to the District in accordance with detailed contract provisions. See
generally 2008 Prop 1B guidelines at Section III.D

(``Local Agency Project Implementation Requirements''), Section IV
(``General Equipment Project Requirements''), and Appendix A, Section C
(``Recordkeeping Requirements'') and Section D (``Annual Reporting
Requirements''); 2010 Prop 1B guidelines at Section IV.A (``Project
Implementation Requirements''), Section VI (``General Equipment Project
Requirements''), and Appendix A, Section F (``Recordkeeping
Requirements'') and Section G (``Annual Reporting Requirements''); and
2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Part I, Chapter 3 (``Program
Administration'').
    For example, the 2008 and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines require, among
other things, that (1) all project applications \36\ include
documentation of current equipment and activity information (e.g.
engine make, model, horsepower and fuel type, annual vehicle miles of
travel (VMT) in California, and estimated percentage of annual VMT in
trade corridors); (2) that the District conduct a ``pre-inspection'' of
each application deemed eligible for funding, to verify information
regarding the baseline engine, vehicle, or equipment; (3) that the
District conduct a ``post-inspection'' of each funded project to
record, among other things, identifiers and specifications for the new
engine/equipment (e.g., VIN numbers for new trucks, serial numbers for
new engines), verification that the new engine/equipment is operational
and consistent with the equipment described in the project application,
and verification of the destruction of the old/replaced equipment,
where applicable; and (4) that the District's pre-inspection and post-
inspection project files include photographic documentation of each
piece of equipment being inspected, including an engine serial number,
visible distinguishing identification (e.g., a license plate), and a
full view of the equipment. See Proposal TSD at 30-35; see also 2008
Prop 1B guidelines at Section III.D.8 (``Equipment project pre-
inspections'), Section III.D.14 (``Equipment project post-inspections),
Section IV.D (``Equipment Project Application Requirements'') and
Appendix A, Section F (``Application Information''); and 2010 Prop 1B
guidelines at Section IV.A.10 (``Equipment project pre-inspections'),
Section IV.A.16 (``Equipment project post-inspections), Section VI.D
(``Equipment Project Application Requirements'') and Appendix A,
Section F (``Application Information'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Each project application must be incorporated by reference
into the equipment project contract, which the equipment owner must
maintain for at least two years after equipment project ends or
three years after final payment, whichever is later. See 2008 Prop
1B guidelines at Section III.D.10 (``Equipment project contracts'')
and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines at Section IV.A.11 (``Equipment project
contracts'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines require, among
other things, that (1) all project applications \37\ include
documentation of existing engine usage in previous years (e.g. miles
traveled, hours operated, or fuel consumed per year); (2) that the
District conduct a ``pre-inspection'' of each application deemed
eligible for funding, to verify information regarding the baseline
engine, vehicle, or equipment; (3) that the District conduct a ``post-
inspection'' of each funded project to record, among other things,
information regarding the new engines, vehicles/equipment, and retrofit
devices as needed to provide a basis for emission calculations and to
ensure contract enforceability; and (4) that the District's pre-
inspection and post-inspection project files include photographic
documentation of the engine, vehicle, or equipment information,
including a legible serial number and/or other identifying markings.
See Proposal TSD at 37-42; see also 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines,
Part I, Chapter 3, at Section W (``Minimum Project Application
Requirements''), Section AA (``Project Pre-Inspection''), and Section
BB (``Project Post-Inspection'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ A project application that is ``accurate and complete'' may
be included as an attachment to the contract to satisfy the
``project specification'' requirements of the 2011 Carl Moyer
Program Guidelines. See 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines at
Section Z.6 (stating that ``[a]ll contracts must include detailed
information on the baseline and new vehicles, equipment, and/or
engines that were used in the project cost-effectiveness
calculation''). Each contract must be retained by the grantee for at
least two years after contract expiration or three years after final
project payment, whichever is later. See id. at Z.10 (``On-Site
Inspections and Audits'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the applicable portions of the 2008 and 2010 Prop 1B
guidelines and the 2011 Carl Moyer Program guidelines specifically
define the required elements of each contract and the types of actions
that constitute violations of such contracts. For example, under the
2008 and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines, each equipment project contract must
include: (1) A unique ``tracking number''; (2) the equipment owner's
contact information; (3) the original application submitted by the
equipment owner; (4) requirements for the equipment owner to submit
reports to the local agency annually or biennially \38\; (5) the
equipment owner's agreement to allow ongoing evaluations and audits of
equipment and documentation by the District, CARB, or their designated
representative(s); and (6) requirements for the equipment owner to
retain all records pertaining to the program (i.e., invoices,
contracts, and correspondence) for at least two years after equipment
project ends or three years after final payment, whichever is later.
See 2008 Prop 1B guidelines at Section III.D.10 (``Equipment project
contracts'') and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines at Section IV.A.11
(``Equipment project contracts''); see also Proposal TSD at 30-32.
Additionally, under the same guidelines, the following actions (among
others) are specifically identified as contract violations: (1) Failure
to meet the terms and conditions of an executed equipment project
contract, including equipment operating conditions and geographic
restrictions; (2) failure to allow for an electronic monitoring device
or tampering with an installed device or data; (3) insufficient,
incomplete, or faulty equipment project documentation; and (4) failure
to provide required documentation or reports in a timely manner. See
2008 Prop 1B guidelines at Section IV.G (``Equipment Project Non-
Performance'') and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines at VI.I (``Equipment Project
Non-Performance''); see also Proposal TSD at 30-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Under the 2008 Prop 1B guidelines, all grant recipients are
required to submit reports to the District annually. See 2008 Prop
1B guidelines at Appendix A (``Trucks Serving Ports and Intermodal
Rail Yards''), Section D (``Annual Reporting Requirements''). The
2010 Prop 1B guidelines also require annual reports except that
certain owners of equipment with PM retrofits with a 2-year contract
may report at the end of the 2-year project life. See 2010 Prop 1B
guidelines, Appendix A (``Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks''), Section G
(``Annual Reporting Requirements'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, under the 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, each
equipment project contract must include: (1) The name and contact
information of the grantee; (2) specified timeframes for ``project
completion'' (the date the project post-inspection confirms that the
project has become operational) and ``project implementation'' (the
project life used in the project cost-effectiveness calculation); (3)
detailed information on both baseline and new vehicles, equipment, and/
or engines, including documentation adequate to establish historical
annual usage; (4) requirements for the grantee to maintain the vehicle,
equipment and/or engine according to the manufacturer's specifications
for the life of the project; (5) annual reporting requirements; (6) a
provision authorizing the District, CARB, and their designees to
conduct fiscal audits and to inspect the project engine, vehicle, and/
or equipment and

associated records during the contract term, and (7) requirements to
maintain and retain project records for at least two years after
contract expiration or three years after final project payment,
whichever is later. See 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Part I,
Chapter 3 at Section Z (``Minimum Contract Requirements''); see also
Proposal TSD at 37-38 (describing requirements for Off-Road Compression
Ignition engine replacement projects in 2011 Carl Moyer Program
Guidelines, Part I, Chapter 9 at Section C (``Project Criteria'')).
Additionally, the 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines explicitly require
that each contract ``specify that by executing the contract, the
grantee understands and agrees to operate the vehicle, equipment, and/
or engine according to the terms of the contract'' and describe the
potential repercussions to the grantee for non-compliance with contract
requirements. See 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Part I, Chapter 3
at Section Z.11 (``Repercussions for Non-Performance'') and Section FF
(``Nonperforming Projects'').\39\ The 2011 Carl Moyer Program
Guidelines also specifically identify types of actions on the part of
the District that CARB may treat as violations of program
requirements--e.g., misuse of Carl Moyer Program funds and
insufficient, incomplete, or inaccurate project documentation. See 2011
Carl Moyer Program Guidelines at Section U (``Program Non-
Performance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines authorize the
District to grant a ``waiver'' to a grantee who demonstrates to the
District's satisfaction that certain conditions justify contract
noncompliance for a defined period. See 2011 Carl Moyer Program
Guidelines, Part I, Chapter 3 at Section FF.4(D). We note that, for
any project that the District has relied upon for SIP credit,
Section 4.3 of Rule 9610 requires the District to annually adjust
its calculation of SIP-creditable emission reductions to reflect
periods of noncompliance under any such waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, grantees that are liable for violations of these contract
provisions can be identified by the State and/or District and, through
the annual demonstration reports submitted to the EPA, by the EPA and
citizens as well. Specifically, as discussed above, under the 2008 Prop
1B guidelines, the 2010 Prop 1B guidelines, and the 2011 Carl Moyer
Program guidelines, each contract executed by the District must require
the grantee to maintain project records for at least two years after
contract expiration or three years after final project payment,
whichever is later, and to submit annual or biennial reports to the
District. See 2008 Prop 1B guidelines at Section III.D.10 (``Equipment
project contracts''), 2010 Prop 1B guidelines at Section IV.A.11
(``Equipment project contracts''),\40\ and 2011 Carl Moyer Program
Guidelines, Part I, Chapter 3 at Section Z (``Minimum Contract
Requirements''); see also Proposal TSD at 30-32 and 37-40.
Additionally, the 2008 and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines require that each
contract contain a provision stating the equipment owner's agreement to
allow ongoing evaluations and audits of equipment and documentation by
the District, CARB, or their designated representative(s), and the 2011
Carl Moyer Program Guidelines similarly require that all contracts
authorize the District, CARB, or their designees to conduct fiscal
audits of the project and/or to inspect the project engine, vehicle,
and/or equipment and associated records during the contract term. See
id. These provisions in the Prop 1B and Carl Moyer Program guidelines
enable both the State and District to identify grantees that violate
their contract provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See also n. 38, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA and citizens, in turn, can identify violators through the
annual demonstration reports that the District is obligated under its
SIP commitment to make publicly available (on the District's Web site)
and to submit to the EPA by August 31 of each year. See SJVUAPCD Board
Resolution No. 13-6-19 (June 20, 2013) at 3 and Rule 9610, Section 5.0.
Specifically, Section 6.1 of Rule 9610 (as adopted June 2013) \41\
states that ``[a]ll documents created and/or used in implementing the
requirements of Section 4.0 shall be kept and maintained as required by
the applicable incentive program guidelines . . . [and] shall be made
available for public review'' consistent with the California Public
Records Act and other related requirements. Section 6.1 also states
that ``[i]nformation regarding the process for the public review of
such records shall be included in the annual demonstration report.''
Rule 9610, Section 6.1. Consistent with these requirements, the 2013
Annual Demonstration Report submitted by the District states that the
public may request documents created and/or used in implementing the
requirements of Section 4.0 (of Rule 9610) through the District's
Public Records Release Request form, which is available on the District
Web site. See SJVUAPCD, ``2013 Annual Demonstration Report'' (January
31, 2014) at 8. The District has confirmed that both the EPA and
citizens may use this form to request copies of the required records
for any Prop 1B or Carl Moyer Program project that the District has
relied upon for SIP credit, which will be identified in the District's
annual demonstration reports going forward. See email dated December
18, 2013, from Jeannine Tackett, SJVUAPCD, to Idalia Perez, U.S. EPA
Region 9, ``RE: question needed for response to comments on contingency
measure SIP.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ All references to Rule 9610 herein are to the rule as
adopted by the District on June 20, 2013.
    \42\ In its December 18, 2013 email, the District confirmed that
it ``will include information in future annual demonstration reports
as necessary to ensure the ongoing tracking of projects claimed in
prior annual demonstration reports, including adjustments necessary
under Section 4.3 [of Rule 9610].'' We note that beginning with the
2014 annual demonstration report, the District must identify the
specific projects (by unique project identification number) that the
District has relied upon for emission reduction credit in the
Contingency Measure SIP, including adjustments made as required by
Section 4.3 of Rule 9610, to ensure that the EPA and citizens can
track the District's progress in satisfying its SIP commitments. See
Rule 9610, Section 4.5; see also Proposal TSD at 27, n. 17. The
District may satisfy this requirement by including, in its annual
demonstration report, the list of specific projects in the
attachments to the EPA's Proposal TSD (as adjusted consistent with
Rule 9610, Section 4.3), which the EPA developed because the 2013
Annual Demonstration Report does not specifically identify the
projects relied upon for credit in the Contingency Measure SIP. See
Proposal TSD at Attachment A (``Prop 1B: On-Road Vehicle Replacement
projects achieving emission reductions through 2015'') and
Attachment B (``Carl Moyer Program: Off-Road Vehicle Replacement
projects achieving emission reductions through 2015'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, the State maintains the ability to apply penalties and
secure appropriate corrective actions where contract terms are
violated, and the EPA maintains the ability to require appropriate
corrective actions of the District where projected emission reductions
are not achieved. For example, under the 2008 and 2010 Prop 1B
guidelines, where the District finds that a grantee has violated a
contract term, the District is authorized to recover all or a portion
of program funds, assess fiscal penalties on equipment owners based on
the severity of the non-performance, and prohibit the equipment owner
from participating in future State incentive programs, among other
things. See 2008 Prop 1B guidelines at Section IV.G (``Equipment
Project Non-Performance'') and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines at Section VI.I
(``Equipment Project Non-Performance''). Under the 2011 Carl Moyer
Program Guidelines, both CARB and the District are authorized to ``seek
any remedies available under the law for noncompliance with Carl Moyer
Program requirements and nonperformance with the contract,'' including
withholding of program funds, and should CARB determine that the
District's oversight and enforcement

of the program is insufficient, CARB may recapture funds granted to the
District that have not yet been awarded to approved projects. See 2011
Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Chapter 3 at Section U (``Program Non-
Performance''). Additionally, as explained further below, the EPA
maintains the ability to enforce the District's SIP commitments--i.e.,
to require the District to submit annual demonstration reports
consistent with the requirements of Rule 9610 and/or to adopt and
submit substitute measures on a fixed timeframe, where projected
emission reductions are not achieved.
    Fifth, citizens have access to all of the emissions-related
information obtained from the source. As explained in our proposed
rule, the Board commitments submitted with the Contingency Measure SIP
obligate the District to ``account for'' its claimed NOX and
PM2.5 emission reductions ``in annual demonstration reports
pursuant to the requirements of Rule 9610.'' See SJVUAPCD Board
Resolution No. 13-6-18 at 3. Rule 9610 requires the District to submit
to the EPA, no later than August 31 of each year, an ``annual
demonstration report'' that includes detailed information about each
specific project that the District has relied upon to achieve SIP-
creditable emission reductions (e.g., unique project identification
numbers, project implementation dates, applicable incentive program
guideline(s), and quantified emission reductions per year and
aggregated over the project life, by pollutant). See 78 FR 53113, 53121
(citing Rule 9610, sections 4.1-4.6 and 5.0) (emphases added).
Additionally, Rule 9610 requires that ``[a]ll documents created and/or
used in implementing the requirements of Section 4.0 shall be kept and
maintained as required by the applicable incentive program guidelines''
and that ``such records shall be made available for public review.''
Rule 9610, Section 6.1. Under the 2008 and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines, all
grant recipients must, among other things, retain ``all documents,
invoices, and correspondence associated with the application, award,
contract, monitoring, enforcement, and reporting requirements'' for at
least two years after the equipment project contract term or three
years after final payment, whichever is later''; must make records
readily available and accessible to the District, CARB, or their
designees upon request; and must submit regular reports to the District
that include information about annual miles traveled, certification and
documentation of travel within California's trade corridors, and
certification that the project was operated in accordance with the
signed contract. See 2008 Prop 1B guidelines, Appendix A (``Trucks
Serving Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards''), Section C (``Recordkeeping
Requirements'') and Section D (``Annual Reporting Requirements'') at A-
4 and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines, Appendix A (``Heavy Duty Diesel
Trucks''), Section F (``Recordkeeping Requirements'') and Section G
(``Annual Reporting Requirements'') at A-19. The 2011 Carl Moyer
Program Guidelines contain substantially similar recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for grantees in Chapter 3, Section Z.9
(``Reporting''), Section Z.10 (``On-Site Inspections and Audits''), and
Section DD (``Grantee Annual Reporting''). Pursuant to section 6.1 of
Rule 9610, all of these documents must be made available for public
review upon request.\43\ See Rule 9610, Section 6.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The 2008 Prop 1B guidelines require the District to retain
all ``program records'' (e.g., invoices, contracts, and
correspondence) for at least two years after the project ends or
three years after final payment, whichever is later. See 2008 Prop
1B guidelines, Chapter II, Section D.10.b (``General Program
provisions''). The 2010 Prop 1B guidelines require the District to
retain ``program records'' for 35 years after the bond issuance date
providing the funds for the grant, or to send all records to ARB by
the end date of the grant agreement. See 2010 Prop 1B guidelines,
Chapter II, Section E.10.b (``General Program provisions''). Under
the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, the District must keep each
``project file'' for a minimum of two years after the end of the
contract term or a minimum of three years after final payment,
whichever is later. See 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Chapter
3, Section V (``ARB Audit of Air Districts'') at 3-25. A ``project
file'' generally includes a copy of the application, a completed
pre- and post-inspection form, and the annual reports submitted by
the grantee. See id. at Section X.6, Section AA.4, Section BB.1.(G),
and Section DD.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sixth, although citizens cannot file suits against sources for
violations, both the EPA and citizens may file suits against the
District for violations of its commitments to ensure that the projected
emission reductions are achieved in 2015. Specifically, the SJVUAPCD
Governing Board has submitted a commitment to quantify SIP-creditable
emission reductions in the amount of 4.15 tpd of NOX
reductions and 0.10 tpd of PM2.5 reductions using the
incentive program guidelines and related documents identified in Rule
9610 and to ``account for these NOX and PM2.5
emission reductions in annual demonstration reports pursuant to the
requirements of Rule 9610'' for purposes of satisfying the
PM2.5 contingency measure requirement for 2015. SJVUAPCD
Board Resolution No. 13-6-18 at p. 3. Additionally, the Board's
commitment states that ``[if] there is a shortfall in expected emission
reductions for 2015, the District will adopt and submit to EPA
substitute rules and measures that will achieve equivalent emission
reductions as expeditiously as practicable and no later than any
applicable implementation deadline in the CAA or EPA's implementing
regulations, by no later than December 31, 2016.'' Id. As explained in
our proposed rule (78 FR 53113, 53121), the EPA interprets these
District commitments as applying to emission reductions to be achieved
in 2015 through specific types of Prop 1B and Carl Moyer Program
projects,\44\ and the EPA expects that the 2014 annual demonstration
report will then specify the individual projects relied upon to achieve
these emission reductions, consistent with the requirements of Rule
9610, Section 4.5. See Proposal TSD at 25-27, n. 13 and n. 17
(referencing Proposal TSD at Attachment A and Attachment B). These
Board commitments, which become federally enforceable by the EPA and by
citizens upon approval into the SIP,\45\ impose clear and specific
requirements on the District to account for specific amounts of
NOX and PM2.5 emission reductions through annual
demonstration reports that satisfy the requirements of Rule 9610 and,
if the identified projects fail to achieve the projected emission
reductions in 2015, to adopt and submit to the EPA substitute measures
that will achieve equivalent amounts of emission reductions as
expeditiously as practicable and no later than December 5, 2015.\46\
Should the EPA determine

that the SJV area has failed to attain the 1997 PM2.5
standards by the applicable attainment date (April 5, 2015), the EPA
and citizens may enforce both components of the District's SIP
commitment under sections 113 and 304 of the CAA, respectively, as
follows: (1) If the Board fails to annually account for its claimed
NOX and PM2.5 emission reductions consistent with
the requirements of Rule 9610, the EPA or citizens may enforce the
District's obligation to submit the required reports; and (2) if the
District's 2014 annual demonstration report indicates that the specific
projects identified therein will not achieve the District's claimed
amounts of NOX and PM2.5 emission reductions
(4.15 tpd of NOX reductions and 0.10 tpd of PM2.5
reductions) in 2015 as projected, the EPA or citizens may enforce the
District's obligation to adopt and submit substitute measures that will
achieve equivalent amounts of emission reductions by December 5, 2015.
See Proposal TSD at 42-44. We find these provisions adequate to ensure
that the EPA and citizens may secure appropriate corrective actions
where projected emission reductions are not achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ This interpretation is consistent with information in the
District's 2013 Annual Demonstration Report, which identifies
``agricultural off-road vehicle replacement projects funded through
the Carl Moyer Program'' and ``on-road vehicle replacement projects
funded through the Prop 1B program'' as the projects relied upon for
contingency measure purposes. See 2013 Annual Demonstration Report
at 26 (Table 5).
    \45\ See notes 30 and 31, supra.
    \46\ Consistent with the EPA's longstanding interpretation of
CAA section 172(c)(9) as requiring that all actions needed to effect
full implementation of contingency measures occur within 60 days
after the EPA notifies the State of a failure to attain the NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date (78 FR 53113, 53115), we interpret
the phrase ``applicable implementation deadline'' in the District's
SIP commitment to mean 60 days after October 5, 2015, which is the
latest date by which the EPA must determine whether the SJV area has
attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to CAA section
179(c). In our proposed rule, we stated that the District's
commitment obligated it to adopt and submit any substitute measures
necessary to correct a shortfall in emission reductions ``no later
than December 31, 2016'' (78 FR 53113, 53121, 53122). In this final
action, however, we are clarifying our interpretation of the SIP
commitment to mean that any substitute measures necessary to correct
a shortfall in 2015 emission reductions must be adopted and
submitted to the EPA no later than the applicable implementation
deadline for these contingency measures under CAA section 172(c)(9),
which is December 5, 2015. This interpretation is consistent with
the text of the District's SIP commitment, which states that in the
event of a shortfall, the District will ``adopt and submit to EPA
substitute rules and measures that will achieve equivalent emission
reductions as expeditiously as practicable and no later than any
applicable implementation deadline in the CAA or EPA's implementing
regulations, by no later than December 31, 2016.'' See SJVUAPCD
Board Resolution No. 13-6-18 at p. 3 (emphases added). As a
practical matter, because a December 2015 deadline for
implementation of the remedy requires the District to begin
developing any necessary substitute measures well before that date,
the EPA intends to determine by late 2014 (based on the District's
2014 annual demonstration report and other available documentation)
whether there will be any shortfall in projected emission reductions
that triggers the District's obligation to adopt and submit
substitute measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the emission reductions to be achieved through the
identified Prop 1B and Carl Moyer Program projects are practicably
enforceable consistent with EPA policy on enforceability requirements.
The EPA generally considers a requirement to be ``practically
enforceable'' if it contains a clear statement as to applicability;
specifies the standard that must be met; states compliance timeframes
sufficient to meet the standard; specifies sufficient methods to
determine compliance, including appropriate monitoring, record keeping
and reporting provisions; and recognizes relevant enforcement
consequences. See ``Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions
for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency,'' September 3, 1987 (``1987
Potter Memo'') and ``Guidance on Enforceability Requirements for
Limiting Potential to Emit through SIP and Section 112 Rules and
General Permits,'' January 25, 1995 (``1995 PTE Policy'') at 5, 6. The
actions associated with the incentive-based emission reductions in the
Contingency Measure SIP are practicably enforceable on two levels.
First, as explained above, the actions required of grantees under the
2008 and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines and the 2011 Carl Moyer Program
Guidelines are practicably enforceable by the State and District.
Specifically, under the applicable portions of the Prop 1B and Carl
Moyer Program guidelines (see Proposal TSD at 29-42), each grant of
incentive funds must be subject to contract provisions that clearly
identify the funded equipment or vehicle; specify the actions required
of the grantee; identify relevant compliance timeframes (e.g., a
``project life''); specify sufficient methods to determine the
grantee's compliance with contract provisions, including detailed
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements; and identify
potential enforcement consequences in cases of contract non-compliance.
Taken together, these provisions of the 2008 and 2010 Prop 1B
guidelines and the 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines ensure that the
actions required of grantees are practically enforceable consistent
with EPA policy.
    Second, the actions required of the District under its SIP
commitment are practicably enforceable by the EPA and citizens. As
discussed above, the District has submitted an enforceable commitment
to account for specified amounts of NOX and direct
PM2.5 emission reductions through annual demonstration
reports meeting the requirements of Rule 9610 and, should the projects
identified in those reports \47\ fail to achieve the specified
reductions in 2015, to adopt and submit substitute measures achieving
equivalent amounts of reductions on a fixed schedule. This commitment
clearly identifies the District as the responsible entity; specifies
the requirement that must be met and the compliance timeframes (i.e.,
to account for specific amounts of incentive-based NOX and
PM2.5 emission reductions or to adopt and submit substitute
measures by fixed dates); and, through reference to the requirements of
Rule 9610, specifies sufficient methods to determine compliance (i.e.,
the requirements under Section 4.0 of Rule 9610 that each annual
demonstration report must satisfy). Should the District fail to submit
annual demonstration reports meeting the requirements of Rule 9610 that
confirm that its claimed NOX and PM2.5 emission
reductions occurred in 2015 as projected, the EPA may make a finding of
failure to implement the SIP under CAA section 179(a), which starts an
18-month period for the State/District to correct the non-
implementation before mandatory sanctions are imposed. Additionally,
the EPA or citizens may enforce the District's obligation to adopt and
submit substitute measures that will achieve equivalent emission
reductions no later than December 5, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See n. 42, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Taking into account all of these provisions of the applicable
incentive program guidelines and the District's SIP commitments, we
find the incentive-based emission reductions relied upon in the
Contingency Measure SIP to be practically enforceable consistent with
EPA policy.
    Comment 14: Earthjustice asserts that the incentive-based emission
reductions are not independently verifiable because the EPA and
citizens can only rely on data submitted to or collected by the
District. Additionally, Earthjustice contends that the EPA has no
authority to inspect sources for compliance with the contracts between
the District and the source, and that the EPA also lacks the ability to
apply penalties or secure corrective actions against the sources.
Finally, Earthjustice asserts that because the emission reductions are
secured through contracts between the source and the District,
compliance with those agreements cannot be enforced by the public or
the EPA, and that the District ``has discretion to modify these
contracts and redefine violations without any EPA or public
oversight.''
    Response 14: First, we disagree with the commenter's claim that the
incentive-based emission reductions are not independently verifiable.
Although enforcement of these emission reductions by the EPA or
citizens generally depends upon project-related information maintained
by the District, this does not preclude independent verification of the
emission reductions if sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure
that the District will obtain and maintain adequate compliance-related
records and make these records available to the EPA and the public. As
discussed above, the applicable incentive program guidelines (the 2008
and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines and the 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines)
require that the District maintain specific documentation of pre-
project and post-project inspections for each

funded project and that all grantees submit detailed compliance-related
documentation to the District on an annual or biennial basis. The
District, in turn, is obligated under its SIP commitment to make these
project records available to the EPA and to the public upon request.
See Response 13. Furthermore, as a result of the EPA's approval of the
District's commitments into the SIP, the EPA may require under CAA
section 114(a) that the District provide information necessary for the
purpose of determining whether the District is in violation of these
SIP commitments--including all compliance-related documentation that
the District maintains in accordance with the applicable incentive
program guidelines. See CAA section 114(a) (authorizing the EPA to
require submission of information from ``any person'' who may have
information necessary for the purpose of determining whether a SIP
requirement has been violated) and section 302(e) (defining ``person''
to include a State or political subdivision thereof). We find the
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the applicable
incentive program guidelines, together with the District's enforceable
SIP commitments, adequate to ensure that the incentive-based emission
reductions can be independently verified.
    Second, although the commenter correctly states that the EPA is not
authorized to inspect sources for compliance with their funding
contracts or to apply penalties or secure corrective actions against
individual sources, we do not believe such authorities are necessary in
order to enforce these emission reductions under the CAA. As discussed
in Response 13 above, both the District and CARB are authorized to
inspect sources for compliance with their funding contracts and to
apply penalties or secure corrective actions against sources that
violate their contracts. Rule 9610 requires the District to maintain
records of all such inspections and enforcement actions (see Rule 9610,
Section 6.1), and under section 114(a) of the CAA, the EPA may require
the District to provide these project-related records for purposes of
determining whether the District is in violation of its SIP commitment.
Both the EPA and citizens may also obtain these records from the
District through submission of a ``Public Records Release Request.''
See Response 13. Based on these project-related records, the EPA and
citizens may verify whether the District has adequately accounted for
4.15 tpd of NOX reductions and 0.10 tpd of PM2.5
reductions in 2015, consistent with its SIP commitments. Additionally,
where the documentation evidences a shortfall in the required emission
reductions, the District would be obligated--subject to the EPA and
citizen enforcement under the CAA--to adopt and submit substitute
measures that achieve equivalent emission reductions no later than
December 5, 2015. We find these provisions adequate to ensure that the
incentive-based emission reductions in the Contingency Measure SIP may
be enforced under the CAA.
    Finally, although we agree with the commenter's claim that neither
the EPA nor citizens can enforce compliance with the contracts between
sources and the District, we disagree with the claim that the District
has discretion to ``redefine violations without any EPA or public
oversight.'' As explained above, upon approval into the SIP the
District's commitments become federally enforceable by the EPA and by
citizens under sections 113 and 304 of the Act, respectively. See
Response 13. These SIP-approved commitments cannot be modified, nor can
the District ``redefine violations'' thereof, except through a SIP
revision adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public
hearing and approved by the EPA through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
See CAA section 110(l); 5 U.S.C. section 553; 40 CFR 51.105; see also
Response 8.
    Comment 15: Earthjustice cites the EPA's 2001 EIP Guidance to
support its assertion that to be enforceable, a ``financial mechanism
EIP'' must meet the general programmatic and source-specific
definitions of enforceable. Earthjustice asserts that the EPA's
analysis does not include any review of the programmatic requirements
outlined in EPA policy and that the Valley's incentive program
``violates several of these criteria.'' Additionally, as to the
``source-specific'' definition of enforceable in EPA policy,
Earthjustice asserts that the EPA lacks the ability to independently
verify compliance because the EPA is reliant upon information collected
by the State and District and cannot collect its own information,
conduct inspections, demand additional reporting, or enforce the
failure to submit required reports. Earthjustice further contends that
the limited reporting required under the Carl Moyer program does not
allow the EPA to independently verify compliance given ``EPA must rely
on the limited documentation submitted by the owner and will not even
see reports on usage of the new equipment unless that data happens to
be collected by the State or District and shared with EPA.''
Earthjustice concludes that the incentive program contingency measure
thus fails to be ``enforceable'' either at the programmatic level or
the source-specific level.
    Response 15: We disagree with Earthjustice's characterization of
the EPA's recommendations in the 2001 EIP Guidance. The EPA stated in
the 2001 EIP Guidance that ``[t[he emission reductions associated with
a financial mechanism EIP are enforceable if they meet the general
programmatic and source-specific definitions of enforceable.'' 2001 EIP
Guidance at 120. Additionally, the EPA stated that although a program
containing these elements would assure that the program would meet the
applicable CAA provisions, the EPA would also evaluate programs
submitted by states that do not contain all of these elements and would
determine, through notice-and-comment rulemaking, whether such programs
satisfied the applicable CAA requirements. See 2001 EIP Guidance at
119; see also 2001 EIP Guidance at 12 and 19. Because the
enforceability considerations highlighted in the 2001 EIP Guidance are
non-binding recommendations, the EPA does not apply them as regulatory
criteria in its evaluation of an EIP submission.
    We have, however, evaluated the incentive-based emission reductions
in the Contingency Measure SIP for consistency with the EPA's
recommendations in the 2001 EIP Guidance and find them generally
consistent with the general programmatic and source-specific
definitions of ``enforceable'' in this document. As Earthjustice notes,
the ``programmatic'' definition of enforceable highlights seven key
factors that should be considered in determining whether an EIP is
enforceable. See 2001 EIP Guidance at 35-36. We addressed each of these
seven factors in Response 13 above. The ``source-specific'' definition
of enforceable highlights three key factors that should be considered
in determining whether an EIP is enforceable: (1) The source is liable
for any violations; (2) the liable party is identifiable; and (3) the
State, the public, and the EPA can independently verify a source's
compliance. See 2001 EIP Guidance at 40. With respect to the first two
factors (the source's liability for violations and the ability to
identify the liable party), see Response 13 above. With respect to the
third factor (the ability of the State, the public, and the EPA to
independently verify a source's compliance), see Response 14 above.
    We also disagree with Earthjustice's assertion that the EPA cannot
collect the

information necessary to independently verify compliance and that the
reporting required under the Carl Moyer program does not allow the EPA
to independently verify compliance. As discussed above, the applicable
incentive program guidelines (the 2008 and 2010 Prop 1B guidelines and
the 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines) require that the District
maintain specific documentation of pre-project and post-project
inspections for each funded project and that all grantees submit
detailed compliance-related documentation to the District on an annual
or biennial basis. The District, in turn, is obligated under its SIP
commitment to maintain these project records and make them available to
the EPA and to the public upon request. See Response 13; see also n. 43
supra. Furthermore, as a result of the EPA's approval of the District's
commitments into the SIP, the EPA may require under CAA section 114(a)
that the District provide information necessary for the purpose of
determining whether the District is in violation of its SIP
commitments--including all compliance-related documentation that the
District maintains in accordance with the applicable incentive program
guidelines. See id. and Response 14. We find these provisions adequate
to ensure that the EPA can collect the information necessary to
independently verify the District's compliance with its SIP
commitments.
    All SIP measures have some level of uncertainty, whether it comes
from the uncertainty associated with the emissions factors for certain
sources, the level of compliance with existing SIP measures, or the
modeling for an attainment demonstration. The issue is how best to
apply assumptions and tools to reduce the uncertainty to a manageable
factor. See 2004 Electric-Sector EE/RE Guidance at 11. As explained in
our Proposal TSD and further in these responses to comments, the
incentive programs relied upon in the Contingency Measure SIP are
subject to detailed monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and emissions
quantification requirements under State law, all of which are designed
to ensure that program grants are used to reduce air pollution through
the replacement of older, higher-polluting vehicles and equipment with
newer, cleaner vehicles and equipment and to ensure that the resulting
emission reductions are calculated consistent with established
quantification protocols. See Proposal TSD at 29-42; see also Response
13. We find these requirements of the Prop 1B program and Carl Moyer
Program adequate to reduce the uncertainties in calculating associated
emission reductions to a manageable factor and to provide a reasonable
basis for approval of the incentive-based emission reductions in the
Contingency Measure SIP.
    Comment 16: The District notes that the EPA did not review emission
reductions achieved through the National Resources Conservation Service
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (NRCS EQIP) for the
replacement of agricultural equipment (as included in Rule 9610 and
documented through the District's 2013 Annual Demonstration Report). It
describes efforts that have been taken toward developing procedures for
crediting these emission reductions for SIP purposes including the
statement of principles agreed upon by the District, NRCS, EPA, and
CARB in December 2010 \48\ and the document signed by the EPA and NRCS
in July 2012.\49\ The District states that the agencies that signed
these statements agreed to work collaboratively to develop a mechanism
to provide SIP credit for emission reductions from federal, state, and
local incentive programs that meet the EPA integrity principles of
being surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent. The District
comments that it appreciates the EPA's efforts over the last several
years in reviewing the NRCS EQIP Program in the context of these
agreements and Rule 9610 and looks forward to the EPA's approval of
this program as SIP-creditable in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ SJVAPCD, EPA, US Department of Agriculture NRCS, and CARB;
Statement of Principles Regarding the Approach to State
Implementation Plan Creditability of Agricultural Equipment
Replacement Incentive Programs Implemented by the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service and the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District, December 2010.
    \49\ USDA and EPA, Implementation Principles for Addressing
Agricultural Equipment under the Clean Air Act, July 26, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 16: We did not evaluate the EQIP as part of our action on
the Contingency Measure SIP because the District did not specifically
identify any emission reductions from the EQIP as part of its
contingency measure plan and because emission reductions from the Carl
Moyer and Prop 1B projects identified in our proposed rule and the
Proposal TSD provide sufficient emission reductions to meet the CAA
contingency measure requirement for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the SJV. See Contingency Measure SIP at 7-9 and 2013 Annual
Demonstration Report at Table 5; see also Proposal TSD at 25-27, n. 13
and n. 17. Comments regarding the EQIP program are therefore outside
the scope of this action.
    Comment 17: Citing the EPA's discussion of voluntary and
discretionary economic incentive programs in the proposed rule, the
District states that the EPA has generally limited the amount of
emission reduction credit allowed in a SIP for discretionary incentive
programs to three percent of the total projected future year emission
reductions required to attain the relevant NAAQS. The District states
that ``[t]his three percent cap does not affect this contingency
measure demonstration and should be removed from the proposed rule,
since EPA notes the amount of incentive-based emission reductions used
in this contingency demonstration is less than two percent of the total
projected emission reductions needed to attain the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Valley.'' It further asserts that ``the
District should not be limited to a three percent limit for incentive-
based reductions achieved through SIP-creditable processes, such as
Rule 9610.'' In support of these assertions, the District quotes from
the EPA's stated rationale in the 2001 EIP Guidance (at pg. 139) for
the recommended 3 percent cap on SIP credit for voluntary programs and
the EPA's statement that states ``may use the EIP guidance to implement
programs which will generate emission reductions beyond the 3 percent
limit, or when [the state has] already reached the 3 percent limit
under the voluntary measures guidance.'' Finally, the District notes
that the 2001 EIP Guidance sets forth only non-binding policy and does
not represent final EPA action on the requirements for EIPs.
    Response 17: With respect to voluntary mobile source emission
reduction programs (VMEPs), the EPA has generally limited the amount of
emission reductions allowed in a SIP to three percent (3%) of the total
projected future year emission reductions required to attain the
relevant NAAQS, and for any particular SIP submittal to demonstrate
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or progress toward attainment
(RFP), 3% of the specific statutory requirement. See 1997 VMEP at 5.
Similarly, with respect to voluntary and emerging measures for
stationary sources, the EPA has generally limited the amount of
emission reductions allowed in a SIP to 6% of the total amount of
emission reductions required for RFP, attainment, or maintenance
demonstration purposes. See 2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Policy
at 9 and 2005 Bundled Measures Guidance at 8. These limits are

``presumptive'' in that the EPA may approve emission reductions from
voluntary or other nontraditional measures in excess of the presumptive
limits where the State provides a clear and convincing justification
for such higher amounts, which the EPA would review on a case-by-case
basis. See id.; see also Response 12.
    It appears the District may have misunderstood the EPA's intent in
discussing this presumptive 3% limit on the emission reduction credit
allowed in a SIP for VMEPs. In the proposed rule (78 FR 53113, 53118),
we discussed the presumptive 3% limit both to provide context on the
applicable EPA guidance to date and to indicate that the incentive-
based emission reductions in the Contingency Measure SIP adequately
address the EPA's recommendations in the 1997 VMEP, as applicable (78
FR 53113, 53118 and 53121). Our proposed rule made clear, however, that
we were evaluating the Contingency Measure SIP in accordance with the
fundamental integrity elements identified in several EPA guidance
documents, as applied not only to VMEPs but also to discretionary
``financial mechanism EIPs.'' See id. at 53118 (citing both 2001 EIP
Guidance and 1997 VMEP). Although we observed in the proposed rule that
the NOX and direct PM2.5 emission reductions
attributed to Carl Moyer Program and Prop 1B projects in the
Contingency Measure SIP each amounted to less than 2 percent of the
total projected emission reductions needed to attain the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV (78 FR 53113, 53121), this factual
observation was intended to provide additional support for our proposal
and was not a necessary basis for our action. See Response 12. Our
discussion of the presumptive 3% limit provides relevant context on the
EPA's guidance on voluntary and incentive programs to date, and we
disagree with the District's statement that this discussion should be
excluded from the analyses supporting our rulemaking action.
    We agree, however, with the District's suggestion that it is not
necessarily limited to a 3% cap on the amount of SIP emission reduction
credit allowed for incentive programs. As the District correctly notes,
the 2001 EIP Guidance sets forth only non-binding policy and does not
represent final EPA action on the requirements for EIPs. See 2001 EIP
Guidance at 12. Likewise, the presumptive 3% limit on the SIP credit
allowed for a VMEP under the 1997 VMEP policy is also a non-binding
policy recommendation. In addition, the 2001 EIP Guidance explicitly
provides that states may use it to implement programs which will
generate emission reductions beyond the 3 percent limit, provided the
state is directly responsible for ensuring that program elements are
implemented. See 2001 EIP Guidance at 139. The EPA will review each SIP
submitted by California that relies on emission reductions from
incentive programs on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the
applicable CAA requirements and, for any SIP that relies on incentive
programs for emission reductions exceeding the EPA's presumptive caps,
the EPA will determine through notice-and-comment rulemaking whether
the State has provided adequate justification for such higher amounts
and whether the submission, as a whole, satisfies the requirements of
the Act. Because the incentive-based emission reductions in the
Contingency Measure SIP fall below the EPA's recommended 3% limit, we
do not need to decide in today's action whether the State has provided
adequate justification for higher amounts of emission reduction credit.
    Comment 18: The District disagrees in part with the EPA's
description of the effect of a ``case-by-case determination'' under the
Carl Moyer Program and with the EPA's statement that such
determinations give the State broad discretion without EPA oversight or
public process. First, the District states that case-by-case
determinations are defined under Rule 9610 as ``alternative procedures
approved by ARB for specific projects, as authorized under the Carl
Moyer Program Guidelines'' and that these are not limited to
``determinations that provide for a longer project life.'' Second, the
District states that ``all case-by-case determinations submitted for
review to ARB are made available to the public via public Web posting
at ARB's Carl Moyer Program Web site, and [that] the District is
required by the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines to keep a copy of the
determination in the project file.'' Third, the District states that
under Section 3.2.2 of Rule 9610, no case-by-case determination may be
used to quantify emission reductions under the rule unless each
determination is reviewed through a public process and submitted to the
EPA in accordance with Section 7.0. Finally, the District confirms the
EPA's understanding that emission reductions from projects subject to
case-by-case determinations are not included in the 2013 Annual
Demonstration Report but disagrees with the EPA's statement in the
proposed rule that such projects ``are not eligible for SIP credit,''
noting that the reason these are not included in the 2013 Annual
Demonstration Report is that they are ``extremely rare and make up less
than one percent of District administered incentive programs.'' In
conclusion, the District maintains that case-by-case determinations
made in accordance with Rule 9610 should be eligible for SIP credit.
    Response 18: We do not dispute the District's statement that
``case-by-case determinations'' under the Carl Moyer Program are not
limited to determinations that allow for a longer project life and note
the broad definition of the term ``case-by-case determination'' in
Section 2.4 of Rule 9610. We discussed case-by-case determinations in
the proposed rule only to note that, although the portions of the three
incentive program guidelines that we reviewed generally establish
criteria consistent with the requirements of the Act, the provisions
regarding case-by-case determinations in these portions of the
guidelines do not adequately address the Act's requirements for SIP
emission reduction credit (78 FR 53113, 53120). We referenced, as an
example, a provision in the 2011 Carl Moyer Program guideline entitled
``Project Life'' and noted that emission reductions from any project
subject to a case-by-case determination under such a provision would
not be eligible for SIP credit ``unless the District submits the
individual determination for EPA review and approval through the SIP
process'' (78 FR 53113, 53120 (referencing 2011 Carl Moyer Program
guideline at Chapter 9, Section C.1(c)(5)). The purpose of this
discussion was to make clear that the EPA is not, through this
rulemaking, authorizing the District to rely on any project subject to
a case-by-case determination under the referenced incentive program
guidelines, nor is the EPA approving any such case-by-case
determination.
    As the District correctly notes, Rule 9610 specifically prohibits
the District from using a case-by-case determination to quantify
emission reductions under the rule ``unless such determination is
reviewed through a public process and submitted to EPA in accordance
with Section 7.0.'' Rule 9610, Section 3.2.2. Section 7.0 of the rule
states, in relevant part, that ``[e]ach SIP submission in which the
District relies on [projections of SIP-creditable emission reductions]
shall contain a demonstration that the applicable incentive program
guideline(s) continues to provide for SIP-creditable emission
reductions. . . .'' Read together, these provisions require the
District to submit any case-by-case determination that it

intends to rely on for SIP credit to the EPA in a formal SIP
submission, together with a demonstration that the determination and
the project(s) subject to it provide for emission reductions that are
surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent. See Rule 9610,
Section 7.0 (establishing requirements for SIP submissions) and Section
2.25 (defining ``SIP-Creditable Emission Reduction''). Upon the EPA's
approval of such a SIP consistent with CAA requirements, projects
subject to the identified case-by-case determination would be eligible
for SIP credit.
    In sum, case-by-case determinations under the Carl Moyer Program
are not currently eligible for SIP credit but may become eligible for
credit through the EPA's approval of SIP submissions going forward.
Should the District intend to rely on emission reductions from a
project subject to a case-by-case determination to satisfy a SIP
requirement, it may do so only following its submission of the
determination to the EPA as part of a SIP that meets the requirements
of Rule 9610, Section 7.0 and the EPA's approval of such SIP consistent
with the requirements of the CAA.
    The EPA appreciates the District's statement confirming that
projects subject to case-by-case determinations are not included in the
2013 Annual Demonstration Report and is approving the incentive-based
emission reductions in the Contingency Measure SIP based on our
understanding that it does not rely on any case-by-case determination.

C. General Comments

    Comment 19: Earthjustice urges the EPA not to approve the San
Joaquin Valley contingency measures for the San Joaquin Valley's
PM2.5 SIP. Earthjustice argues that the Contingency Measure
SIP ``does not comply with the Clean Air Act and would leave Valley
residents without meaningful air quality protections if and when the
Valley fails to attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards.''
    Response 19: For the reasons discussed in our proposed rule and
further explained in our responses to comments above, we have
determined that the Contingency Measure SIP corrects the deficiency
that prompted our partial disapproval of the SJV PM2.5 SIP
and strengthens the SIP and are, therefore, approving it into the
California SIP.
    We disagree with the claim that the approval of this Contingency
Measure SIP would leave SJV residents ``without meaningful air quality
protections'' should the SJV fail to meet the 1997 PM2.5
standards by the applicable attainment date of April 5, 2015. The
Contingency Measure SIP demonstrates that California has adopted
measures that will achieve substantial emission reductions in and after
2015 that will provide significant on-going air quality benefits to SJV
residents. Specifically, the Contingency Measure SIP shows that in
calendar year 2015, adopted and implemented federal and State mobile
source control measures will reduce NOX emissions by 21 tpd;
State and local incentive grant funds will reduce NOX
emissions by an additional 4.15 tpd; and the SIP-approved contingency
provision in the District's residential woodburning rule, Rule 4901,
will provide 3.1 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions should we
determine that the SJV has failed to attain the 1997 PM2.5
standards by the applicable attainment date of April 5, 2015 (78 FR
53113, 53123). Compared to projected 2014 levels of NOX and
direct PM2.5 emissions in the SJV, these contingency
measures will provide an additional 9 percent reduction in
NOX emissions and an additional 5 percent reduction in
direct PM2.5 emissions in 2015.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Total NOX and direct PM2.5 emissions
in the SJV are projected to be 291 tpd and 63.3 tpd, respectively,
in 2014. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix C, Table C-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 20: Earthjustice objects to the EPA's statement that
contingency measures must be implemented ``quickly without significant
additional action by the state,'' stating that the addition of
``significant'' in 40 CFR 51.1012 was the result of a scrivener's error
and is not consistent with the plain statutory language of CAA section
172(c)(9). Quoting from the preamble to the EPA's 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule, Earthjustice notes that the EPA acknowledged this
error in its adoption of the rule.
    Response 20: We agree that the inclusion of ``significant'' in 40
CFR 51.1012 was in error and note the correction.
    Comment 21: Mr. Unger comments that the SJV area has not met the
PM2.5 standards and that air quality has not improved much
in the past few years. He also states that both the SJV's citizens and
the District are reluctant to do more to improve air quality. For these
reasons, he urges the EPA to not approve the SIP for the 1997 annual
and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. He disagrees with our statement
that ``the State has most likely done all it can to correct the
deficiency'' given the continuing nonattainment in the San Joaquin
Valley. He states that if the EPA were to impose sanctions on the SJV,
it would encourage California to adopt controls sufficient to attain
the standards. He includes a list of suggested measures in his
comments.
    Response 21: In 2011, we approved all but one element of
California's SIP to attain the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5
standards in the SJV (76 FR 69896, November 9, 2011). Our action here
is to approve the last outstanding element of that SIP, the contingency
measures for failure to make RFP or attain. Our approval is based on
our determination that the Contingency Measure SIP corrects the
deficiency that prompted our 2011 disapproval of the contingency
measure provisions in the SJV PM2.5 SIP. Although the
commenter asserts generally that SJV citizens and the District are
``reluctant'' to do more to improve air quality, that the SJV area has
not complied with the NAAQS for many years, and that the threat of
sanctions might encourage further regulatory action, the commenter
fails to identify any specific basis under the CAA for disapproving the
Contingency Measure SIP.
    The purpose of contingency measures is to continue progress in
reducing emissions while the SIP is being revised to meet a missed RFP
milestone or correct continuing nonattainment. Should the EPA determine
that the SJV has failed to attain the 1997 standards by the applicable
attainment date (April 5, 2015), the State and District will be
required to implement these contingency measures and to revise the SIP
to assure expeditious attainment consistent with applicable CAA
requirements.
    We appreciate the list of control measures and will forward it to
the District for its consideration during development of the next
PM2.5 SIP for the Valley.

III. Final Actions

    The EPA is approving the Contingency Measure SIP (adopted June 20,
2013 and submitted July 3, 2013) based on the Agency's conclusion that
this SIP submission corrects the deficiency in the CAA section
172(c)(9) attainment contingency measures that was one of two bases for
the EPA's partial disapproval of the SJV PM2.5 SIP on
November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69896).
    The EPA also finds that the CAA section 172(c)(9) RFP contingency
measure requirement for the 2012 RFP milestone year is moot as applied
to the SJV nonattainment area because the area has achieved its SIP-
approved emission reduction benchmarks for the 2012 RFP milestone year.
This finding corrects the deficiency in the CAA section 172(c)(9) RFP
contingency measures that was the second of two bases for the EPA's
partial

disapproval of the SJV PM2.5 SIP on November 9, 2011 (76 FR
69896).
    Finally, the EPA is approving enforceable commitments by the
District to monitor, assess, and report on actual NOX and
direct PM2.5 emission reductions achieved through its
implementation of specific Prop 1B and Carl Moyer Program grants and to
remedy any identified emission reduction shortfall in a timely manner
as found on page 3 of the SJVUPACD Governing Board Resolution No. 13-6-
18, dated June 20, 2013.
    Today's final actions lift the CAA section 179(b)(2) offset
sanctions and terminate the CAA section 179(b)(1) highway funding
sanction clock triggered by the 2011 partial disapproval of the SJV
PM2.5 SIP. These actions also terminate the EPA's obligation
under CAA section 110(c) to promulgate a corrective Federal
implementation plan within two years of the partial disapproval.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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, the EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
State law. For that reason, this 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because it does not apply in Indian country located in the State, and
the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 21, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

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.

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

    Dated: April 28, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(438) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (438) The following plan was submitted on July 3, 2013, by the
Governor's Designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) ``Quantifying Contingency Reductions for the 2008
PM2.5 Plan'' (dated June 20, 2013), adopted October 7, 2011.
    (2) SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 13-6-18, dated June 20,
2013, ``In the Matter of: Authorizing Submittal of the `Quantification
of Contingency Reductions for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan' to EPA.''
    (3) Electronic mail, dated July 24, 2013, from Samir Sheikh,
SJVUAPCD, to Kerry Drake, EPA Region 9, ``RE: Per our conversation
earlier.''
    (B) State of California Air Resources Board.
    (1) CARB Executive Order 13-30, dated June 27, 2013, ``San Joaquin
Valley PM2.5 Contingency Measures Update.''

[FR Doc. 2014-11681 Filed 5-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 64781]
[DOCID:fr20oc10-117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2010-45]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR Part 43. The purpose of this
notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in,
this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this
notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is
intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before November 9, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
0544 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Haley, Office of Rulemaking,
ARM-203, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile (202) 267-
5075; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 15, 2010.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2010-0544.
    Petitioner: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
    Sections of 14 CFR Affected:
    Part 43 and Sec.  91.205(h).
    Description of Relief Sought:
    Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission seeks relief for
a period of up to 5 years to allow sufficient time for it to acquire
the necessary funding and complete modifications to bring its aircraft
into compliance with the requirements for use of Night Vision Goggles.

[FR Doc. 2010-26346 Filed 10-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P