[Federal Register: September 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 170)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51215-51217]
[DOCID:fr02se08-1]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30623; Amdt. No. 3283]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective September 2, 2008. The compliance date
for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of September 2, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169, or;
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
Information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_
federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability_All SIAPs are available online free of charge. Visit
nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Programs Division,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and
Sec.  97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAP and the corresponding effective dates. This
amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure
and the amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and
timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only
specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to
SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions
existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule
have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency
action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published
aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all
these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30
days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs
and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure
before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the
public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for
making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under DOT
Regulatory Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 8, 2008.
James J. Ballough,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code
of Federal regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the
dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Sec. Sec.  97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33 and
97.35  [Amended]

    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FDC date                State                City                   Airport           FDC No.                        Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07/10/08................  WV                SUMMERSVILLE..........  SUMMERSVILLE..........       8/6325  GPS RWY 22, AMDT 2
07/24/08................  VA                RICHMOND..............  RICHMOND INTL.........       8/9150  RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, ORIG-B 0
07/24/08................  CA                SANTA MONICA..........  SANTA MONICA MUNI.....       8/9214  VOR OR GPS-A, AMDT 10C
07/24/08................  FM                POHNPEI ISLAND........  POHNPEI INTL..........       8/9241  NDB/DME RWY 9, AMDT 4
07/24/08................  FM                POHNPEI ISLAND........  POHNPEI INTL..........       8/9242  NDB OR GPS-C, AMDT 3
07/24/08................  FM                POHNPEI ISLAND........  POHNPEI INTL..........       8/9244  RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, ORIG
07/24/08................  FM                POHNPEI ISLAND........  POHNPEI INTL..........       8/9246  NDB OR GPS-B, AMDT 3
07/24/08................  FM                POHNPEI ISLAND........  POHNPEI INTL..........       8/9249  NDB/DME OR GPS-A, AMDT 1A
07/24/08................  FM                POHNPEI ISLAND........  POHNPEI INTL..........       8/9250  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, ORIG
07/25/08................  FL                MIAMI.................  KENDALL-TAMIAMI              8/9372  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9R, ORIG-A
                                                                     EXECUTIVE.
07/25/08................  FL                MIAMI.................  KENDALL-TAMIAMI              8/9373  ILS OR LOC RWY 9R, AMDT 9
                                                                     EXECUTIVE.
07/28/08................  TN                NASHVILLE.............  JOHN C. TUNE..........       8/9579  ILS/DME RWY 20, ORIG
07/28/08................  TN                NASHVILLE.............  JOHN C. TUNE..........       8/9580  RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, ORIG
07/29/08................  OR                PORTLAND..............  PORTLAND INTL.........       8/9657  RNAV (GPS) RWY 10L, ORIG
07/29/08................  FL                DAYTONA BEACH.........  DAYTONA BEACH INTL....       8/9690  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 7L, ORIG-A
07/29/08................  FL                DAYTONA BEACH.........  DAYTONA BEACH INTL....       8/9691  RNAV (GPS) RWY 7R, ORIG-A
07/29/08................  FL                DAYTONA BEACH.........  DAYTONA BEACH INTL....       8/9692  RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, AMDT 1A
07/29/08................  FL                DAYTONA BEACH.........  DAYTONA BEACH INTL....       8/9693  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 7L, ORIG
07/29/08................  FL                DAYTONA BEACH.........  DAYTONA BEACH INTL....       8/9694  RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, AMDT 1
07/29/08................  FL                DAYTONA BEACH.........  DAYTONA BEACH INTL....       8/9696  RADAR-1, AMDT 8A
07/29/08................  AK                IGIUGIG...............  IGIUGIG...............       8/9747  RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, ORIG-A
07/29/08................  AK                IGIUGIG...............  IGIUGIG...............       8/9748  RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, ORIG-A
07/29/08................  NV                LOVELOCK..............  DERBY FIELD...........       8/9782  VOR OR GPS-C, ORIG-A
07/29/08................  NV                LOVELOCK..............  DERBY FIELD...........       8/9783  VOR/DME OR GPS-A, ORIG-A
07/30/08................  NJ                WILDWOOD..............  CAPE MAY COUNTY.......       8/9934  RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, ORIG-A
07/30/08................  NJ                WILDWOOD..............  CAPE MAY COUNTY.......       8/9935  LOC RWY 19, AMDT 6B
07/30/08................  SC                GREENVILLE............  GREENVILLE DOWNTOWN...       8/9970  RADAR-1, AMDT 13
07/30/08................  NH                LACONIA...............  LACONIA MUNI..........       8/9971  TAKEOFF MINS AND OBSTACLE DP, AMDT 3
07/30/08................  MS                GREENVILLE............  MID DELTA REGIONAL....       8/9983  ILS OR LOC RWY 18L, AMDT 9C
07/30/08................  CA                ALTURAS...............  ALTURAS MUNI..........       8/0021  RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, ORIG
07/30/08................  VA                MANASSAS..............  MANASSAS RGNL/HARRY P.       8/0042  ILS OR LOC RWY 16L, AMDT 4C
                                                                     DAVIS FIELD.
07/30/08................  PA                BUTLER................  BUTLER COUNTY/K W            8/0043  RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, ORIG-A
                                                                     SCHOLTER FLD.
07/31/08................  CA                LOS ANGELES...........  LOS ANGELES INTL......       8/0215  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 6L, AMDT 1
07/31/08................  CA                LOS ANGELES...........  LOS ANGELES INTL......       8/0216  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 6R, AMDT 1
07/31/08................  CA                LOS ANGELES...........  LOS ANGELES INTL......       8/0217  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 7R, AMDT 2
07/31/08................  CA                LOS ANGELES...........  LOS ANGELES INTL......       8/0218  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 7L, AMDT 2
07/31/08................  ME                GREENVILLE............  GREENVILLE MUNI.......       8/0528  NDB OR GPS RWY 14, AMDT 4B
07/31/08................  FM                POHNPEI ISLAND........  POHNPEI INTL..........       8/0533  NDB OR GPS-B, AMDT 3
07/31/08................  FM                POHNPEI ISLAND........  POHNPEI INTL..........       8/0535  NDB/DME RWY 9, AMDT 4
07/31/08................  PA                WEST CHESTER..........  BRANDYWINE............       8/0570  RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, ORIG
07/31/08................  PA                WEST CHESTER..........  BRANDYWINE............       8/0577  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, ORIG
08/01/08................  CA                LONG BEACH............  LONG BEACH/DAUGHERTY         8/0689  VOR OR TACAN RWY 30, AMDT 8
                                                                     FIELD.

08/04/08................  CA                TORRANCE..............  ZAMPERINI FIELD.......       8/1176  VOR OR GPS RWY 11L, AMDT 14A
08/04/08................  CA                TORRANCE..............  ZAMPERINI FIELD.......       8/1177  ILS RWY 29R, AMDT 2
08/05/08................  AK                KOBUK.................  KOBUK.................       8/1375  RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, ORIG
08/05/08................  AK                KOBUK.................  KOBUK.................       8/1376  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, ORIG
08/05/08................  AL                BESSEMER..............  BESSEMER..............       8/1447  GPS RWY 23, ORIG
08/05/08................  AL                BESSEMER..............  BESSEMER..............       8/1449  RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, ORIG
08/05/08................  AL                BESSEMER..............  BESSEMER..............       8/1452  ILS OR LOC RWY 5, AMDT 1
08/01/08................  MT                CONRAD................  CONRAD................       8/0707  NDB OR GPS RWY 24, AMDT 4A
08/01/08................  MT                GREAT FALLS...........  GREAT FALLS INTL......       8/0710  NDB RWY 34, AMDT 16A
08/05/08................  WA                BURLINGTON/MT VERNON..  SKAGIT REGIONAL.......       8/1260  TAKEOFF MINIMUMS AND OBSTACLE DP, ORIG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-19541 Filed 8-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


year from 2021 to 2025, an annual demonstration report that includes
specific information about the projects funded through the previous
year, (4) make each annual demonstration report publicly available and
available upon request, (5) provide to the public, upon request,
certain project-specific documents relied upon in the preparation of
CARB's annual demonstration reports, including project applications,
grant contracts, and inspection-related documents, and (6) adopt and
submit substitute measures or rules by specific dates, if the EPA
determines that information submitted by CARB is insufficient to
demonstrate that the identified projects will fulfill the tonnage
commitments.\121\ The central obligation in these commitments is to
fulfill specific NOX and PM2.5 tonnage
commitments on a fixed schedule, and the other components of the
commitments are designed to ensure that the EPA and citizens can hold
CARB responsible for achieving these emission reductions by the
specified dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ CARB Resolution 19-26 and Technical Corrections Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earthjustice correctly notes that the commitment to rectify
shortfalls (in paragraphs A.5 and A.6 of CARB Resolution 19-26) is
triggered only if the EPA determines that information submitted by CARB
is insufficient to demonstrate that the identified projects will
fulfill the tonnage commitments. Earthjustice incorrectly claims,
however, that there is no way for the EPA or citizens to prove that
CARB had failed to rectify a shortfall identified by the EPA because
there is no explanation of what action CARB must take. As explained in
Response 2 and Response 5, if the EPA determines by August 1, 2022,
that information submitted by CARB is insufficient to demonstrate that
the emission reductions necessary to fulfill the 2024 tonnage
commitments will occur on schedule, CARB must adopt and submit to the
EPA, no later than September 1, 2023, substitute measures or rules that
will achieve emission reductions addressing the shortfall as
expeditiously as practicable and no later than January 1, 2024.\122\
Likewise, if the EPA determines by August 1, 2023, that information
submitted by CARB is insufficient to demonstrate that the emission
reductions necessary to fulfill the 2025 tonnage commitments will occur
on schedule, CARB must adopt and submit to the EPA, no later than
September 1, 2024, substitute measures or rules that will achieve
emission reductions addressing the shortfall as expeditiously as
practicable and no later than January 1, 2024.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ CARB Resolution 19-26 at para. A.5.
    \123\ Id. at para. A.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to Earthjustice's assertion, CARB cannot satisfy this
commitment by simply claiming ``that other regulated sectors reduced
emissions more than anticipated for whatever reason.'' By its terms,
the commitment is to ``adopt and submit to U.S. EPA . . . substitute
measures or rules''--i.e., new or revised prohibitory control
measures--that achieve the necessary emission reductions by the
specified deadline. Any such substitute control measure must be adopted
following state rulemaking procedures through which the EPA and the
public may track the State's progress in achieving the requisite
emissions reductions.\124\ We expect that CARB will make clear during
any such rulemaking that it is proposing the identified measure or rule
for purposes of submission to the EPA consistent with its commitment in
the Amended Valley Incentive Measure.\125\

If, following an insufficiency finding by the EPA, CARB fails to adopt
and submit prohibitory control measures that fully address the
identified shortfall in required emission reductions by the relevant
deadline, citizens may sue CARB for violating its SIP commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ The substitute measures or rules would, therefore, be
enforceable by the EPA and citizens under the CAA upon approval into
the SIP.
    \125\ See EPA, Memorandum dated November 22, 2011, from Janet
McCabe, Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Air and
Radiation, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regions 1-10, Attachment B
(``Guidelines to States Agencies for Preparing the Public Notices
for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions'') (noting that state
public notices must state that the regulation or document at issue
will be submitted to the EPA for approval into the SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even if the EPA does not make an insufficiency finding, citizens
may independently enforce the tonnage commitments against CARB by
reviewing CARB's annual demonstration reports. As explained in Response
5, the Amended Valley Incentive Measure obligates CARB to provide, in
each annual demonstration report submitted to the EPA from May 2021
through May 2025, detailed information about each incentive project
that CARB is relying on to achieve the necessary emission reductions,
including descriptions of both the old (replaced) and new equipment
sufficient to independently calculate emission reductions.\126\ Each of
these annual demonstration reports must be readily available to the
public on CARB's website upon submission to the EPA and remain
available through December 31, 2030.\127\ If CARB's 2024 annual
demonstration report (which is due May 15, 2024) fails to demonstrate
that the identified projects have achieved 4.83 tpd of NOX
emission reductions and 0.24 tpd of PM2.5 emission
reductions from the 2024 baseline inventory in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, and CARB has not submitted substitute control
measures to address the shortfall, citizens may sue CARB for violating
its SIP commitment. Likewise, if CARB's 2025 annual demonstration
report (due May 15, 2025) fails to demonstrate that the identified
projects have achieved 4.46 tpd of NOX emission reductions
and 0.26 tpd of PM2.5 emission reductions from the 2025
baseline inventory in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, and CARB has not
submitted substitute control measures to address the shortfall,
citizens may sue CARB for violating its SIP commitment. Thus, the
tonnage commitments remain enforceable even if the EPA has not made an
insufficiency finding in accordance with paragraph A.5 or A.6 of CARB
Resolution 19-26. See Response 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ CARB Resolution 19-26, paras. A3, B.2, C.3, and D.2.
    \127\ Id. at paras. B.3, C.4., and D.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 8: Earthjustice states that CARB's obligation to ``provide
publicly available annual demonstration reports'' is a ``throw away
requirement.'' According to Earthjustice, while it might be possible to
show that CARB did not provide a report, the contents of the report are
so vague that any document would likely pass muster. Earthjustice
asserts that although the State must monitor compliance and project
whether projects will achieve reductions on time, there are no
consequences, for example, if CARB finds noncompliance is rampant or
there is no possibility that projects will achieve emission reductions
on time.
    Response 8: We disagree with Earthjustice's assertion that the
annual demonstration reports are ``throw away'' requirements and that
``the contents of the report are so vague that any document would
likely pass muster.'' As discussed in Response 4, the Amended Valley
Incentive Measure obligates CARB to include the following information
in each annual demonstration report that it submits to the EPA by May
15 of each year from 2021 through 2025: (1) Specific information about
the projects funded through the previous calendar year that CARB is
relying on to fulfill the tonnage commitment; \128\ (2) a description
of any changes to the applicable guidelines and related impacts on
program integrity; (3) a description of CARB's and the District's
actions to monitor selected Carl Moyer and FARMER projects for
compliance with contract requirements; and (4) a determination of
whether the identified projects are projected to fulfill the
NOX and PM2.5 tonnage commitments in the San
Joaquin Valley by the relevant deadlines.\129\ CARB's supporting
analysis in the Demonstration further describes the project-specific
information for Carl Moyer and FARMER projects that CARB intends to
include in each annual demonstration report including, among other
things, the project life, post-inspection date,\130\ vehicle
identification number (VIN), equipment serial number, activity
information (i.e., annual hours of operation), percentage of operations
occurring in California and in the San Joaquin Valley area, equipment
and engine make and model, engine horsepower and tier, vehicle fuel
type, and engine emission level (i.e., emission factor).\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ CARB must identify each project that it is relying upon to
achieve emission reductions ``by project identification number,
project life and implementation date, description of both baseline
and new equipment sufficient to independently calculate emision
reductions, applicable incentive program guideline, and quantified
emission reductions.'' CARB Resolution 19-26, paras. A.3.a.i and
A.3.b.i.
    \129\ Id. at paras. B.2 and D.2.
    \130\ The ``post-inspection date'' is the date on which the
District verifies that the old equipment has been destroyed and that
the new equipment has been purchased, is operational, and is the
same equipment that was used in the emission reduction calculations.
2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Volume I, Part 1, Chapter 3, Section X
(``Project Post-Inspection'').
    \131\ Demonstration, 24-29 (discussing Carl Moyer project
information) and 48-52 (discussing FARMER project information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These provisions ensure that CARB's annual demonstration reports
will contain both the project-specific information needed to
independently calculate the emission reductions that CARB attributes to
each project and the programmatic information needed to determine
whether CARB and the District are taking appropriate steps to ensure
that the identified projects comply with the applicable program
criteria. If CARB's annual demonstration report for a given year fails
to provide any of the information described in paragraphs A.3, B.2, or
D.2 of CARB Resolution 19-26, as amended by the Technical Corrections
Document, the EPA or citizens may bring an enforcement action against
CARB for violating its reporting obligations. See Response 4.
    We also disagree with Earthjustice's comments about CARB's
monitoring obligations in the Valley Incentive Measure and its claim
that there are no consequences if CARB finds that noncompliance is
rampant or that the identified projects cannot achieve emission
reductions on time. As we explained in Response 4, CARB is obligated to
monitor the District's implementation of estimated numbers of incentive
projects in accordance with specified portions of the relevant program
criteria for purposes of determining whether those projects will
fulfill specific NOX and PM2.5 tonnage
commitments by 2024 and 2025. Additionally, CARB must report annually
on the actions that both CARB and the District have taken to monitor
Carl Moyer and FARMER projects for compliance with contract
requirements. If the EPA determines that information submitted by CARB
is insufficient to demonstrate that it will fulfill a particular
tonnage commitment on schedule, CARB must adopt and submit substitute
measures to the EPA that address any shortfall in emission reductions
by specified dates. For example, if the EPA finds, during its review of
the annual demonstration reports for 2021 and 2022, that a substantial
number of identified projects have not complied with contract terms, or
that the total number of projects is insufficient to ensure that CARB
will meet its NOX and PM2.5 tonnage commitments
by December 31, 2023, the EPA would make an insufficiency finding and
thus trigger CARB's

obligation to adopt and submit substitute control measures. If,
following such an insufficiency finding by the EPA, CARB fails to adopt
and submit substitute control measures that fully address the
identified shortfall in required emission reductions by the relevant
deadline, both the EPA and citizens may sue CARB for violating its SIP
commitment. See Response 2. Any insufficiency finding that the EPA
makes would be available to the public upon request and available on
the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/sips-ca.
    Even if the EPA does not make an insufficiency finding, citizens
may verify whether CARB has met the tonnage commitment by independently
reviewing CARB's annual demonstration reports, and thereby enforce the
tonnage commitment directly. As explained in Response 5, the Amended
Valley Incentive Measure obligates CARB to provide detailed information
in each annual demonstration report and to make each of these reports
readily available to the public on CARB's website or available upon
request. If CARB's 2024 annual demonstration report (which is due May
15, 2024) fails to demonstrate that the identified projects have
achieved 4.83 tpd of NOX emission reductions and 0.24 tpd of
PM2.5 emission reductions from the 2024 baseline inventory
in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, and CARB has not submitted
substitute control measures to address the shortfall, citizens may sue
CARB for violating its SIP commitment. For example, if citizens find,
upon review of the 2024 annual demonstration report and related project
documents, that emission reductions have not occurred because a
substantial number of identified projects have not complied with
contract terms, or that the total number of projects is insufficient to
meet CARB's NOX and PM2.5 tonnage commitments by
December 31, 2023, citizens may sue CARB for violating its SIP
commitment. See Response 5.
    All Carl Moyer and FARMER projects are subject to detailed contract
provisions that must, among other things, specify the repercussions for
noncompliance with contract requirements.\132\ Under the 2011 and 2017
Carl Moyer Guidelines, each 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 equipment, including documentation adequate to establish
historical annual usage; (4) requirements for the grantee to maintain
the equipment 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 equipment and associated records during the
contract term; (7) requirements to maintain and retain project records
for at least three years after contract expiration; (8) repercussions
for noncompliance; and (9) a statement that CARB is authorized to
enforce the terms of the contract at any time during the contract term
to ensure that emission reductions are obtained.\133\ These project
contracts, in addition to other project-specific records, will be
available to the public upon request beginning May 15, 2021, and
through 2029,\134\ thereby enabling the public to verify the project-
specific information provided in CARB's annual demonstration reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ Cal. Health & Safety Code section 44288(d) (``Funds shall
be awarded in conjunction with the execution of a contract that
obligates the state board or a participating district to make the
grant and obligates the grantee to take the actions described in the
grant application''), 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Part 1, Chapter 3,
Section Y (``Minimum Contract Requirements''), para. 11 and 2017
Carl Moyer Guidelines, Volume I, Part 1, Chapter 3, Section V
(``Minimum Contract Requirements''), para. 11.
    \133\ 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Part 1, Chapter 3, Section Y
(``Minimum Contract Requirements'') and Chapter 9, Section C
(``Project Criteria''), para. 2.E (requiring documentation showing
ownership by the grantee for the previous 24 months), 2017 Carl
Moyer Guidelines, Volume I, Part 1, Chapter 3, Section V (``Minimum
Contract Requirements'') and Chapter 5, Section D (``Project
Criteria''), para. 4(E)(1) (requiring documentation showing
ownership by the grantee for the previous 24 months).
    \134\ CARB Resolution 19-26, paras. B.5 and D.5 (added by
Technical Corrections Document, paras. 7 and 11) (requiring that
CARB provide to any requestor ``all documents relied upon in the
preparation of any annual demonstration report and available in the
relevant project file, including: project applications, grant
contracts, inspection-related documents (including photographic
documentation of baseline engine destruction), and any available
audit-related documentation and annual grantee reports'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, 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
cancelling the contract and recapturing program funds.\135\ Should CARB
determine that the District's oversight and enforcement of the program
is insufficient, CARB may also recapture funds granted to the District
that have not yet been awarded to approved projects.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Part 1, Chapter 3, Section Y
(``Minimum Contract Requirements''), para. 11 and 2017 Carl Moyer
Guidelines, Volume I, Part 1, Chapter 3, Section V (``Minimum
Contract Requirements''), para. 11.
    \136\ 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Part 1, Chapter 3, Section T
(``Program Non-Performance''), para. 4. and 2017 Carl Moyer
Guidelines, Volume I, Part 1, Chapter 3, Section Q (``Program
Nonperformance''), para. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These provisions of the 2011 and 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines,
together with CARB's commitments in the Amended Valley Incentive
Measure, enable the EPA and the public to independently verify the
emission reductions attributed to each incentive project that CARB has
identified in its annual demonstration reports to demonstrate
compliance with the tonnage commitment. For all of these reasons, we
disagree with Earthjustice's claim that CARB's reporting obligations in
the Valley Incentive Measure are insufficient to ensure that emission
reductions will occur in a timely manner.
    Comment 9: Earthjustice asserts that the absence of defined
violations makes independent verification impossible, and that although
CARB says it is ``monitoring'' implementation, neither the EPA nor
citizens can independently verify or prove otherwise. Earthjustice
claims that an even more fundamental problem around verification is
that the emission reductions to be achieved, in theory, will come from
projects under the Carl Moyer and FARMER programs that neither the EPA
nor citizens can independently verify, and from the NRCS program that
no one other than NRCS can verify. Earthjustice states that measures
that preclude verification and enforcement by the EPA and citizens do
not meet the enforceability requirements of the Act.
    Response 9: We disagree with Earthjustice's claim that neither the
EPA nor citizens can independently verify whether CARB is monitoring
implementation of the identified incentive projects. CARB's commitment
to monitor District implementation of projects in accordance with the
2011 and 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines is enforceable through specific
reporting provisions in the Amended Valley Incentive Measure that
require CARB to report annually on, among other things, the incentive
projects it is relying on to achieve emission reductions and the
actions that CARB and the District have taken to ensure that these
projects comply with the contracts issued in accordance with the
applicable Carl Moyer Guidelines. See Response 2 and Response 4.

    We also disagree with Earthjustice's assertion that projects relied
on in the Valley Incentive Measure cannot be independently verified by
the EPA or the public. As explained in Response 4 and Response 8, the
Amended Valley Incentive Measure obligates CARB to provide, in each
annual demonstration report, detailed information about each incentive
project funded through the previous year that CARB is relying on to
achieve the required NOX and PM2.5 emission
reductions, including descriptions of both baseline and new equipment
sufficient to independently calculate emission reductions.\137\
Consistent with these obligations, CARB has submitted an Excel
spreadsheet populated with detailed project-specific information for
both baseline and new equipment sufficient to independently calculate
emission reductions for all Carl Moyer and FARMER projects completed as
of July 26, 2019, which we refer to as ``Detailed Spreadsheet HJ.''
\138\ We explain below how the emission reductions for each project may
be independently verified, based on the project data provided in
Detailed Spreadsheet HJ and the quantification methodologies provided
in the 2011 and 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ CARB Resolution 19-26, para. A.3.
    \138\ CARB, ``Carl Moyer/FARMER Emissions Reductions
Calculator'' (``Detailed Spreadsheet HJ''), available as
``Appendices H and J--Detailed'' at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/implementation-state-sip-strategy (last visited
November 16, 2021). This spreadsheet is also available as
``ag_appx_h_j_detailed_021120.xlsx'' at www.regulations.gov under
docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0079. We understand that CARB will
include, in each annual demonstration report submitted to the EPA
beginning May 15, 2021, similar spreadsheets providing detailed
information about each project that CARB relies on to fulfill its
tonnage commitments in the Amended Valley Incentive Measure. The EPA
is currently reviewing the first annual demonstration report that
CARB submitted to EPA on May 14, 2021, including the associated
project spreadsheets. This report is available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/implementation-state-sip-strategy
and available as ``2021 Annual Demonstration Report'' at
www.regulations.gov under docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Carl Moyer and FARMER projects, the accuracy of the project
data provided in each annual demonstration report may be verified
through independent review of specific documents that grantees and the
District must maintain in accordance with the Carl Moyer Guidelines,
all of which will be available for public review in accordance with
paragraphs B.5 and D.5 of CARB Resolution 19-26.\139\ First, actions
required of grantees under the 2011 and 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines are
independently verifiable through (1) pre-project and post-project on-
site inspections (with photographic documentation) that the District
and/or CARB must carry out pursuant to the applicable guidelines, and
(2) documents that each grantee is required to maintain and/or submit
to the District in accordance with detailed contract provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ Paragraphs B.5 and D.5 of CARB Resolution 19-26 (added by
paragraphs 7 and 11 of the Technical Corrections Document) obligate
CARB to provide to the public upon request, for Carl Moyer and
FARMER projects, beginning 15, 2021 and through 2029: ``all
documents relied upon in the preparation of any annual demonstration
report and available in the relevant project file, including:
project applications, grant contracts, inspection-related documents
(including photographic documentation of baseline engine
destruction), and any available audit-related documentation and
annual grantee reports.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, the 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines require, among other
things, that (1) all project applications 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 equipment; (3) that the
District conduct a ``post-inspection'' of each funded project to verify
destruction of the baseline engine through photographic or video
evidence, and record, among other things, information regarding the new
equipment as needed to provide a basis for emission calculations and to
ensure contract enforceability; and (4) that the District's project
files include all required ``pre-inspection'' and ``post-inspection''
documentation, including photographic documentation of the engine,
vehicle, or equipment information (e.g., a legible serial number and/or
other identifying markings) and photographic evidence of the scrapped
or destroyed engine.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ 2017 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Volume I, Part 1,
Chapter 3, Section T (``Application Evaluation and Project
Selection''), para. 3, Section W (``Project Pre-Inspection''), and
Section X (``Project Post-Inspection''). See also 2011 Carl Moyer
Program Guidelines, Part 1, Chapter 3, Section W (``Application
Evaluation and Project Selection''), para. 3, Section Z (``Project
Pre-Inspection''), and Section AA (``Project Post-Inspection'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines specifically define the
required elements of each contract and the types of actions that
constitute violations of such contracts. Specifically, each project
contract must include: (1) The name and contact information of the
grantee; (2) specified timeframes for ``project completion'' and
``project implementation''; (3) detailed information on baseline and
new equipment, including documentation adequate to establish historical
annual usage; (4) requirements for equipment maintenance; (5) annual
reporting requirements; (6) authorization for the District, CARB, and
their designees to conduct fiscal audits and equipment and associated
records inspection; (7) requirements to retain project records after
contract expiration; and (8) repercussions for contract noncompliance,
including cancellation of the contract and recapture of program
funds.\141\ See Response 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Volume I, Part 1, Chapter 3,
Section V (``Minimum Contract Requirements'') and Chapter 5, Section
D (``Project Criteria''), para. 4(E)(1) (requiring documentation
showing ownership by the applicant for the previous 24 months). See
also 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Part 1, Chapter 3, Section Y
(``Minimum Contract Requirements'') and Chapter 9, Section C
(``Project Criteria''), para. 2(E) (requiring documentation showing
ownership by the grantee for the previous 24 months).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines require that all grantees
submit specific types of project records to the District and also
require the District to maintain such records for specified periods of
time. Specifically, each contract executed by the District must require
the grantee to maintain project records for at least three years after
contract expiration, and to submit annual or biennial reports to the
District. Additionally, the District must keep each ``project file''
for a minimum of three years after the end of the contract term. A
``project file'' generally includes a copy of the application, the
contract, a completed pre- and post-inspection form, photographs of the
destroyed engine, and the annual reports submitted by the grantee.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Volume I, Part 1, Chapter 3,
Section T (``Application Evaluation and Project Selection), para. 1,
Section V (``Minimum Contract Requirements''), para. 1, Section W
(``Project Pre-Inspection''), para. 4, Section X (``Project Post-
Inspection''), para. 1, and Section Z (``Grantee Annual
Reporting''), para. 3. See also 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Part 1,
Chapter 3, Section W (``Application Evaluation and Project
Selection''), para. 1, Section Y (``Minimum Contract
Requirements''), para. 1, Section Z (``Project Pre-Inspection''),
para. 4, Section AA (``Project Post-Inspection''), para. 1, and
Section CC (``Grantee Annual Reporting''), para. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These requirements of the 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines, which are
substantively identical to similar provisions in the 2011 Carl Moyer
Guidelines, ensure that the District will maintain project-specific
documents sufficient for the EPA and the public to verify the accuracy
of CARB's emission reduction calculations for the Carl Moyer and FARMER
projects listed in each annual demonstration report. Specifically, the
EPA and the public may verify CARB's emission reduction calculations
not only by independently calculating project-specific emission

reductions using the quantification methodologies provided in the 2017
Carl Moyer Guidelines and the project data provided in the annual
demonstration report, but also by confirming the accuracy of the
project data provided in CARB's annual demonstration reports, through
independent review of the project-specific documents that the District
must maintain under the 2011 and 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines (e.g., the
project contract and associated pre-inspection and post-inspection
documentation). All of these project-specific documents will be
available for public review in accordance with paragraphs B.5 and D.5
of CARB Resolution 19-26.\143\ Accordingly, the EPA and citizens can
obtain the information necessary to quantify and verify the emission
reductions that CARB attributes to Carl Moyer and FARMER projects to
fulfill the tonnage commitments in the Amended Valley Incentive
Measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ Technical Corrections Document, paras. 7 and 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To demonstrate how the public can quantify and verify the emission
reductions identified in each annual demonstration report, we randomly
selected three of the projects listed in Appendix H and Appendix J of
the Demonstration \144\ and independently calculated the emission
reductions for these projects based on the data inputs provided in
Detailed Spreadsheet HJ and the relevant quantification methodologies
in the 2011 and 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines. The projects that we
randomly selected from Appendix H and Appendix J of the Demonstration
are identified in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ Demonstration, Appendix H (``San Joaquin Valley
Agricultural Equipment Incentive Measure, Carl Moyer Project
List''), Appendix J (``San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Equipment
Incentive Measure, FARMER Project List''), and Detailed Spreadsheet
HJ, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/implementation-state-sip-strategy, link entitled ``Appendices H and
J--Detailed'' (last visited November 16, 2021) (also available as
``ag_appx_h_j_detailed_021120.xlsx'' at www.regulations.gov under
docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0079).

Table 1--Carl Moyer and FARMER Projects, and Selected Project Information, From Detailed Spreadsheet HJ (See Also Demonstration, Appendix H and Appendix
                                                                           J)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Post-         Baseline     NOX reductions       PM2.5
       Equipment identifier             Function vocation          Applicable program       Inspection     engine model   (tons per day)    reductions
                                                                       guideline               date            year                       (tons per day)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-60539-1-A1.....................  Agricultural tractor        2018 FARMER (2017 Carl          7/15/2019            2005        0.000643       0.0000297
                                    replacement.                Moyer Guidelines).
C-49610-1A.......................  Agricultural tractor        2017 Carl Moyer                   1/23/19            1992        0.000747       0.0000625
                                    replacement.                Guidelines.
C-27026-1A.......................  Agricultural tractor        2011 Carl Moyer                  10/26/15            1996         0.00217       0.0000724
                                    replacement.                Guidelines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We independently calculated the emission reductions for the
selected projects using the data inputs included in Detailed
Spreadsheet HJ and provided our analysis in a memorandum to file dated
February 27, 2021, which we refer to as the ``EPA Calculation Memo.''
\145\ Our calculations replicated the emission reductions as reported
by CARB for all three projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ EPA, Memorandum dated February 27, 2021, from Rebecca
Newhouse, EPA Region IX, to File, Subject: ``Sample emission
reduction calculations for selected Carl Moyer and FARMER off-road,
heavy, mobile, diesel agricultural equipment replacement projects''
(hereafter ``EPA Calculation Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we calculated emission reductions for only three randomly
selected projects from Appendix H and Appendix J, the availability of
the project information in Excel format allows for the verification of
emission reductions from all projects relied on in the Amended Valley
Incentive Measure in a fraction of the time it would take to perform
manual calculations. Use of Excel to perform these emission reduction
calculations becomes especially advantageous (in lieu of manual
calculation) as the number of implemented projects increases each year.
The EPA Calculation Memo provides more information on how to use Excel
to calculate emission reductions from these projects.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, at our request, CARB submitted project-specific
documents, including the project application, baseline engine usage
records, grant contract, documentation of destruction, and pre- and
post-inspection photographs, for two of the projects listed in Table 1
(Carl Moyer project number C-27026-1A and FARMER project number C-
60539-1-A1).\147\ We reviewed the information contained in these
project records and confirmed that it is generally consistent with the
information provided in Detailed Spreadsheet HJ for these two
projects.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ Email dated March 11, 2021, from Austin Hicks, CARB, to
Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, Subject: RE: Requesting project
documentation for Valley Incentive Measure projects; 1 of 2 C-27026-
1-1A and email dated March 11, 2021, from Austin Hicks, CARB, to
Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, Subject: RE: Requesting project
documentation for Valley Incentive Measure projects; 2 of 2 C-60539-
1-1A.
    \148\ EPA, Memorandum dated April 26, 2021, from Rynda Kay, EPA
Region IX, to File, Subject: ``Review of CARB project
documentation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the EPA and the public can verify the emission reductions
that CARB has attributed to each Carl Moyer and FARMER project it is
relying on to achieve the NOX and PM2.5 tonnage
commitment in the Amended Valley Incentive Measure by doing the
following: (1) For each project identified in an annual demonstration
report (or for a random selection of such projects), reviewing the
project-specific documents that CARB must provide upon request, to
verify the accuracy of the project data provided in CARB's annual
demonstration report, and (2) independently calculating the emission
reductions for each project identified in the annual demonstration
report (or for a random selection of such projects), based on the
relevant project data (e.g., annual hours of operation, baseline and
new engine model year, engine tier, horsepower, and project life) and
the applicable quantification methodologies in the 2011 and 2017 Carl
Moyer Guidelines. Thus, CARB's commitments concerning the annual
demonstration reports and related project documents, together with
detailed inspection, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the
2011 and 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines, enable the EPA and the public to
verify the emission reductions achieved by each project that CARB is
relying on to fulfill its tonnage commitment in the Amended Valley
Incentive Measure.
    Comment 10: Earthjustice asserts that the goal of the rule is to
remove the

requirement for enforceability against the actual sources by making
CARB responsible for the emission reductions. According to
Earthjustice, the EPA appears to admit that the actual emissions
reductions achieved through these various incentives do not satisfy the
Act's criteria for enforceability but claim that the defect can be
``cured by inventing an umbrella commitment for CARB to fill any
shortfall.'' Earthjustice claims that the ``commitment to make up the
difference, however, does not in fact cure the unenforceability of the
reductions credit[ed] toward that commitment,'' and that the emission
reductions that CARB commits to achieve are measured only by CARB and
the District (and NRCS), and cannot be verified by anyone else.
Earthjustice states that if CARB claims that it has satisfied its 5.9
tpd commitment because the incentive programs worked, there is no way
for the EPA or others to confirm that this is true. Earthjustice states
that the EPA and citizens cannot compel the grant recipients to support
the data submitted to CARB, the District, or NRCS, and that the EPA and
citizens must trust that these agencies have done their due diligence
in verifying the data themselves--a task that Earthjustice claims is
not really in the interest of these agencies because they do not want
to be on the hook for making up any shortfall. Likewise, according to
Earthjustice, if CARB claims that its substitute measures reduce
emissions by whatever the shortfall, there is nothing in the rule that
ensures anyone else could verify that claim.
    Response 10: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that the
emission reductions committed to by CARB cannot be verified by anyone
other than CARB and the District. As explained in Response 2 and
Response 4, CARB has committed to submit annual demonstration reports
containing detailed project data that enables the public and the EPA to
independently calculate the emission reductions from each identified
project. Additionally, the 2011 and 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines \149\
require that grantees submit, and that the District maintain, project
documents sufficient for the EPA and the public to verify the accuracy
of the project data provided in CARB's annual demonstration reports
(e.g., the project contract and associated pre-inspection and post-
inspection documentation). See Response 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ All FARMER projects that CARB relies on to comply with the
Amended Valley Incentive Measure are subject to the 2017 Carl Moyer
Guidelines, future approved guidelines, and current and future
program advisories and mail-outs, except as modified by CARB.
Demonstration, 43-45 and 2018 FARMER Guidelines, 17-18; see also
TSD, 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we agree with the commenter that neither the EPA nor the
public can compel grantees to provide additional data or documentation,
the 2011 and 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines include a number of
requirements to ensure that project-specific information is supported
by the grantee with additional documentation, and that equipment-
specific information supplied by the grantee is verified by the
implementing agency (in this case, the SJVUAPCD). For example, the 2017
Carl Moyer Guidelines require that old equipment be inspected by the
implementing agency with corresponding written and photographic
documentation, confirming (1) that the equipment is in usable
condition, and (2) that the equipment-specific information provided by
the grantee such as the make, model, horsepower, and usage meter
reading (referred to as a ``pre-inspection'') is correct.\150\ The 2017
Carl Moyer Guidelines also require that new equipment be inspected
after purchase and contract execution to confirm the equipment's make,
model, horsepower, and usage meter reading, with corresponding written
and photographic documentation (referred to as a ``post-
inspection'').\151\ District staff or an approved salvage yard must
take photographs of the destroyed engine and, if a salvage yard
verifies engine destruction, the salvage yard must provide that
documentation to the air district within ten business days of
dismantling the equipment.\152\ The implementing agency must include
these photographs in the project file.\153\ Additionally, the 2017 Carl
Moyer Guidelines require grantees to submit documentation that
establishes historical annual usage of the old equipment and confirms
ownership for the past two years.\154\ Contract provisions require
grantees to submit annual reports that include annual usage, and time
operated in California, for the new equipment until contract
expiration.\155\ As explained in Response 9, the public has access to
all underlying documentation for each Carl Moyer project in accordance
with paragraphs B.5 and D.5 of CARB Resolution 19-26.\156\ We therefore
disagree with Earthjustice's claim that the EPA and the public must
``trust that these agencies have done their due diligence in verifying
the data themselves.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Volume I, Part 1, Chapter 3,
Section W (``Project Pre-Inspection'').
    \151\ Id. at Section X (``Project Post-Inspection'').
    \152\ 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Volume I, Part 1, Chapter 5,
Section D (``Project Criteria'').
    \153\ Id. at Chapter 3, Section X (``Project Post-Inspection''),
para. 1.
    \154\ Id. at Section V (``Minimum Contract Requirements'') and
Chapter 5, Section D (``Project Criteria'').
    \155\ Id. at Section Z (``Grantee Annual Reporting''), paras. 1
and 2.
    \156\ Technical Corrections Document, paras. 7 and 11 (requiring
that CARB provide to any requestor ``all documents relied upon in
the preparation of any annual demonstration report and available in
the relevant project file, including: Project applications, grant
contracts, inspection-related documents (including photographic
documentation of baseline engine destruction), and any available
audit-related documentation and annual grantee reports'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also disagree with the commenter's assertion that there is no
way to verify the emission reductions achieved by the substitute
measures that CARB must adopt if the EPA projects an emission reduction
shortfall. Specifically, as explained in Response 2 and Response 5, if
the EPA determines by August 1, 2022, that information submitted by
CARB is insufficient to demonstrate that the emission reductions
necessary to fulfill the 2024 tonnage commitments will occur on
schedule, CARB must adopt and submit to the EPA, no later than
September 1, 2023, substitute measures or rules that will achieve
emission reductions addressing the shortfall as expeditiously as
practicable and no later than January 1, 2024.\157\ Likewise, if the
EPA determines by August 1, 2023, that information submitted by CARB is
insufficient to demonstrate that the emission reductions necessary to
fulfill the 2025 tonnage commitments will occur on schedule, CARB must
adopt and submit to the EPA, no later than September 1, 2024,
substitute measures or rules that will achieve emission reductions
addressing the shortfall as expeditiously as practicable and no later
than January 1, 2025.\158\ Any such substitute control measure must be
adopted following state rulemaking procedures through which the EPA and
the public may track the State's progress in achieving the requisite
emissions reductions and comment on the State's emission reduction
analyses. We expect CARB to make clear during any such rulemaking that
it is proposing the identified measure or rule for purposes of
submission to the EPA consistent with its commitment in the Amended
Valley Incentive Measure.\159\ If,

following an insufficiency finding by the EPA, CARB fails to adopt and
submit prohibitory control measures that fully address the identified
shortfall in required emission reductions by the relevant deadline,
citizens may sue CARB for violating its SIP commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ CARB Resolution 19-26, para. A.5.
    \158\ Id. at para. A.6.
    \159\ See EPA, Memorandum dated November 22, 2011, from Janet
McCabe, Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Air and
Radiation, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regions 1-10, Attachment B
(``Guidelines to States Agencies for Preparing the Public Notices
for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions'') (noting that state
public notices must state that the regulation or document at issue
will be submitted to the EPA for approval into the SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 11: Earthjustice asserts that the EPA's approach
``separates the emission reduction obligation from the emitter and
makes the (theoretically) liable party in charge of determining
compliance.'' Earthjustice claims that neither the EPA nor citizens can
independently verify compliance with the emission reduction commitment
and that CARB is given the ability to deem itself in compliance with no
possibility for others to challenge that determination.
    Response 11: For the reasons provided in Response 2 through
Response 10, we disagree with these claims.
    Comment 12: Earthjustice states that the absence of defined
violations is most apparent when trying to describe what penalties
could be assessed or what corrective action could be compelled by a
court. For example, Earthjustice asks, if CARB were found in violation
of the 5.9 tpd commitment, would CARB be subject to daily penalties
under CAA section 113 until it achieved that reduction, or could it be
compelled to adopt some replacement measure by the court? Earthjustice
also asks how such a suit in equity would be handled under the Eleventh
Amendment to the Constitution; whether the commitment to rectify the
shortfalls upon an EPA determination negates any such court
intervention; and whether the EPA is the arbiter of whether the
substitute measures are adequate. If so, Earthjustice asserts, there is
effectively no penalty for violating the 5.9 tpd commitment, and the
only recourse is to repeatedly challenge the EPA for arbitrarily
letting CARB and the District fail to clean the air, which is not
subject to remedies under CAA section 113. Earthjustice further asks
what the penalty is for failing to monitor implementation or for
inadequate reporting, and how a court would determine days of
violations. According to Earthjustice, these are not practicably
enforceable commitments because the violations are not actually
defined. Earthjustice claims that the EPA cannot explain exactly how a
violation of these various commitments could be proven and enforced,
and what the judicial remedy would be for citizens bringing an
enforcement action. According to Earthjustice, this is why no one has
ever been able to enforce similar state emission reduction commitments
in the past.
    Response 12: We disagree with Earthjustice's claim that ``there is
effectively no penalty for violating the 5.9 tpd commitment'' and that
the only recourse for such a violation is for the public to
``repeatedly challenge the EPA for arbitrarily letting CARB and the
District fail to clean the air, which is not subject to remedies under
CAA section 113.'' As explained in Response 2 and Response 5, CARB's
commitments constitute a specific enforceable strategy for achieving
specific amounts of NOX and PM2.5 emission
reductions on a fixed schedule and, upon approval into the SIP, become
requirements of an ``applicable implementation plan'' as defined in CAA
section 302(q). Accordingly, these commitments are enforceable by
citizens under CAA section 304(a)(1) and by the EPA under CAA section
113(a)(1). CARB has also clearly expressed its decision to voluntarily
commit itself to fulfilling the tonnage commitment and to being held
accountable for failure to fulfill this commitment.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Demonstration, 29 and 52 (stating that ``CARB is the
responsible party for enforcement of this measure and is responsible
for achieving the emission reductions from this measure'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has approved enforceable SIP commitments in the past and
courts have enforced these commitments against states that failed to
comply with them.\161\ As the Second Circuit has stated, ``a plan, once
adopted by a state and approved by the EPA, becomes controlling and
must be carried out by the state,'' and the U.S. district courts are
``obligated, upon a showing that the state has violated the plan, to
issue appropriate orders for its enforcement.'' \162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ See, e.g., American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F.
Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC,
Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y.
1987); Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448,
recon. granted in par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition
for Clean Air v. South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist., No. CV 97-6916-
HLH (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999). Further, if a state fails to fulfill
its commitments, 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 to correct the non-implementation before mandatory
sanctions apply.
    \162\ Friends of the Earth v. Carey, 535 F.2d 165, 169, 173 (2d
Cir. 1976). See also Natural Resources Defense Council v. N.Y.
Department of Environmental Conservation, 668 F. Supp. 848, 852
(S.D.N.Y.1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several district courts have, in response to citizen suits brought
under CAA section 304(a), issued orders to enforce SIP-approved
commitments by states to adopt and implement specific types of control
measures. In American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285
(D.N.J. 1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989), the court found New
Jersey liable for failure to comply with SIP-approved commitments to
implement seven specific ozone-control strategies identified in the
submitted plan. Rejecting New Jersey's argument that its SIP compelled
it only to study the feasibility of the seven strategies and to
implement only those strategies that it found feasible, the court
concluded that the text of the SIP ``manifests an intention on the part
of New Jersey to commit itself to the schedule'' that plaintiffs
alleged New Jersey had violated--i.e., a schedule for proposing
regulations, promulgating final regulations, and implementing those
final regulations through proper enforcement.\163\ The court granted
plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of New
Jersey's liability under the CAA for failure to comply with its SIP and
ordered the parties to submit proposed timetables for New Jersey's
compliance with its SIP. In the second phase of trial, the court
adopted New Jersey's proposed schedule for promulgation and
implementation of regulations, which had been approved by the EPA and
plaintiffs.\164\ On appeal brought by petroleum industry trade
associations, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the
district court's order.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ 670 F. Supp. 1285, 1290.
    \164\ 871 F. 2d 319.
    \165\ Id. at 327 (noting that the ``scheduling order entered by
the district court is an equitable order, made within the ambit of
the district court's discretion to fashion appropriate remedies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of
Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), the court held that New
York had violated its SIP-approved commitments to study and implement
specific strategies for reducing volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from four major source categories. Rejecting New York's
arguments that summary judgment on liability would be inappropriate
because of its reasonable efforts to implement the SIP, unavoidable
technical difficulties, and the failure of other state and federal
environmental agencies that share implementation responsibilities to
take timely action, the court found that ``[t]he very fact that the New
York SIP has been violated mandates a finding of liability, regardless
of the reasons for the violation.'' \166\ The court granted plaintiff's
motion for partial summary

judgment on the issue of New York's liability under the CAA for failure
to comply with its SIP and, following the parties' submissions of
proposed implementation schedules, issued a detailed scheduling order
including specific deadlines for New York to complete studies, propose
and adopt regulations, and require full compliance with the adopted
regulations for each of the four VOC source categories.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ 668 F. Supp. 848, 852.
    \167\ Id. at 858 ff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Coalition for Clean Air v. South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist.,
No. CV 97-6916-HLH (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999), the court held that the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) had violated its
SIP-approved commitments by failing to adopt and implement 31 of 32
control measures identified in its ozone SIP. The SCAQMD provided
numerous reasons for its failure to adopt and implement these measures,
including its review of updated emission inventories showing that the
emission of some source categories were drastically lower than the SIP
had assumed, the unavailability of technologies that the SCAQMD had
previously assumed would be developed, and the excessive costs of
certain measures compared with the pollution to be reduced. The court
rejected these arguments, finding that ``[o]nce liability is
established, the District Court is required by the Act to issue an
injunction to compel compliance with the SIP'' and that ``[m]istakes or
failures in factual assumptions must be considered by the EPA, not by
the Court, whose duty it is to enforce the SIP as written.'' \168\ The
court issued an injunction establishing specific deadlines for the
SCAQMD to adopt and implement the 31 control measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ Case No. CV97-6916-HLH (C.D. Ca., August 27, 1999) at 3, 4
(citing CAA section 304(a) and Friends of the Earth, 535 F.2d 165
(2d Cir.1976)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, if a district court found CARB in violation of the 4.83 tpd
NOX emission reduction commitment for 2024, the holdings in
the cases cited above suggest that a district court would be required
to issue appropriate orders for its enforcement, such as an order
compelling CARB to adopt one or more enforceable measures that achieve
4.83 tpd of NOX emission reductions by a date certain. Upon
CARB's adoption and submission of any such substitute measures, the EPA
would determine, through notice-and-comment rulemaking, whether the
measure is sufficient to achieve the necessary emission reductions.
    Earthjustice asks the EPA to explain how a suit in equity would be
handled under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution but fails to
articulate a basis for finding the commitments in the Valley Incentive
Measure problematic or difficult to enforce on constitutional grounds.
Although the Eleventh Amendment generally grants immunity to states
from suit for money damages or equitable relief without their consent,
it does not grant states immunity from suit for injunctive relief
(i.e., to prevent future violations of federally-mandated SIP
requirements) where the state itself has submitted SIP commitments and
thereby consented to enforcement in federal court. As stated in NRDC,
the district courts have authority under the CAA to enforce SIP
provisions, and ``[i]t cannot be argued'' that ``an order implementing
[a SIP control strategy] as promptly as possible would impinge on an
area of state sovereignty.'' \169\ Similarly, in Friends of the Earth
v. Carey, the Second Circuit rejected New York City's claims of state
sovereign immunity from suit in federal court and found that the City's
decision ``voluntarily to commit itself to enforcement of the Plan''
constituted a waiver of such immunity.\170\ The court noted that, in
the context of a citizen suit to enforce the provisions of the SIP,
``the choices and procedures are the products of State choice, not of
federal policy, and may legitimately be enforced by the district
court.'' \171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ 668 F.Supp. 848, 854 (citing Friends of the Earth v.
Carey, 552 F.2d 25, 39 (2d Cir. 1977)).
    \170\ Friends of the Earth v. Carey, 552 F.2d 25, 35 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied sub nom. Beame v. Friends of the Earth, 434 U.S. 902,
98 S.Ct. 296, 54 L.Ed.2d 188 (1977).
    \171\ 552 F.2d at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 13: Earthjustice states that the EPA's proposed approach
creates a new type of ``black box'' for national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) other than ozone and without the conditions required
under CAA section 182(e)(5). Earthjustice asserts that, ``[l]ike the
black box, CARB and the District are now allowed to promise to reduce
emissions without actually making any enforceable commitment as to
how,'' but that ``unlike the black box, which at least requires actual
contingency measures to be adopted and in place years before the
compliance date, there are no actual backstops in place to make up for
a shortfall.'' Earthjustice asserts that the EPA must explain why
Congress would have allowed such an approach after clearly providing
only limited flexibility in section 182(e)(5), and only allowing such
flexibility for long-term plans related to ozone.
    Response 13: We disagree with Earthjustice's suggestion that our
proposed approach to approving the Valley Incentive Measure (or
portions thereof) for SIP credit ``creates a new type of `black box' ''
that is inconsistent with congressional intent. Section 182(e)(5) of
the CAA allows the EPA to approve plan provisions that ``anticipate
development of new control techniques or improvement of existing
control technologies''--i.e., control measures yet to be defined--for
ozone nonattainment areas classified as ``extreme'' under subpart 2 of
part D, title I of the Act. This provision is often referred to as the
``black box'' or ``new technology'' provision of the Act.
    Unlike the new technology provisions that the EPA has approved in
attainment plans for extreme ozone nonattainment areas,\172\ the
Amended Valley Incentive Measure is not a provision that anticipates
the development, adoption, and implementation of control measures yet
to be defined. As explained in Response 2 and Response 4, CARB's
commitments in the Amended Valley Incentive Measure constitute a
specific enforceable strategy for achieving specific amounts of
NOX and PM2.5 emission reductions in the San
Joaquin Valley, either through implementation of agricultural equipment
replacement projects subject to specific portions of the 2011 or 2017
Carl Moyer Guidelines or through substitute measures adopted and
submitted in accordance with specified deadlines.\173\ The measure
obligates CARB to monitor and report annually on the implementation of
estimated numbers of such incentive projects and to adopt and submit
substitute control measures on a fixed schedule, if the EPA determines
that information submitted by CARB in the annual demonstration reports
is insufficient to demonstrate that the identified incentive projects
will fulfill the tonnage commitment.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ See, e.g., 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012) (approving San
Joaquin Valley attainment plan for 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS), 77 FR
12674 (March 1, 2012) (approving South Coast attainment plan for
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS), and 84 FR 52005 (October 1, 2019)
(approving South Coast attainment plan for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and revised attainment plan for 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS).
    \173\ CARB Resolution 19-26, paras. A.1, A.2, A.5, and A.6.
    \174\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, we also disagree with Earthjustice's claim that
the Valley Incentive Measure allows CARB and the District ``to promise
to reduce emissions without actually making any enforceable commitment
as to how'' and without providing for any ``backstops'' to make up for
a shortfall in required emission reductions. See Response 2 and
Response 4.

    Comment 14: Earthjustice states that there is no reason that these
equipment replacements cannot be required by regulation, and that
cleaner equipment clearly exists. Earthjustice claims that the only
policy issue appears to be who should pay for these replacements, but
that nothing stops the agencies from mandating these replacements and
providing financial support for compliance. Earthjustice states that
the replacements would then become enforceable regulatory requirements
and the state and federal agencies could continue to subsidize the
agricultural industry as they always have. According to Earthjustice,
this would ensure that the emission reductions would occur regardless
of future funding and is consistent with the requirements of the Act.
Earthjustice urges the EPA to disapprove the Valley Incentive Measure
as failing to comply with the Act's basic SIP requirements and to
direct CARB and the District to explore enforceable replacement
mandates.
    Response 14: Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act
and applicable federal regulations.\175\ 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. These comments are more
appropriately directed to CARB during its rulemaking processes on
incentive-based measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). See Bethlehem Steel
Corp. v. Gorsuch, 742 F.2d 1028, 1036 (7th Cir. 1984) (``The state
proposes, . . . the EPA disposes'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    The EPA is partially approving the Valley Incentive Measure, as
amended and clarified by the Technical Corrections Document and the
2021 Clarification Document, into the California SIP in accordance with
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. Specifically, the EPA is approving those
portions of the Valley Incentive Measure, as amended and clarified,
that pertain to incentive projects implemented under California's Carl
Moyer Program and FARMER Program, based on our conclusion that these
portions of the measure satisfy CAA requirements for SIP approval. Upon
our approval of these portions of the Valley Incentive Measure into the
SIP, they become enforceable under the CAA and creditable for SIP
purposes. The EPA is deferring action on the remaining portions of the
Valley Incentive Measure.
    In addition, the EPA is determining that CARB's adoption,
implementation, and submission of the Valley Incentive Measure
satisfies the State's commitment in the SJV PM2.5 Plan to
bring to the Board for consideration an incentive-based measure for
off-road diesel agricultural equipment and achieves 4.83 tpd and 0.24
tpd of the State's 2024 NOX and PM2.5 emission
reduction commitments, respectively, as codified in 40 CFR
52.220(c)(536)(ii)(A)(2).
    We are codifying the approved portions of this measure as
additional material in the Code of Federal Regulations, rather than
through incorporation by reference, because, under its terms, the
measure contains commitments enforceable only against CARB and because
the measure is not a substantive rule of general applicability.

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, 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 25, 2022. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 16, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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)(567) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan-in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (567) The following materials were submitted on February 11, 2020,
by the Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) California Air Resources Board.
    (1) Selected portions of CARB Resolution 19-26, adopted December
12, 2019, as revised and clarified by Executive Order S-20-031, adopted
November 23, 2020 and Executive Order S-21-018, adopted October 6, 2021
(Amended Valley Incentive Measure), containing CARB's commitments to
achieve 4.83 tpd of NOX reductions and 0.24 tpd of
PM2.5 reductions by the beginning of 2024, and 4.46 tpd of
NOX reductions and 0.26 tpd of PM2.5 reductions
by the beginning of 2025, through implementation of the Carl Moyer
Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program, the Funding
Agricultural Replacement Measures for Emission Reductions Program, or
substitute measures.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2021-27798 Filed 12-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P