[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37741-37752]
[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-

OAR-2013-0384, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     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,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-

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.

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

    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

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

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

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

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-

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

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

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

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