration that the South 
Coast area achieved its 2012 RFP benchmarks. Based on our review of the 
District's analyses and our independent review of available 
PM2.5 air monitoring data for the 2002 to 2012 period, EPA 
is proposing to find that the RFP requirement for the 2012 RFP year has 
been met and that, therefore, the contingency measure requirement for 
that year is now moot.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Given our proposal to conclude that contingency measures for 
the 2012 RFP year are no longer required, we do not evaluate here 
the incentive programs and voluntary measures that the Contingency 
Measures SIP discusses for purposes of addressing the 2012 RFP 
contingency measure requirement. To the extent the District 
discusses these same measures to address the attainment contingency 
measure requirement, however, we have reviewed those analyses and 
discuss our evaluation of them in Section III.B.2.b, infra 
(``Attainment Contingency Measures'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the District, recent modeling analyses indicate that 
``existing air quality at all monitoring stations is already better 
than it would be if emissions were at the levels projected in the plan 
for RFP, and an additional one year's worth of reductions had been 
implemented (i.e., simulated implementation of contingency measure on 
top of actually meeting RFP).'' Contingency Measures SIP at 2. The 
District states that the speciated regional modeling analysis in the 
South Coast PM2.5 SIP had predicted that implementation of 
the plan would result in a reduction in the basin-wide design 
concentration from 22.7 [micro]g/m\3\ in 2005 to a value of 17.98 
[micro]g/m\3\ in 2010. Id. at 5. The maximum observed design value for 
2010 at the design value site \7\ (Rubidoux \8\), however, was 15.01 
[micro]g/m\3\ according to the District, 17 percent lower than the 
concentrations projected in the plan. See id.; see also id. at 10, 
Table 2. Accounting for temporary reductions in ambient 
PM2.5 levels due to favorable weather and reduced economic 
activity, the District estimates the PM2.5 design value 
``improvement'' attributable to implementation of its plans, compared 
to previous projections, to be approximately 1.88 [micro]g/m\3\ in 
2010. Id. at 8-10 and Table 2. If PM2.5 air quality at the 
design site (Rubidoux) were to remain at 2010 levels through 2012, the 
difference between the predicted and observed design value would show a 
1.47 [micro]g/m\3\ improvement over the 2012 projections underlying the 
South Coast PM2.5 SIP. Id. at 5. According to the District, 
these PM2.5 air quality improvements equate to approximately 
420 tons per day (tpd) of NOX emission reductions in 2012. 
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Consistent with EPA's definition of ``design value'' in 40 
CFR 58.1, we use the term ``design value site'' to refer to the 
monitoring site that records the highest calculated pollutant 
concentration (according to the applicable appendix of 40 CFR part 
50) in the nonattainment area.
    \8\ Although the current design value site for the area is the 
Mira Loma (Van Buren) monitoring station, this site was not 
accounted for in the analyses underlying the South Coast 
PM2.5 SIP as it was not operational until 2007. See 
Contingency Measures SIP at 5, n. 2. Therefore, the District 
compared the projected and observed values for the Rubidoux 
monitoring site, which was the design value site prior to 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the District's 2013 Supplement includes a 
demonstration that the South Coast area achieved its emission reduction 
benchmarks for the 2012 RFP year. Specifically, the updated emissions 
inventory data \9\ provided in this technical supplement show that 
emissions of direct PM2.5, NOX, VOC, and 
SOX were all below the corresponding 2012 benchmarks in the 
South Coast PM2.5 SIP. See id. at Attachment 1 (``Updated 
Table C-2, South Coast Air Basin PM2.5 Reasonable Further 
Progress''). Based on the District's evaluation of these updated 
emissions data, the District concludes that it satisfied its 2012 RFP 
benchmarks and, accordingly, that RFP

[[Page 37745]]

contingency measures for this milestone year are no longer needed. See 
id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This updated emissions data is based on emissions inventory 
data that the District adopted in December 2012 as part of its Final 
2012 Air Quality Management Plan, which CARB submitted to EPA as a 
SIP revision on February 13, 2013. See letter dated February 13, 
2013, from James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared 
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, transmitting 2012 
AQMP and enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree with the District's conclusion that the South Coast area 
met the 2012 RFP benchmarks in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP and 
that RFP contingency measures for 2012 are, therefore, no longer 
needed. EPA reviewed the updated 2012 emissions inventory data provided 
by the District in the 2013 Supplement and confirmed that the data are 
consistent with the emissions inventory data recently submitted to EPA 
as part of the District's 2012 AQMP, which includes the State's plan to 
provide for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South 
Coast area. See Memorandum from Wienke Tax to File dated May 30, 2013. 
The updated data in the 2013 Supplement show that actual emissions of 
direct PM2.5, NOX, VOC, and SOX in the 
South Coast were all below the corresponding 2012 benchmarks in the 
South Coast PM2.5 SIP.\10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Emissions in the area were well below both the 2012 RFP 
benchmarks that EPA approved as part of the South Coast 
PM2.5 SIP (see 76 FR 41578, Table 8, ``revised projected 
controlled emissions levels'' for 2012) and the RFP ``targets'' 
listed in Attachment 1 of the 2013 Supplement, identified as 
``linear benchmarks'' in the plan. See CARB 2011 Progress Report 
(Hearing Date: April 28, 2011), at Table C-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, EPA independently reviewed PM2.5 air 
quality data available in EPA's ``Air Quality System'' (AQS) for the 
2002-2012 period to assess the District's representations regarding 
PM2.5 air quality improvements in the South Coast area,\11\ 
as well as the District's estimates of the amounts of emission 
reductions that these air quality improvements represent. We believe 
these assessments further support a conclusion that emission levels in 
the South Coast area were below the 2012 RFP benchmarks in the South 
Coast PM2.5 SIP. For more detail on our technical 
evaluations, see Memorandum from Carol Bohnenkamp to File dated May 30, 
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For a more detailed discussion of the air quality data that 
EPA evaluated, see Section III.B.2.c, infra (``PM2.5 air 
quality data'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this information, EPA proposes to find that the RFP 
contingency measure requirement for 2012 is now moot as applied to the 
South Coast. The sole purpose of RFP contingency measures is to provide 
continued progress if the area fails to meet its RFP goal. Failure to 
meet the 2012 benchmark would have required California to implement RFP 
contingency measures and to revise the South Coast PM2.5 SIP 
to assure that the plan still provided for attainment by the attainment 
date of April 5, 2015. In this case, however, the 2013 Supplement 
submitted by the District demonstrates that actual emission levels in 
2012 met the SIP-approved benchmarks for all four pollutants 
(PM2.5, NOX, VOC, and SOX), and both 
the District's and EPA's evaluations of the substantial 
PM2.5 air quality improvements in the South Coast area 
further support a conclusion that emission levels in the area were well 
below the 2012 RFP benchmarks. Accordingly, RFP contingency measures 
for 2012 no longer have meaning or purpose, and the requirement for 
them is moot.
2. Attainment Contingency Measures
a. Regulatory Measures and Programs
    The South Coast PM2.5 SIP, as partially approved and 
partially disapproved by EPA in November 2011 (76 FR 69928), provides 
for the continuing implementation of existing CARB mobile source 
measures that will achieve 24 tpd of NOX reductions and 13 
tpd of VOC reductions in 2015. See 76 FR 41562 at 41580, Table 9, and 
Final TSD for South Coast PM2.5 SIP at 126. These mobile 
source emission reductions are surplus to the reductions relied upon to 
demonstrate RFP and attainment because they occur in 2015 (after 
implementation of all control measures necessary for expeditious 
attainment) \12\ and will achieve approximately one half of the 
NOX and VOC emission reductions needed to achieve 1 year's 
worth of RFP.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Consistent with CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 
51.1007(b), the South Coast PM2.5 SIP provides for the 
implementation of all control measures needed for attainment as 
expeditiously as practicable and no later than the beginning of the 
year prior to the attainment date (i.e., by January 2014). See 76 FR 
69928 at 69942 (November 9, 2011).
    \13\ See n. 2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Contingency Measures SIP also identifies two stationary source 
control measures that the District believes should be creditable 
towards meeting the attainment contingency measure requirement: (1) The 
``SOX RECLAIM Shave,'' which is projected to achieve 1.10 
tpd of SOX reductions in 2014, and (2) SCAQMD Rule 1113 
(Architectural Coatings), which is projected to achieve 1.30 tpd of VOC 
reductions in 2015. See Contingency Measure SIP at 12-13, 17 and 2013 
Supplement, Attachment 2.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Contingency Measures SIP identifies emission reductions 
for 2014 but in the 2013 Supplement, the District provided updated 
2015 emission reductions for Rule 1113 and several other measures. 
See 2013 Supplement, Attachment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA approved the SOX RECLAIM Shave into the California 
SIP on August 12, 2011. See 76 FR 50128. Because all of the 
SOX emission reductions associated with these rule 
improvements have already been credited toward the PM2.5 
attainment demonstration as part of EPA's November 9, 2011 final action 
on the South Coast PM2.5 SIP, the 1.10 tpd of SOX 
reductions identified in the Contingency Measure SIP are not surplus to 
attainment requirements and, therefore, cannot be treated as 
contingency measures. See 76 FR 41562 at 41569, Table 3 (July 14, 2011) 
and 76 FR 69928 at 69948, Table 1 (November 9, 2011).
    EPA has also approved SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) 
into the California SIP. 78 FR 18244 (March 26, 2013). The 1.30 tpd of 
2015 VOC reductions associated with this measure in the Contingency 
Measure SIP are not relied on for RFP or attainment purposes in the 
South Coast PM2.5 SIP. See South Coast 2007 AQMP at pp. 4-
10, Table 4-2A; see also 76 FR 41562 at 41569, Table 3 (July 14, 2011) 
and 76 FR 69928 at 69948, Table 1 (November 9, 2011). EPA therefore 
agrees with the District that Rule 1113 may serve as an attainment 
contingency measure for purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Additionally, the 2013 Supplement identifies two new stationary 
source control measures scheduled for adoption in May 2013 that are 
expected to collectively achieve 0.6 tpd of direct PM2.5 
emission reductions in 2015. See 2013 Supplement, Attachment 2 
(identifying SCAQMD Rule 444 and Rule 445). The 0.6 tpd of direct 
PM2.5 emission reductions associated with these two measures 
in the Contingency Measure SIP are not relied on for RFP or attainment 
purposes in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP. See 76 FR 41562 at 
41569, Table 3 (July 14, 2011) and 76 FR 69928 at 69948, Table 1 
(November 9, 2011). On May 3, 2013, the District adopted both measures 
and CARB submitted them to EPA on June 12, 2013. In a separate notice 
published in today's Federal Register, EPA is proposing to approve 
these rules into the California SIP. See ``Revisions to the California 
State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management 
District,'' pre-publication proposed rule signed June 12, 2013.
    Finally, the Contingency Measures SIP states that an additional 
17.6 tpd of NOX reductions, 4.5 tpd of VOC reductions, and 
1.1 tpd of SOX reductions will be achieved in 2015 through 
continued implementation of the District's 2007 Ozone Attainment Plan, 
and that these ``backstop'' emission reductions provide the equivalent 
of contingency measures for the South Coast PM2.5 SIP. See 
Contingency Measures SIP at 10-11 and Table 3. Although control 
measures relied upon in an ozone attainment plan

[[Page 37746]]

may qualify for approval as contingency measures for the 
PM2.5 NAAQS, provided the measures are surplus to 
PM2.5 attainment and RFP requirements and meet all other EPA 
criteria for SIP approval, the Contingency Measures SIP does not 
provide EPA with sufficient information to determine whether the 
referenced ozone-related measures meet these approval criteria. 
Accordingly, we cannot at this time propose to approve these 
``backstop'' ozone-related measures as PM2.5 contingency 
measures at this time.
    In sum, taking into account surplus emission reductions in the 
South Coast PM2.5 SIP that EPA previously identified as 
available for contingency measure purposes, the total amount of 
emission reductions from regulatory control measures that we are 
proposing to approve as part of the Contingency Measures SIP are as 
follows: 24 tpd of NOX reductions from fleet turnover; 14.3 
tpd of VOC reductions from fleet turnover and SCAQMD Rule 1113; and 0.6 
tpd of direct PM2.5 emission reductions from SCAQMD Rule 444 
and Rule 445, which will be available for contingency purposes upon 
final EPA approval of these rules into the SIP. See Table 4.
b. Voluntary Measures, Incentive Programs, and Miscellaneous ``Excess 
Reductions''
    The Contingency Measures SIP identifies several voluntary measures 
and incentive programs that the District believes should qualify for 
approval as PM2.5 contingency measures because emission 
reductions achieved by these measures have not been accounted for in 
the South Coast PM2.5 SIP. The submittal also identifies 
certain miscellaneous ``excess reductions'' resulting from economic 
conditions and source operations below permit limits, which the 
District believes should qualify for approval as contingency measures. 
We discuss each of these programs/measures and our evaluations below.
Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program
    The Contingency Measures SIP identifies a portion of the Carl Moyer 
Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program) 
as a contingency measure for the PM2.5 NAAQS. See 
Contingency Measures SIP at 14 and 17, Table 4 and 2013 Supplement, 
Attachment 2. We are proposing to approve specific amounts of emission 
reductions from the Carl Moyer Program, as identified in the District's 
submissions, for this purpose.
    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. See generally California Air Resources Board, ``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). In its first 12 years, the Carl 
Moyer Program provided over $680 million in state and local funds to 
reduce air pollution emissions 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. Id.
    The Contingency Measures SIP, as supplemented in 2013, states that 
certain Carl Moyer Program projects funded beginning in program year 
2005-06 to program year 2009-2010 will provide 3.2 tpd of 
NOX reductions and 0.2 tpd of PM2.5 reductions in 
2015 that may be treated as contingency measures. See Contingency 
Measures SIP at 14 and 17, Table 4 and 2013 Supplement, Attachment 2 
(``2015 Emission Reductions Beyond 2007 AQMP SIP Commitment Available 
for Contingency'').\15\ In the 2013 Supplement, the District clarified 
that these emission reductions would be obtained from the following 
source categories participating in Carl Moyer programs: on-road heavy 
duty engines, off-road diesel equipment, marine engines, and locomotive 
engines. See 2013 Supplement, Attachment 2, notes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Contingency Measures SIP, as initially submitted in 
November 2011, provides emission reductions for 2014 (4.43 tpd of 
NOX reductions, 0.06 tpd of PM reductions, and 0.17 tpd 
of VOC reductions), but we are evaluating the updated 2015 emission 
reductions provided in the 2013 Supplement because 2015 is the 
relevant year for attainment contingency measure purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPA's long-standing policy, voluntary mobile source emission 
reduction programs (VMEPs) that meet certain minimum criteria may 
qualify for a limited amount of SIP credit under the CAA. See generally 
Memorandum dated October 24, 1997 from Richard D. Wilson, Acting 
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional 
Administrators, Regions 1-10, entitled ``Guidance on Incorporating 
Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in State 
Implementation Plans (SIPs)'' (hereinafter ``1997 VMEP''). To qualify 
for SIP credit, a VMEP must be consistent with SIP attainment and RFP 
requirements and must achieve emission reductions that are 
quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, and permanent. See 1997 VMEP at 6, 
7. Additionally, the VMEP submission must be accompanied by sufficient 
technical support for EPA to determine that the statutory criteria for 
approval are met--e.g., procedures designed to compare projected 
emission reductions with actual emissions reductions achieved; State 
commitments to monitor, assess, and report on program implementation 
and actual emission reductions achieved; and procedures for the State 
to remedy emission reduction shortfalls in a timely manner. Id. The 
State must also demonstrate that it has adequate personnel and program 
resources to implement the program and that the VMEP does not interfere 
with other requirements of the Act. Id. EPA has generally limited the 
amount of emission reductions allowed for VMEPs in a SIP to three 
percent (3%) of the total projected future year emission reductions 
required to attain the relevant NAAQS, and with respect to any 
particular SIP submittal to demonstrate attainment or maintenance of 
the NAAQS or progress toward attainment (RFP), 3% of the specific 
statutory requirement. Id. at 5.
    Consistent with these criteria, the SCAQMD submitted an enforceable 
commitment in 2007 to take ``all actions necessary to ensure that 
emission reductions resulting from projects funded by the Carl Moyer 
Program will meet U.S. EPA criteria (surplus, quantifiable, 
enforceable, and permanent for life of project) and requirements for 
SIP creditability to meet federal Clean Air Act requirements.'' See 
South Coast AQMD Board Resolution No. 07-9, dated June 1, 2007 
(adopting South Coast 2007 AQMP) (``2007 Resolution''). Specifically, 
the 2007 Resolution includes the District's commitments to: (1) 
Calculate emission reductions from Carl Moyer Program projects using 
established quantification protocols specified in the applicable Carl 
Moyer Program Guidelines; (2) verify surplus emission reductions 
through a comprehensive inspection, monitoring and reporting program 
for each project funded by the Carl Moyer Program, (3) conduct onsite 
inspections, random audits, and other monitoring activities to ensure 
that funded projects are implemented according to contract terms; (4) 
submit reports to EPA by November 30 of each calendar year, verifying 
the amounts of actual emission reductions achieved by the Carl Moyer 
Program grants for the preceding funding cycle, and (5) take specific 
actions to remedy any shortfalls in

[[Page 37747]]

emission reductions, to ensure that contracted emission reductions 
occur. Id. The District also submitted technical support documentation 
describing the Carl Moyer Program, the District's policies for 
implementing the program, and the methodologies for predicting 
emissions benefits. See generally South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix IV-B-
3, ``District Implementation of the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality 
Standards Attainment Program,'' available electronically at https://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/aqmp/Appendix_IV-B-3_section1.pdf.
    EPA approved these District commitments into the California SIP as 
part of our November 2011 final action on the South Coast 
PM2.5 SIP, thereby making the commitments federally 
enforceable. See 76 FR 69928 at 69954 (November 9, 2011) and 40 CFR 
52.220(c)(398)(ii)(A)(2) (codifying SCAQMD commitment ``to fulfill 
USEPA Requirements for the use of emissions reductions [from] the Carl 
Moyer Program in the State Implementation Plan, June 1, 2007''). EPA 
also approved the District's technical documentation describing the 
Carl Moyer Program as part of the South Coast PM2.5 SIP. See 
40 CFR 52.220(c)(398)(ii)(A)(1). In the 2013 Supplement, the District 
affirmed its SIP-approved commitments to ``take all actions necessary 
to assure that emissions reductions resulting from the projects funded 
by the Carl Moyer Program will meet U.S. EPA criteria . . . and 
requirements for SIP creditability,'' including its obligation to 
prepare and submit annual reports to EPA by November 30 of each year 
identifying actual emission reductions achieved compared to predicted 
emissions reductions and audit information for each grant issued. See 
letter dated April 24, 2013, from Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive 
Officer, SCAQMD, to Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, U.S. EPA 
Region 9, transmitting 2013 Supplement.
    The SIP-approved commitments in the 2007 Resolution enable the 
District to quantify the emission reductions attributed to the Carl 
Moyer Program, verify that those emission reductions are surplus to 
other CAA requirements, enforce the conditions of the Carl Moyer 
Program grants to ensure that contracted emission reductions are 
achieved, and monitor the continuing implementation of program grants 
to ensure that emission reductions are ``permanent'' throughout the 
life of each project. The 3.2 tpd of NOx reductions and 0.2 tpd of 
PM2.5 reductions attributed to the Carl Moyer Program in 
2015 for contingency measure purposes each amount to less than 2% of 
the total projected emission reductions of each pollutant needed to 
attain the PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area.\16\ Finally, 
information provided in the South Coast 2007 AQMP demonstrates that the 
District has adequate personnel and program resources to implement the 
Carl Moyer Program. See generally, South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix IV-
B-3, ``District Implementation of the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality 
Standards Attainment Program,'' at Section 1, available electronically 
at https://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/aqmp/Appendix_IV-B-3_section1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The South Coast PM2.5 SIP projects that the 
total amounts of emission reductions needed to attain the 
PM2.5 NAAQS, from a 2002 base year to a 2014 attainment 
year, are as follows: 633 tpd of NOx reductions, 370 tpd of VOC 
reductions, 13 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions, and 33 tpd 
of SOx reductions. See 76 FR 69928 at 69950, Table 4 (November 9, 
2011) and Final TSD at 97 (Table F-9). Thus, the Carl Moyer Program 
reductions identified in the Contingency Measures SIP amount to 
approximately 0.5 percent of the NOx reductions and 1.5 percent of 
the PM2.5 reductions needed for timely attainment of the 
PM2.5 NAAQS. The Contingency Measures SIP provides these 
Carl Moyer Program emission reductions for the sole purpose of 
fulfilling the requirements for contingency measures in CAA section 
172(c)(9) and not for the purposes of demonstrating attainment or 
maintenance of the NAAQS or progress toward attainment (RFP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our evaluation of the District's enforceable SIP 
commitments regarding the Carl Moyer Program and technical 
documentation provided by the District in its SIP submissions, we 
propose to find that the 2015 emission reductions associated with the 
Carl Moyer Program in the Contingency Measures SIP, as supplemented in 
2013, satisfy the statutory criteria for SIP credit for contingency 
measure purposes. The Carl Moyer Program procedures have served as 
models for the design of national, state, and local credit validation 
systems for mobile source subsidy programs, and California continuously 
refines these guidelines to accurately reflect the reductions 
associated with the program subsidies. The procedures address emission 
reduction quantification issues associated with both baseline emissions 
and the amount of reductions achievable from the various repower, 
retrofit, and replacement technologies and alternative fuel options, as 
well as issues associated with project life and enforceable 
requirements to ensure that reductions continue within the 
nonattainment area.
    Given all of these considerations, we propose to approve these Carl 
Moyer Program emission reductions as attainment contingency measures 
for the PM2.5 NAAQS. Upon EPA's final approval of the 
Contingency Measures SIP, the District will be obligated to monitor, 
assess, and report to EPA on implementation of the Carl Moyer Program 
with respect to the four specific source categories identified in the 
2013 Supplement (on-road heavy duty engines, off-road diesel equipment, 
marine engines, and locomotive engines). See 2013 Supplement, 
Attachment 2. Additionally, should EPA subsequently determine that the 
South Coast area has failed to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the 
applicable attainment date of April 5, 2015, the District will be 
obligated to verify through its next annual report to EPA whether the 
3.2 tpd of NOx reductions and 0.2 tpd of PM2.5 reductions 
identified in the 2013 Supplement occurred in 2015, and if not, to take 
specific actions to remedy any emission reduction shortfalls consistent 
with its SIP-approved commitments in 40 CFR 52.220(c)(398)(ii)(A)(2). 
We are proposing to approve these Carl Moyer Program emission 
reductions for the sole purpose of satisfying the attainment 
contingency measure requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast.
Other Voluntary Measures and Incentive Programs
    The Contingency Measures SIP identifies several other voluntary 
measures and incentive programs that the District believes should 
qualify for approval as PM2.5 attainment contingency 
measures.\17\ For the reasons provided below, these programs do not 
qualify for approval as contingency measures at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ According to the District, all but one of these measures 
will achieve surplus emission reductions in both 2012 and 2014 and 
may, therefore, serve both as 2012 RFP contingency measures and as 
attainment contingency measures. As explained above in Section 
III.B.1, EPA is not evaluating the 2012 emission reduction estimates 
that the District provided for each of these measures, given our 
proposal to conclude that the 2012 RFP contingency measure 
requirement is now moot for this area. See n. 6, supra. We therefore 
evaluate only the emission reduction estimates associated with these 
measures for attainment contingency measure purposes (i.e., for 
2015), as provided in the 2013 Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the submittal states that the ``average vehicle ridership'' 
(AVR) portion of SCAQMD Rule 2202 (On-Road Mobile Source Vehicle 
Mitigation Options) requires employers with 250 or more employees to 
develop rideshare programs or help fund an air quality improvement 
program to achieve equivalent emissions reductions to meet the AVR 
target. Contingency Measures SIP at 13. The District states that this 
measure will achieve 1.32 tpd of NOX reductions and 0.06 tpd 
of direct PM2.5 reductions in 2014 beyond those relied

[[Page 37748]]

on for attainment, and that the measure could therefore serve as an 
attainment contingency measure. Id. at 17, Table 4. EPA does not 
currently have sufficient information to evaluate the emission 
reductions associated with this measure as the State has not submitted 
the measure or any supporting documentation to EPA. Thus, we cannot 
propose to approve this measure as a contingency measure at this time.
    Second, the submittal states that the AB 2766 program provides 
annual funding to local governments in the South Coast air basin to 
reduce mobile source emissions and that the SCAQMD submits annual 
reports about the emission reductions under AB 2766 to CARB. 
Contingency Measures SIP at 13. The District states that this measure 
will achieve 1.90 tpd of NOX reductions and 0.30 tpd of 
direct PM2.5 reductions in 2014 beyond those relied on for 
attainment, and that this measure could therefore serve as an 
attainment contingency measure. Id. at 17, Table 4. EPA does not 
currently have sufficient information to evaluate the emission 
reductions associated with this measure as the State has not submitted 
the measure or any supporting documentation to EPA. Thus, we cannot 
approve this measure as a contingency measure at this time.
    Third, the submittal states that the Ports of Los Angeles and Long 
Beach (POLA/POLB) have been facilitating use of shore-side power as 
part of the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (referred to as 
the ``Ocean-Going Vessel At-Berth''), and that these measures reduce 
emissions further than those achieved by a statewide (CARB) regulation 
that requires a percentage of certain ocean-going vessels (OGVs) to use 
shore-side power while at berth. Contingency Measures SIP at 14. The 
District states that these POLA/POLB measures will achieve 3.3 tpd of 
NOX reductions and 0.06 tpd of direct PM2.5 
reductions in 2014 beyond those relied on for attainment, and that the 
measures may therefore serve as attainment contingency measures. Id. at 
17, Table 4. EPA does not currently have sufficient information to 
evaluate the emission reductions associated with these measures as the 
State has not submitted the measures or any supporting documentation to 
EPA. Thus, we cannot approve these measures as contingency measures at 
this time.
    Finally, the submittal states that early implementation of certain 
provisions of the ``SCAQMD Surplus Off-Road Opt-In for NOX'' 
(SOON) program, adopted by the SCAQMD in May 2008, will achieve 0.30 
tpd of PM2.5 emission reductions in 2014 beyond those relied 
on for attainment, and that this program could therefore serve as an 
attainment contingency measure. Contingency Measures SIP at 15 and 17, 
Table 4. CARB submitted this measure (Rule 2449) to EPA on July 18, 
2008 but EPA has not yet taken any action on it. Thus, we cannot 
propose to approve this measure as a contingency measure at this time.
    EPA is currently working with the State and districts to develop 
reliable processes for documenting the emission reductions associated 
with voluntary and incentive programs for SIP purposes. The goal is to 
develop processes that ensure that the emission reductions resulting 
from voluntary and incentive programs are surplus, quantifiable, 
enforceable and permanent consistent with the Act as interpreted in EPA 
guidance. EPA strongly encourages CARB and the SCAQMD to continue 
implementing effective incentive programs and voluntary measures as 
part of their strategies for meeting air quality goals and to continue 
discussing with EPA the potential incorporation of these incentive 
programs and measures into SIP planning processes going forward. We 
welcome public comments on how to ensure that emission reductions 
resulting from these programs meet the Act's requirements for SIP 
credit.
Miscellaneous ``Excess Reductions''
    The Contingency Measures SIP states that permitted sources in the 
South Coast area often achieve ``excess reductions'' beyond those 
assumed in the SIP. For example, the District states that sources 
typically emit at levels well below allowable levels to maintain 
adequate compliance margins, or they may comply with stringent control 
standards through preconstruction review processes that reduce 
emissions below the levels assumed in the SIP. Contingency Measures SIP 
at 15. Furthermore, the District states that the recent recession in 
the region ``would further lower the growth projections that were 
previously assumed in the 2007 PM2.5 SIP.'' Id. The District 
states that these factors combined caused significantly lower emissions 
in 2010 compared to the levels projected for that year in the South 
Coast PM2.5 SIP. Id. According to the District, these 
circumstances will result in approximately 6.42 tpd of NOX 
reductions, 0.45 tpd of PM2.5 reductions, and 8.75 tpd of 
VOC reductions in 2014 beyond the reductions relied on for attainment, 
which collectively equate to about 14 tpd of ``NOX 
equivalent'' emission reductions for that year. Id. at 15 and 17, Table 
4.
    We disagree with these statements. Emission reductions that occur 
as a result of business decisions to maintain adequate compliance 
margins or due to an unexpected economic recession are not approvable 
as contingency measures unless such reductions are quantifiable, 
surplus, enforceable, and permanent and meet all applicable CAA 
requirements for approval. Even assuming the ``excess'' emission 
reductions identified in the Contingency Measures SIP are in fact 
surplus to those that are specifically relied upon in the South Coast 
PM2.5 SIP for attainment purposes, these reductions are not 
SIP-creditable without adequate documentation to show that the 
reductions are also quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent consistent 
with long-standing EPA policy. The Contingency Measures SIP provides no 
such documentation. Accordingly, the ``excess'' reductions associated 
with 14 tpd of ``NOx equivalent'' emission reductions in 2015 are not 
SIP-creditable at this time.
c. PM2.5 Air Quality Data
    The Contingency Measures SIP provides the District's rationale for 
concluding that significant PM2.5 air quality improvements 
in the South Coast area should be accounted for in evaluating the 
attainment contingency measure requirement for the area. See 
Contingency Measures SIP at 5-11. Based on our review of the District's 
analyses and our independent review of available PM2.5 air 
monitoring data for the 2002-2012 period, EPA agrees that these air 
quality improvements should be taken into account in evaluating the 
level of emission reductions needed for purposes of meeting the 
attainment contingency measure requirement under CAA section 172(c)(9). 
Although these air quality improvements do not, in themselves, 
represent SIP-creditable emission reductions, we believe the 
significant decline in ambient PM2.5 levels observed during 
the 2002-2012 period provides a reasonable basis for concluding that 
emission reductions amounting to less than 1 year's worth of RFP are 
adequate for PM2.5 attainment contingency measure purposes 
in this particular nonattainment area.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the 1997 annual primary and 
secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the annual arithmetic 
mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 
appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ at all relevant 
monitoring sites in the subject area. The 1997 24-hour primary and 
secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the 98th percentile 
24-

[[Page 37749]]

hour concentration, also as determined in accordance with appendix N, 
is less than or equal to 65 [micro]g/m\3\ at all relevant monitoring 
sites. 40 CFR 50.7(b), (c).
    EPA independently reviewed PM2.5 air quality data 
available in EPA's ``Air Quality System'' (AQS) for the 2002-2012 
period to assess the District's representations regarding 
PM2.5 air quality improvements in the South Coast area.\18\ 
The SCAQMD currently operates 20 regulatory PM2.5 monitoring 
sites in the South Coast air basin and annually reports quality-assured 
ambient PM2.5 data from these sampling sites to the EPA AQS 
database. See SCAQMD, Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan (July 
2012), at 7-9 and 21, Table 5. EPA has approved the District's 
monitoring network as satisfying the network design and data adequacy 
requirements of 40 CFR part 58. See letter dated April 18, 2013, from 
Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region 9, to 
Dr. Matt Miyasato, Deputy Executive Officer, Science and Technology 
Advancement, SCAQMD. Quality-assured and certified ambient air quality 
data collected through the District's monitoring network and available 
in AQS show that PM2.5 levels in the South Coast 
nonattainment area were significantly lower in the years leading to 
2012 than the levels projected in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP 
for this period, and that both annual and 24-hour concentrations have 
declined significantly at all monitors in the area. See U.S. EPA, Air 
Quality System, Preliminary Design Value Report, PM2.5, 
2002-2012 (Report Date: May 10, 2013); see also U.S. EPA, Data Quality 
Indicator Report, SCAQMD, California, PM2.5 (April 26, 2012) 
and letter dated May 1, 2012, from Chung Liu, Deputy Executive Officer, 
Science and Technology Advancement, SCAQMD, to Jared Blumenfeld, 
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9 (certifying air quality data 
submitted to AQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EPA evaluated these data only preliminarily, for purposes 
of determining whether the Contingency Measures SIP satisfies the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9), and is not at this time 
proposing to make any formal determination regarding attainment for 
the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 lists the annual mean PM2.5 concentration at 
each monitor in the South Coast air basin during the 2002-2012 period.

                                            Table 1--PM[ihel2].[ihel5] Annual Mean Concentrations, 2002-2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             One-year annual mean ([mu]g/m\3\)
                        Site                            AQS ID   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007    2008    2009    2010    2011    2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Azusa..............................................    060370002    20.7    19.3    18.3    17.0    15.4    15.7    14.0    13.1    10.8    12.1    11.0
Burbank--Palm Ave..................................    060371002    24.0    22.1    19.1    17.8    16.5    16.9    13.9    15.3    12.8    13.5    12.6
LA--North Main.....................................    060371103    22.0    21.3    19.7    17.8    15.6    16.8    16.1    14.4    12.6    13.5    13.2
Reseda.............................................    060371201    18.9    16.5    15.7    13.9    12.8    13.3    11.8    11.4    10.1    10.2    10.5
Lynwood............................................    060371301    23.3    20.3    18.5    17.5    16.7    16.0    14.6  ......  ......  ......  ......
Compton............................................    060371302  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......    12.4    14.7    12.5    12.5    11.7
Pico Rivera 1.............................    060371601    24.0    20.6    20.0    15.2  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
Pico Rivera 2.............................    060371602  ......  ......  ......    22.3    16.6    16.6    14.9    14.8    12.5    12.5    11.9
Pasadena...........................................    060372005    20.3    18.6    16.6    15.1    13.4    14.4    12.8    12.3    10.2    10.8    10.1
Long Beach.........................................    060374002    19.5    18.0    17.9    15.9    14.1    14.6    14.1    12.8    10.4    11.3    10.6
Long Beach--PCH....................................    060374004  ......    20.6    16.5    14.7    14.4    13.7    13.7    12.5    10.4    10.7    10.9
Anaheim............................................    060590007    18.6    17.3    17.0    14.7    14.0    14.4    13.1    12.1    10.5    11.1    10.0
Mission Viejo......................................    060592022    15.5    13.1    12.0    10.6    11.0    11.1    10.4     9.5     8.0     8.5     7.9
Riverside..........................................    060651003    27.1    22.6    20.8    17.9    16.9    18.3    13.3    13.3    11.0    11.8    11.4
Rubidoux...........................................    060658001    27.5    24.8    22.1    20.9    18.9    19.0    16.4    15.6    13.3    13.8    13.7
Mira Loma..........................................    060658005  ......  ......  ......  ......    20.8    20.9    18.3    17.2    15.5    15.9    15.3
Ontario............................................    060710025    25.4    23.8    20.9    18.8    18.4    18.3    15.8    14.7    13.0    13.3    12,4
Fontana............................................    060712002    24.3    22.1    19.9    18.8    17.5    18.9    15.3    14.2    11.9    12.6    12.8
Big Bear...........................................    060718001    11.5    10.6     9.6    12.0    11.3    10.3     9.1     9.9     8.4     8.4     8.0
San Bernardino.....................................    060719004    25.8    22.2    21.9    17.3    17.6    17.9    13.4    13.0    11.1    12.2    11.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. EPA, Air Quality System, Preliminary Design Value Report, PM2.5, 2002-2012 (Report Date: May 10, 2013).

    Table 2 lists the annual PM2.5 design value at each 
monitor in the South Coast air basin for the 2002-2012 period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Most but not all of these design values are based on data 
that meet EPA's completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, 
section 4.0. See Memorandum from Meredith Kurpius to File dated May 
10, 2013.

                                               Table 2--Annual PM[ihel2].[ihel5] Design Values, 2002-2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           One-year annual mean ([mu]g/m\3\)\19\
                        Site                            AQS ID   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007    2008    2009    2010    2011    2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Azusa..............................................    060370002    20.8    20.6    19.4    18.2    16.9    16.0    15.1    14.3    12.7    12.0    11.3
Burbank--Palm Ave..................................    060371002    23.3    23.6    21.7    19.7    17.8    17.1    15.8    15.4    14.0    13.9    12.9
LA--North Main.....................................    060371103    22.2    22.0    21.0    19.6    17.7    16.7    16.1    15.8    14.4    13.5    13.1
Reseda.............................................    060371201    18.4    17.9    17.0    15.4    14.1    13.3    12.6    12.1    11.1    10.6    10.3
Lynwood............................................    060371301    23.6    22.7    20.7    18.7    17.5    16.7    15.8    15.3    14.6  ......  ......
Compton............................................    060371302  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......    12.4    13.5    13.2    13.4    12.4
Pico Rivera 1.............................    060371601    24.4    23.3    21.5    18.6    17.6    15.2  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
Pico Rivera 2.............................    060371602  ......  ......  ......    22.3    19.5    18.5    16.0    15.4    14.1    13.3    12.3
Pasadena...........................................    060372005    20.2    19.9    18.5    16.8    15.0    14.3    13.5    13.2    11.8    11.1    10.4
Long Beach.........................................    060374002    20.1    19.6    18.5    17.3    16.0    14.9    14.3    13.9    12.4    11.5    10.8
Long Beach--PCH....................................    060374004  ......    20.6    18.6    17.3    15.2    14.3    13.9    13.3    12.2    11.2    10.7
Anaheim............................................    060590007    22.0    20.4    17.6    16.3    15.2    14.3    13.8    13.2    11.9    11.2    10.8
Mission Viejo......................................    060592022    15.4    14.8    13.5    11.9    11.2    10.9    10.8    10.3     9.3     8.7     8.1
Riverside..........................................    060651003    26.9    25.9    23.5    20.5    18.6    17.7    16.2    15.0    12.5    12.0    11.4

[[Page 37750]]

 
Rubidoux...........................................    060658001    28.9    27.8    24.8    22.6    20.6    19.6    18.1    17.0    15.1    14.2    13.6
Mira Loma..........................................    060658005  ......  ......  ......  ......    20.8    20.9    20.0    18.8    17.0    16.2    15.6
Ontario............................................    060710025    25.3    25.2    23.4    21.2    19.4    18.5    17.5    16.2    14.5    13.7    12.9
Fontana............................................    060712002    24.6    23.8    22.1    20.3    18.7    18.4    17.2    16.1    13.8    12.9    12.4
Big Bear...........................................    060718001    10.9    11.1    10.6    10.8    11.0    11.2    10.3     9.8     9.1     8.9     8.3
San Bernardino.....................................    060719004    25.9    24.7    23.3    20.5    18.9    17.6    16.3    14.7    12.5    12.1    11.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. EPA, Air Quality System, Preliminary Design Value Report, PM2.5, 2002-2012 (Report Date: May 10, 2013).

    Table 3 lists the 24-hour PM2.5 design value at each 
monitor in the South Coast air basin for the 2002-2012 period.

                                               Table 3--24-Hour PM[ihel2].[ihel5] Design Values, 2002-2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          24-Hour Design Value ([mu]g/m\3\) \20\
                        Site                            AQS ID   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007    2008    2009    2010    2011    2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Azusa..............................................    060370002      59      57      54      54      48      47      41      42      38      36      31
Burbank--Palm Ave..................................    060371002      69      62      55      53      48      48      43      41      34      34      32
LA--North Main.....................................    060371103      62      58      57      56      49      48      43      42      35      34      32
Reseda.............................................    060371201      51      49      48      45      40      34      30      29      29      28      30
Lynwood............................................    060371301      60      57      53      51      49      46      41      39      33  ......  ......
Compton............................................    060371302  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......      13      25      28      34      31
Pico Rivera 1.............................    060371601      65      58      53      51      52      51  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
Pico Rivera 2.............................    060371602  ......  ......  ......      58      51      50      43      41      35      33      31
Pasadena...........................................    060372005      53      51      48      46      41      40      37      38      31      30      27
Long Beach.........................................    060374002      54      48      46      45      41      39      38      38      33      30      28
Long Beach--PCH....................................    060374004  ......      53      48      44      38      36      35      34      31      28      27
Anaheim............................................    060590007      54      53      49      47      42      42      38      37      30      29      27
Mission Viejo......................................    060592022      43      43      41      36      32      31      29      29      23      23      21
Riverside..........................................    060651003      65      62      58      50      47      49      48      44      33      30      27
Rubidoux...........................................    060658001      73      72      67      65      57      55      50      45      38      35      34
Mira Loma..........................................    060658005      62  ......  ......  ......      53      56      53      49      41      39      37
Ontario............................................    060710025      62      63      61      59      50      47      45      43      37      34      32
Fontana............................................    060712002      64      60      58      55      52      52      52      48      37      31      32
Big Bear...........................................    060718001      30      30      28      30      34      38      36      32      30      29      29
San Bernardino.....................................    060719004      68      64      66      58      55      54      53      49      35      32      30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. EPA, Air Quality System, Preliminary Design Value Report, PM2.5, 2002-2012 (Report Date: May 10, 2013).

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

    \20\ See ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to these certified ambient air quality data, the highest 
annual mean PM2.5 concentration in the South Coast area 
dropped from 27.5 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2002 (at Rubidoux) to 15.3 [mu]g/m\3\ 
in 2012 (at Mira Loma), and the annual PM2.5 design value 
for the area dropped from 28.9 [mu]g/m\3\ to 15.6 [mu]g/m\3\ during 
this same timeframe. Daily PM2.5 design values at all 
monitors in the South Coast area also declined significantly, from 73 
[mu]g/m\3\ (at Rubidoux) in 2002 to 37 [mu]g/m\3\ (at Mira Loma) in 
2012. All monitors in the South Coast area have recorded 24-hour 
PM2.5 design values below the 24-hour PM2.5 
standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ since at least 2006, and as of 2010 most 
monitors were also recording 24-hour design values below the more 
stringent 2006 24-hour standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See also Final TSD for South Coast PM2.5 SIP at 
8, Figure IB-3 (``South Coast AQMP 1997 24-hour PM2.5 
Design Value Concentration Trends 2000-2010'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These data indicate that actual emission levels in the area during 
the years leading to 2012 were significantly lower than the levels 
projected for this period in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP. The 
data also indicate that the area is already attaining the 1997 24-hour 
PM2.5 standard (65 [mu]g/m\3\) and may also attain the 
annual standard (15 [mu]g/m\3\) in advance of the applicable attainment 
date of April 5, 2015. Accordingly, compared to the assumptions 
underlying the South Coast PM2.5 SIP, in reality the 
likelihood that attainment contingency measures will never need to be 
triggered is much greater, and the extent of any potential attainment 
shortfall much lower, than was predicted. Therefore, given the 
proximity of the applicable attainment date (April 5, 2015) and the 
probability that the area will attain the PM2.5 standards by 
that date \22\ or, in the event it fails to attain, that a smaller 
amount of additional emission reductions (compared to the levels 
identified in the plan as needed to achieve 1 year's worth of RFP) will 
be needed to bring about attainment in the area, we believe it is 
appropriate to find that emission reductions amounting to less than 1 
year's worth of RFP are adequate to satisfy the attainment contingency 
measure requirement in these particular circumstances. This conclusion 
is consistent with EPA's long-standing recommendation that states 
should consider ``the potential nature and extent of any attainment 
shortfall for the area'' and that contingency measures ``should 
represent a portion of the actual emissions reductions necessary to 
bring about attainment in the area.'' See PM-10 Addendum at 42015 and 
72 FR 20643.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ EPA is not aware of any information indicating significant 
changes (such as a sharp upturn in economic or population growth, or 
dramatic meteorological shift) that might adversely affect the 
consistent historical trend in the area to improved air quality, 
during the relatively short amount of time remaining before April 5, 
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Surplus emission reductions in South Coast PM2.5 SIP
    The Contingency Measures SIP states that the South Coast 
PM2.5 SIP identified emission reductions sufficient for the

[[Page 37751]]

South Coast air basin to reach 15.00 [mu]g/m\3\ by April 2015, which is 
more than necessary to demonstrate timely attainment according to EPA 
modeling guidelines. Specifically, the District states that EPA 
guidelines allow states to demonstrate attainment at a level of 15.04 
[mu]g/m\3\ rather than 15.00 [mu]g/m\3\, and that the additional 0.04 
[mu]g/m\3\ of air quality improvement accounted for in its attainment 
demonstration equated to a ``surplus'' of 11 tpd of NOX-
equivalent emission reductions. See Contingency Measures SIP at 15. In 
the 2013 Supplement, the District characterized this amount as a 
``surplus'' of 0.8 tpd of SOX reductions, in accordance with 
conversion factors provided in Appendix C of a CARB Staff Report 
entitled ``2007 State Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air Basin 
PM2.5 and 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS.'' See 2013 Supplement, 
Attachment 2.
    EPA agrees that the District may demonstrate attainment using 15.04 
[mu]g/m\3\ as the target emission level in its modeling analyses \23\ 
and that, because the South Coast PM2.5 SIP models 
attainment at a level of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\, some amount of emission 
reductions accounting for the additional 0.04 [mu]g/m\3\ of air quality 
improvement may be characterized as ``surplus'' to attainment needs. We 
are not equating these air quality improvements with a specific amount 
of SIP credit at this time but we have reviewed the District's 
conversions of these concentrations into NOX-equivalent and 
SOX-equivalent emission reductions and find the 
approximations to be reasonable. See Memorandum from Carol Bohnenkamp 
to File dated May 30, 2013. These analyses generally support our 
conclusion that attainment contingency measures achieving less than 1 
year's worth of RFP are adequate for this particular nonattainment 
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See ``Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for 
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, 
PM2.5, and Regional Haze,'' April 2007, EPA--454/B-07-
002, at p. 21 (referencing EPA's rounding convention in 40 CFR part 
50, appendix N for calculation of annual average PM2.5 
values).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Summary
    In sum, the Contingency Measure SIP, as supplemented in 2013, 
identifies SIP-creditable attainment contingency measures that will 
achieve a total of 27.2 tpd of NOX reductions, 14.3 tpd of 
VOC reductions, and 0.2 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions in 
2015. The 2013 Supplement identifies two additional control measures 
that will, upon final EPA approval of the measures, achieve an 
additional 0.6 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions, for a total 
of 0.8 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions in 2015. These 
emission reductions amount to approximately 56% of the NOX 
reductions, 49% of the VOC reductions, and more than 100% of the direct 
PM2.5 reductions that would be needed to achieve 
approximately 1 year's worth of RFP in 2015.\24\ See Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Contingency Measure SIP does not specifically provide 
SIP-creditable SOX reductions in 2015 for contingency 
measure purposes.

           Table 4--Summary of 2015 Emission Reductions Creditable as Attainment Contingency Measures
                                                [in tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               NOX                VOC               PM2.5              SOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet turnover........................               24                 13    ................  ................
Rule 1113.............................  .................                1.3  ................  ................
Carl Moyer............................                3.2  .................               0.2  ................
Rule 444 *............................  .................  .................               0.2  ................
Rule 445 *............................  .................  .................               0.4  ................
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emission Reductions:........               27.2               14.3               0.8                 0
1 year RFP \25\.......................               49                 29                 0.7               3.8
    Total as percentage of 1-year RFP.               56                 49                 114                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Creditable only upon EPA's final approval of these rules into the SIP pursuant to CAA section 110.

    We are proposing to fully approve these measures and surplus 
emission reductions as satisfying the attainment contingency measure 
requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) for the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment area. All of these emission 
reductions are provided by control measures or incentive programs that 
are fully adopted under State law and currently being implemented by 
the District. These measures and programs provide SIP-creditable 
emission reductions that are not relied on in the South Coast 
PM2.5 SIP to demonstrate RFP or attainment and provide for 
an appropriate level of continued emissions reduction progress should 
the South Coast area fail to attain by the statutory attainment date 
and necessitate additional planning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See n. 2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Section 110(l) of the Act

    Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits EPA from approving any SIP 
revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment and RFP or any other applicable requirement of 
the Act. The Contingency Measures SIP corrects SIP deficiencies 
identified in EPA's November 9, 2011 partial approval and partial 
disapproval of the South Coast PM2.5 SIP (76 FR 69928). 
Specifically, the Contingency Measures SIP, as supplemented in 2013, 
contains: (1) the District's demonstration that actual emission levels 
in the South Coast in 2012 were below the 2012 RFP benchmarks, (2) 
identification of SIP-creditable control measures that will achieve 
emission reductions in 2015 in excess of those relied on for RFP and 
expeditious attainment, and (3) an analysis of significant air quality 
improvements in the South Coast area that the District believes EPA 
should take into account as part of our action on the SIP submission. 
We propose to determine that our approval of the Contingency Measures 
SIP, as supplemented in 2013, 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 RFP and attainment of the 
NAAQS are met, and the submitted SIP corrects SIP deficiencies that 
were the basis for EPA's November 9, 2011 partial disapproval of the 
South Coast PM2.5 SIP.

IV. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    For the reasons discussed above, we are proposing to conclude that 
the Contingency Measures SIP submitted by

[[Page 37752]]

CARB on November 14, 2011, as supplemented on April 24, 2013, satisfies 
the attainment contingency measure requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) 
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment 
area, and to fully approve this submission into the California SIP. 
Simultaneously, we are proposing to conclude that the RFP contingency 
measure requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) for the 2012 milestone 
year is moot as applied to the South Coast because the area achieved 
its emission reduction benchmarks for the 2012 RFP year.
    Final approval of the Contingency Measures SIP, as supplemented, 
would correct the deficiencies that were the basis for EPA's partial 
disapproval of the South Coast PM2.5 SIP on November 9, 2011 
(76 FR 69928) and would, therefore, terminate the CAA section 179(b) 
sanctions clocks triggered by that action and the obligation on EPA to 
promulgate a FIP within two years of that action.
    EPA will accept public comments on this proposal for the next 30 
days.

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 proposes to approve State law 
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not have tribal implications 
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 12, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2013-14918 Filed 6-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


