hour average O3 concentration for each calendar day with
ambient O3 monitoring data. Because the 8-hour averages
are recorded in the start hour, the daily maximum 8-hour
concentrations from two consecutive days may have some hourly
concentrations in common. Generally, overlapping daily maximum 8-
hour averages are not likely, except in those non-urban monitoring
locations with less pronounced diurnal variation in hourly
concentrations.
    (b) An O3 monitoring day shall be counted as a valid
day if valid 8-hour averages are available for at least 75% of
possible hours in the day (i.e., at least 18 of the 24 averages). In
the event that less than 75% of the 8-hour averages are available, a
day shall also be counted as a valid day if the daily maximum 8-hour
average concentration for that day is greater than the level of the
ambient standard.

2.2 Primary Standard-Related Summary Statistic

    The standard-related summary statistic is the annual fourth-
highest daily maximum 8-hour O3 concentration, expressed
in parts per million, averaged over three years. The 3-year average
shall be computed using the three most recent, consecutive calendar
years of monitoring data meeting the data completeness requirements
described in this appendix. The computed 3-year average of the
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average O3
concentrations shall be reported to three decimal places (the
insignificant digits to the right of the third decimal place are
truncated, consistent with the data handling procedures for the
reported data).

2.3 Comparisons With the Primary Ozone Standard

    (a) The primary O3 ambient air quality standard is
met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
O3 concentration is less than or equal to [0.070 to
0.075] ppm.
    (b) This comparison shall be based on three consecutive,
complete calendar years of air quality monitoring data. This
requirement is met for the three year period at a monitoring site if
daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations are available for at
least 90%, on average, of the days during the designated
O3 monitoring season, with a minimum data completeness in
any one year of at least 75% of the designated sampling days. When
computing whether the minimum data completeness requirements have
been met, meteorological or ambient data may be sufficient to
demonstrate that meteorological conditions on missing days were not
conducive to concentrations above the level of the standard. Missing
days assumed less than the level of the standard are counted for the
purpose of meeting the data completeness requirement, subject to the
approval of the appropriate Regional Administrator.
    (c) Years with concentrations greater than the level of the
standard shall not be ignored on the ground that they have less than
complete data. Thus, in computing the 3-year average fourth maximum
concentration, calendar years with less than 75% data completeness
shall be included in the computation if the average annual fourth
maximum 8-hour concentration is greater than the level of the
standard.
    (d) Comparisons with the primary O3 standard is
demonstrated by examples 1 and 2 in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2)
respectively as follows:

                                          Example 1.--Ambient Monitoring Site Attaining the Primary O3 Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            1st Highest     2nd Highest     3rd Highest     4th Highest     5th Highest
                                                           Percent valid   daily max  8-   daily max  8-   daily max  8-   daily max  8-   daily max  8-
                          Year                                 days         hour Conc.      hour Conc.      hour Conc.      hour Conc.      hour Conc.
                                                             (percent)         (ppm)           (ppm)           (ppm)           (ppm)           (ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004....................................................             100           0.092           0.090           0.085           0.079           0.078
2005....................................................              96           0.084           0.083           0.075           0.072           0.070
2006....................................................              98           0.080           0.079           0.073           0.061           0.060
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Average.............................................              98  ..............  ..............  ..............           0.070  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) As shown in example 1, the primary standard is met at this
monitoring site because the 3-year average of the annual fourth-
highest daily maximum 8-hour average O3 concentrations
(i.e., 0.0707 ppm, truncated to 0.070 ppm) is less than or equal to
[0.070 to 0.75] ppm. The data completeness requirement is also met
because the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring
data is greater than 90%, and no single year has less than 75% data
completeness. In Example 1, the individual 8-hour averages used to
determine the annual fourth maximum are truncated to the third
decimal place.

                                       Example 2.--Ambient Monitoring Site Failing To Meet the Primary O3 Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            1st Highest     2nd Highest     3rd Highest     4th Highest     5th Highest
                                                           Percent valid   daily max  8-   daily max  8-   daily max  8-   daily max  8-   daily max  8-
                          Year                                 days         hour Conc.      hour Conc.      hour Conc.      hour Conc.      hour Conc.
                                                             (percent)         (ppm)           (ppm)           (ppm)           (ppm)           (ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004....................................................              96           0.105           0.103           0.103           0.102           0.102
2005....................................................              74           0.104           0.103           0.092           0.091           0.088
2006....................................................              98           0.103           0.101           0.101           0.095           0.094
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Average.............................................              89  ..............  ..............  ..............           0.096  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in example 2, the primary standard is not met at this
monitoring site because the 3-year average of the fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average O3 concentrations (i.e.,
0.0960 ppm, truncated to 0.096 ppm) is greater than [0.070 to 0.075]
ppm. Note that the O3 concentration data for 2005 is used
in these computations, even though the data capture is less than
75%, because the average fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
concentration is greater than [0.070 to 0.075] ppm. In Example 2,
the individual 8-hour averages used to determine the annual fourth
maximum are truncated to the third decimal place.

3. Design Values for Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone

    The air quality design value at a monitoring site is defined as
that concentration that when reduced to the level of the standard
ensures that the site meets the standard. For a concentration-based
standard, the air quality design value is simply the standard-
related test statistic. Thus, for the primary standard, the 3-year
average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
O3 concentration is also the air quality design value for
the site.

4. Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone

4.1 Data Reporting and Handling Conventions

    Computing the daily index value (D.I.). The secondary
O3 standard is a seasonal standard expressed as the sum
of weighted hourly concentrations, cumulated over the 12 hour
daylight period, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. local standard time (LST), during
the maximum consecutive 3-month period within the O3
monitoring season. Hourly average concentrations for each hour from
8 a.m. to 8 p.m. LST shall be reported in parts per million (ppm) to
the third decimal place, with additional digits to the right being
truncated. The first step in computing the daily index value, D.I.,
for the daylight hours is to apply a sigmoidal weighting function in
the form of Equation 1 in this appendix:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY07.002

to each measurement of hourly average concentration, where
O3 is the average hourly O3 concentration
expressed in ppm. The computed value of the sigmoidally weighted
hourly concentration shall be expressed to three decimal places (the
remaining digits to the right are truncated). An illustration of
computing a daily index value is below:

 Example 3.--Daily Index Value Calculation for an Ambient O3 Monitoring
                                  Site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted
               Start hour                  Concentration   concentration
                                               (ppm)           (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8:00 AM.................................           0.045           0.002
9:00 AM.................................           0.060           0.018
10:00 AM................................           0.075           0.055
11:00 AM................................           0.080           0.067
12:00 PM................................           0.079           0.065
1:00 PM.................................           0.082           0.071
2:00 PM.................................           0.085           0.077
3:00 PM.................................           0.088           0.082
4:00 PM.................................           0.083           0.073
5:00 PM.................................           0.081           0.069
6:00 PM.................................           0.065           0.029
7:00 PM.................................           0.056           0.011
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daily index value (D.I.) = 0.002 + 0.018 + 0.055 + 0.067 + 0.065 +
0.071 + 0.077 + 0.082 + 0.073 + 0.069 + 0.029 + 0.011 = 0.619 ppm-
hours
    Computing the monthly cumulative index (W126). The daily index
value is computed at each monitoring site for each calendar day in
each month during the O3 monitoring. At an individual
monitoring site, a month is counted as a valid O3
monitoring month if hourly average O3 concentrations are
available for at least 75% of the possible index hours in the month.
For months with less than 75% data completeness, the monthly
cumulative index value shall be adjusted for incomplete sampling by
multiplying the unadjusted W126 cumulative index value by the ratio
of the number of possible daylight hours to the number of hours with
valid ambient hourly concentrations using Equation 2 in this
appendix:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JY07.003

Where,

M.I. = the monthly sum of the weighted daylight hours,
D.I. = the daily sum of the weighted daylight hours,
n = the number of days in the calendar month,
v = the number of daylight hours (8:00 a.m.--8:00 p.m. LST) with
valid hourly O3 concentrations.

4.2 Secondary Standard-related Summary Statistic

    The standard-related summary statistic is the annual maximum
consecutive 3-month W126 value expressed in ppm-hours. Specifically,
the annual W126 value is computed on a calendar year basis using the
three highest, consecutive monthly W126 values.

4.3 Comparisons with the Secondary Ozone Standard

    The secondary ambient O3 air quality standard is met
when the annual maximum W126 value based on a consecutive 3-month
period at an O3 air quality monitoring site is less than
or equal to [7 to 21] ppm-hours. The number of significant figures
in the level of the standard dictates the rounding convention for
comparing the computed W126 value with the level of the standard.
The first decimal place of the computed W126 value is rounded, with
values equal to or greater than of 0.5 rounding up.

      Example 4.--Calculation of the Maximum 3-Month W126 Value at an Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Site Failing To Meet the Secondary O3 Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  April         May          June         July        August     September     October
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monthly W126.................................................        4.442        9.124       12.983       16.153       13.555        4.364        1.302
3-Month Total................................................           na           na       26.549       38.260       42.691       34.072       19.221
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in example 4, the maximum consecutive 3-month W126
value for this site is 43 ppm-hours. Because 43 ppm-hours is greater
than [7 to 21] ppm-hours, the secondary standard is not met at this
ambient air quality monitoring site.

[FR Doc. E7-12416 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52965-52967]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18642]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OA-2019-0370; FRL-OP-OFA-032]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Environmental Impact Assessment of Nongovernmental Activities in
Antarctica (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Environmental Impact Assessment
of Nongovernmental Activities in Antarctica (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No.
1808.09, OMB Control No. 2020-0007) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public
comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as
described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through April 30, 2023. An Agency may not conduct,
or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-
2019-0296, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method) or
by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Roemele, NEPA Compliance
Division, Office of Federal Activities, Mail Code 2501G, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about the EPA's public docket, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal
Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 8, Environmental
Impact Assessment of Nongovernmental Activities in Antarctica (Rule),
were promulgated pursuant to the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and
Conservation Act of 1996 (Act), 16 U.S.C. 2401 et seq., as amended, 16
U.S.C. 2403a, which implements the Protocol on Environmental Protection
(Protocol) to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 (Treaty). The Rule provides
for assessment of the environmental impacts of nongovernmental
activities in Antarctica, including tourism, for which the United
States is required to give advance notice under Paragraph 5 of Article
VII of the Treaty, and for coordination of the review of information
regarding environmental impact assessments received from other Parties
under the Protocol. The requirements of the Rule apply to operators of
nongovernmental expeditions organized or proceeding from the territory
of the United States to Antarctica and include commercial and non-
commercial expeditions. Expeditions may include ship-based tours;
yacht, skiing or mountaineering expeditions; privately funded research
expeditions; and other nongovernmental activities. The rule provides
nongovernmental operators with the specific requirements they need to
meet to comply with the requirements of Article 8 and Annex I to the
Protocol. The provisions of the Rule are intended to ensure that
potential environmental effects of nongovernmental activities
undertaken in Antarctica are appropriately identified and considered by
the operator during the planning process and that to the extent
practicable appropriate environmental safeguards which would mitigate
or prevent adverse impacts on the Antarctic environment are identified
by the operator.
    Environmental Documentation. Persons subject to the Rule must
prepare environmental documentation to support the operator's
determination regarding the level of environmental impact of the
proposed expedition. Environmental documentation includes a Preliminary
Environmental Review Memorandum (PERM), an Initial Environmental
Evaluation (IEE), or a Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE).
The environmental document is submitted to the Office of Federal
Activities (OFA). If the operator determines that an expedition may
have: (1) less than a minor or transitory impact, a PERM needs to be
submitted no later than 180 days before the proposed departure to
Antarctica; (2) no more than minor or transitory impacts, an IEE needs
to be submitted no later than 90 days before the proposed departure; or
(3) more than minor or transitory impacts, a CEE needs to be submitted.
Operators who anticipate such activities are encouraged to consult with
EPA as soon as possible regarding the date for submittal of the CEE.
(Article 3(4), of Annex I of the Protocol requires that draft CEEs be
distributed to all Parties and the Committee for Environmental
Protection 120 days in advance of the next Antarctic Treaty
Consultative Meeting at which the CEE may be addressed.)
    The Protocol and the Rule also require an operator to employ
procedures to assess and provide a regular and verifiable record of the
actual impacts of an activity which proceeds based on an IEE or CEE.
The record developed through these measures needs to be designed to:
(a) enable assessments to be made of the extent to which environmental
impacts of nongovernmental expeditions are consistent with the
Protocol; and (b) provide information useful for minimizing and
mitigating those impacts and, where appropriate, on the need for
suspension, cancellation, or modification of the activity. Moreover, an
operator needs to monitor key environmental indicators for an activity
proceeding based on a CEE. An operator may also need to carry out
monitoring to assess and verify the impact of an activity for which an
IEE would be prepared. For activities that require an IEE, an operator
should be able to use procedures currently being voluntarily utilized
by operators to provide the required information. Should an activity
require a CEE, the operator should consult with the EPA to: (a)
identify the monitoring regime appropriate to that activity, and (b)
determine whether and how the operator might utilize relevant
monitoring data collected by the U.S. Antarctic Program. OFA would
consult with the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other interested
Federal agencies regarding the monitoring regime.
    Environmental documents (e.g., PERM, IEE, CEE) are submitted to
OFA. Environmental documents are reviewed by OFA, in consultation with
the NSF and other interested Federal agencies and made available to
other Parties and the public as required under the Protocol or
otherwise requested. OFA notifies the public of document availability
at: https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/receipt-environmental-impact-assessments-eias-regarding-nongovernmental.
    The types of nongovernmental activities currently being carried out
(e.g., ship-based tours, land-based tours, flights, and privately
funded research expeditions) are typically unlikely to have impacts
that are more than minor

or transitory, thus an IEE is the typical level of environmental
documentation submitted. For the 1997-1998 through 2021-2022 austral
summer seasons during the time the Rule has been in effect, all
respondents submitted IEEs except for three PERMs. Paperwork reduction
provisions in the Rule that are used by the operators include: (a)
incorporation of material in the environmental document by referring to
it in the IEE, (b) inclusion of all proposed expeditions by one
operator within one IEE; (c) use of one IEE to address expeditions
being carried out by more than one operator; and (d) use of multi-year
environmental documentation to address proposed expeditions for a
period of up to five consecutive austral summer seasons.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are all nongovernmental operators with activities in
Antarctica, including tour operators, for which the United States is
required to give advance notice under paragraph 5 of Article VII of the
Antarctic Treaty of 1959; this includes all nongovernmental expeditions
to and within Antarctica organized in or proceeding from the territory
of the United States.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 8).
    Estimated number of respondents: 28 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 2,228 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $167,100 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is an increase of 684 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase is the result of a change to the number
of operators that the EPA anticipates will submit environmental
documentation due to more operators traveling to the Antarctic.

    Dated: August 24, 2022.
Robert Tomiak,
Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2022-18642 Filed 8-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


P-18-0401 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 P-18-0401 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 P-18-0401 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-18-0401 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-18-0401 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 P-18-0401 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 P-18-0401 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-18-0401 Sanitized HLTH Report_POST-FOCUS FINAL (attached)


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80769-80770]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32612]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0614; FRL 9940-24-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; BEACH Act Grants (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``BEACH Act Grants (Renewal)''
(EPA ICR No. 2048.05, OMB Control No. 2040-0244) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a
proposed extension of the ICR which is currently approved through
December 31, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via the
Federal Register (80 FR 61419) on October 13, 2015, during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments must be submitted on or before January 27,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OW-2015-0614, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracy Bone, OW, 4305T, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Supporting documents which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in
the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
(BEACH) Act amends the Clean Water Act (CWA) in part and authorizes the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to award BEACH Act Program
Development and Implementation Grants to coastal and Great Lakes
states, tribes, and territories (collectively referred to as states)
for their beach monitoring and notification programs. The grants assist
those states to develop and implement a consistent approach to monitor
recreational water quality; assess, manage, and communicate health
risks from waterborne microbial contamination; notify the public of
pollution occurrences, and post beach advisories and closures to
prevent public exposure to microbial pathogens. To qualify for a BEACH
Act Grant, a state must submit information to EPA documenting that its
beach monitoring and notification program is consistent with 11
performance criteria outlined in the National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants, 2014 Edition.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Environmental and public health
agencies in states, territories, and tribes.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required (Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act amendment to the Clean Water
Act (CWA)).
    Estimated number of respondents: 38 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annually & quarterly.
    Total estimated burden: 91,276 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)
    Total estimated cost: $15,453,308 (per year), includes $11,353,146
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is an increase of 2,464 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase is due to an additional respondent
qualifying for a grant, however this increase is partially

offset by efficiencies in data processing and reporting.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-32612 Filed 12-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 19, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65093-65101]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27477]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0177; FRL-9987-97-Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation
Plans; California; Interstate Transport Requirements for Ozone, Fine
Particulate Matter, and Sulfur Dioxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State
of California regarding certain interstate transport requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''). This submission addresses the 2008
ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), the 2006 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
and the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. The interstate
transport requirements under the CAA consist of several elements; this
final rule pertains only to significant contribution to nonattainment
and interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0177. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
    A. Evaluation for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
    B. Evaluation for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS
    C. Evaluation for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    The California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted the
``California Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision,
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)'' on January 19, 2016 (``California
Transport Plan'' or ``Plan'').\1\ This Plan addresses interstate
transport for the 2008 ozone, 2006 PM2.5, 2012
PM2.5, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\2\ On February 7,
2018, the EPA proposed to approve the California Transport Plan into
the California SIP because we determined that it complies with the
relevant CAA requirements.\3\ Our proposed action contains more
information on the California Transport Plan and our evaluation. We
summarize the key points of our proposed rulemaking and evaluation in
this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letter dated January 19, 2016, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator,
Region 9, EPA.
    \2\ The 2008 ozone NAAQS include primary and secondary 8-hour
ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million (ppm), 73 FR 16436 (March 27,
2008). The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS include primary and secondary
24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 of 35 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\), 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). The 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS include a primary annual PM2.5
NAAQS of 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\, 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). The 2010
SO2 NAAQS include a primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
of 75 parts per billion (ppb), 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
    \3\ 83 FR 5375.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)-(II) of the CAA require SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS, or interfere with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect
visibility in any other state. This final rule addresses the

two requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which we refer to as
prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any
other state) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in
any other state).\4\ The EPA refers to SIP revisions addressing the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as ``good neighbor SIPs'' or
``interstate transport SIPs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The remaining interstate and international transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) for the 2008 ozone, 2006
PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS for California have been addressed in prior State submissions
and EPA rulemakings. 81 FR 18766 (April 1, 2016). Specifically, this
includes the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirements relating to
interference with measures required to be included in the applicable
implementation plan for any other state under part C to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or to protect
visibility (prong 4), and the section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requirements
relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to our evaluation of the California Transport Plan with
respect to transport of air pollution to other states, we considered
transport to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (``Morongo'') and the
Pechanga Band of Luise[ntilde]o Indians (``Pechanga''), given their
regulatory monitoring for certain pollutants and comments during the
EPA's rulemaking on California's interstate transport SIP for the 1997
ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on our review of the
ambient air quality data of Morongo and Pechanga and the emission
control regimes of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(AQMD) for stationary sources and of CARB for mobile sources, as
described in the EPA's memo to the docket,\5\ the EPA proposed to find
that California adequately prohibits the emission of air pollutants in
amounts that will significantly contribute to nonattainment, or
interfere with maintenance, of the 2008 ozone, 2006 PM2.5,
2012 PM2.5, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the Morongo and
Pechanga reservations. The EPA offered consultation with each tribe at
the time of the proposal; neither tribe requested such consultation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Memorandum of January 2018 from Rory Mays, Air Planning
Office, Air Division, Region IX, EPA, ``Interstate Transport for the
2008 ozone, 2006 PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the
Pechanga Band of Luise[ntilde]o Indians.''
    \6\ See, e.g., email dated February 27, 2018 from Kelcey
Stricker, Environmental Director, Pechanga Band of Luise[ntilde]o
Mission Indians to Rory Mays, Air Planning Office, U.S. EPA Region
IX, indicating that Pechanga did not see the need to consult. The
EPA did not receive a request for consultation or a comparable email
from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Evaluation for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

    In our proposed rulemaking the EPA agreed with the conclusion of
the California Transport Plan that California meets the CAA
requirements for interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. However, our rationale differed from that presented by CARB. The
analysis in the California Transport Plan relies primarily on CARB's
conclusion that the ozone transport linkages are uncertain and
therefore no significant contribution or interference with maintenance
has been demonstrated. The EPA's evaluation finds that the transport
linkages are adequately quantified (and uncertainties sufficiently
addressed) and that California's emission control programs adequately
address the transport requirements.
    The EPA presented the various elements of our evaluation that led
to this conclusion.\7\ The EPA first explained that it approached its
evaluation considering the four-step framework for evaluating regional
ozone transport that has been developed through several prior regional
EPA rulemakings. This framework evaluates downwind air quality (step
1), upwind state linkages (step 2), and various cost and air quality
factors (step 3) to identify whether a state will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in another state and to implement any necessary emission reductions
(step 4). We discussed the EPA's modeling for the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update rule (``CSAPR Update''),\8\ which
identified regulatory monitors throughout the continental U.S. that
were expected to exceed the NAAQS in 2017 based on both projected
average design values and monitored data as ``nonattainment receptors''
(i.e., not expected to attain) and those that may have difficulty
maintaining the NAAQS, taking into account historic variability in air
quality, as ``maintenance receptors,'' and estimated the contribution
of other states to the ozone levels at each of these receptors. The
analytic year of 2017 was selected since it corresponds to the
attainment year prior to the mid-2018 attainment deadline for 2008
ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as Moderate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For discussion of our general evaluation approach and our
specific evaluation with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, please see
sections II.A and II.B of our proposed rulemaking preamble. 83 FR
5375 (February 7, 2018).
    \8\ 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We addressed CARB's assertions regarding ozone transport modeling
uncertainties (relating to a prior, similar iteration of the EPA's
ozone transport modeling) for identifying nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in 2017 and linkages from California to downwind receptors,
and discussed the contrast that CARB draws between ozone transport in
the eastern versus western U.S.
    Based on our analysis, we proposed to find that California is
linked to three maintenance receptors in the Denver, Colorado area.
This conclusion was based on a combination of factors: (1) The EPA's
projection that California emissions would contribute above 1 percent
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at each of the three receptors (1.1 to 2.6
percent), (2) other states also contribute above 1 percent of the NAAQS
to these receptors, and (3) the average interstate contribution to
ozone concentrations from all states upwind of these receptors was both
considerable (9.2 to 9.4 percent of the projected ozone design values)
and comparable to collective contributions from upwind states to
receptors in Texas as evaluated in the CSAPR Update. Accordingly, we
proposed that a 1 percent threshold is appropriate as an air quality
threshold to determine whether California is ``linked'' to the three
maintenance receptors in the Denver area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Our proposed finding that California is linked to the three Denver
area receptors prompted further inquiry into whether the contributions
would interfere with maintenance at the receptors and whether there are
cost-effective controls that can be employed to reduce emissions. To do
so, we presented a general assessment of the emission sources in
California, including mobile and stationary emission sources. We
proposed to find that control measures in the California SIP for mobile
sources, large electricity generating units (EGUs), and large non-EGU
sources (e.g., cement plants and oil refineries), adequately prohibit
the emission of air pollution in amounts that will interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at the identified receptors in the
Denver area.
    We discussed California's mobile source measures, which are
primarily adopted and implemented by CARB, and stationary source
measures, which are primarily adopted and implemented by California's
35 local air districts. For the latter, beyond the measures described
in the California Transport Plan, we also considered stationary

source control measures for EGUs, consistent with the controls analysis
for the CSAPR and CSAPR Update rulemakings,\9\ and examples of
stationary source control measures for the largest non-EGU sources in
the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) and 81 FR 74504 (October 26,
2016), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We noted that California mobile sources account for approximately
70 percent of the projected 2017 nitrogen oxide (NOX)
emissions and that CARB has established a comprehensive program to
control and reduce mobile source emissions within the state. The EPA
has approved many of CARB's mobile source regulations as part of the
California SIP, including regulations establishing standards and other
requirements relating to emissions from cars, light- and medium-duty
trucks, heavy-duty trucks, commercial harbor craft, mobile cargo
handling equipment, marine engines and boats, and off-highway
recreational vehicles. To support and enhance these emissions
standards, we also noted that CARB has established specific gasoline
and diesel fuel requirements, and the California Bureau of Automotive
Repair has established a vehicle emissions and inspection (i.e., ``smog
check'') program.
    With respect to stationary and area emission sources, we noted that
the California SIP has hundreds of rules that limit the emissions of
NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and that many of
these rules were developed by local air districts to reduce ozone
concentrations in response to the prior 1979 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
    For EGUs producing greater than 25 megawatts of electricity,
including non-fossil fuel EGUs, we described how California's statewide
NOX emissions rate is very low (0.0097 pounds of
NOX per million British thermal units in 2018) and ranks as
the 47th lowest out of the 48 contiguous states and Washington, DC for
which the EPA performed power sector modeling in the context of the
CSAPR Update. We found that California produces electricity very
efficiently in terms of NOX emissions and is therefore
unlikely to have significant, further NOX reductions
available from the EGU sector at reasonable cost.
    In investigating the potential for further NOX emissions
reductions from EGUs, we found that additional NOX
reductions from EGUs in California would cost more than three times the
amount that the EPA determined to be cost-effective to partially
address ozone transport obligations in the eastern U.S. under the CSAPR
Update (i.e., reductions expected above $5,000 per ton of
NOX in California versus a cost-effective control level of
$1,400 per ton in the CSAPR Update rulemaking for 22 eastern states).
Further, we noted that the largest collection of EGU facilities
emitting over 100 tons per year (tpy) of NOX, per the 2011
National Emissions Inventory, are found in the San Joaquin Valley, Bay
Area, and South Coast air districts and are subject to district rules
that limit NOX emissions and have been approved into the
California SIP.
    For non-EGU stationary sources, we found that they emitted 6.7
times more NOX than EGUs in California in 2011. Of these
sources, 19 emitted over 500 tpy of NOX, including Portland
cement plants, petroleum refineries, and several other source types,
and accounted for two thirds of the NOX emissions from
California stationary sources that emitted over 100 tpy in 2011 and 5.2
percent of the total 2011 NOX inventory for California.
These 19 sources are in the Bay Area, Kern County, Mojave Desert, San
Joaquin Valley, and South Coast air districts and, overall, are subject
to rules that limit NOX emissions and have been approved
into the California SIP. For the small number of large non-EGU sources
that are either subject to NOX control measures that have
not been submitted for approval into the California SIP, or fall
outside the geographic jurisdiction of the applicable district rules,
we found that further emission controls would be unlikely to reduce any
potential impact on downwind states' air quality because such sources
comprise no more than 0.8 percent of the total NOX emitted
in California in 2011.
    In sum, on the strength of CARB and the local air districts'
emission control programs, especially for mobile and stationary sources
of NOX, we proposed that the California SIP adequately
prohibits the emission of air pollutants in amounts that will
significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. The EPA also
noted that recent modeling shows that by the 2023 ozone season the
receptors identified in Denver are projected to be ``clean,'' i.e.,
both the average and maximum design values are projected to be below
the level of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Memorandum dated October 27, 2017 from Stephen D. Page,
Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/final_2008_o3_naaqs_transport_memo_10-27-17b.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Evaluation for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

    The EPA proposed to approve the California Transport Plan for the
CAA requirements for interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 for the 2006
PM2.5 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. First, we discussed
our evaluation of CARB's identification of nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in western states based on data presented in the
California Transport Plan as well as the EPA's analysis of 2009-2013
24-hour and annual PM2.5 design values. Based on that
evaluation, we presented modified lists of such receptors that largely
follow the lists of receptors in the California Transport Plan.
    For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, we derived a list of
18 potential nonattainment receptors and three potential maintenance
receptors within 11 western states (excluding California) \11\ that
accounted for the information presented in the California Transport
Plan and ambient air quality and emissions data that were common to our
evaluation of both the 24-hour and annual NAAQS. We also presented the
24-hour PM2.5 design values for 2014-2016 at each identified
receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For purposes of this rulemaking, ``western states'' refers
to the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, we did not find that
there would be any potential nonattainment receptors and we identified
two potential maintenance receptors, one in Idaho and one in
Pennsylvania. To do so, we relied on photochemical modeling results
presented in the EPA's informational memo on interstate transport for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (``2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
Transport Memo''), which projected annual PM2.5 design
values for 2017 and 2025 at each regulatory PM2.5 monitor in
the continental U.S.\12\ We used those results to evaluate projected
air quality in 2021, which corresponds to the attainment deadline for
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as Moderate.
We also addressed some differences in the receptors identified by CARB
and those identified by the EPA and considered the annual
PM2.5 design values for 2014-2016 at the potential
maintenance receptors identified in the EPA's 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS Transport Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Transport Memo, Table 1, 5.
Available at https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/information-interstate-transport-good-neighbor-provision-2012-fine-particulate-matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We then discussed California emissions of PM2.5 and its
precursors, California's regulations to limit such emissions, and the
emissions trends

resulting from such regulations. We discussed California's control
measures before our more specific discussion of interstate transport
prongs 1 and 2 for each NAAQS because such discussion provided a common
basis for evaluating the California emissions component of CARB's
weight of evidence analysis. For three PM2.5 precursors
pollutants, we incorporated our evaluation of California's emissions
and regulatory programs for NOX and VOC (for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS) and oxides of sulfur (SOX) (for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS).\13\ For directly-emitted PM2.5, we
affirmed that many of California's measures limit the emission of
particulate matter and have been approved into the California SIP.
These include the State's mobile source emission standards and test
procedures for heavy-duty engines and vehicles, passenger cars, light
duty trucks, and medium duty vehicles; in-use diesel standards for
heavy-duty trucks, buses, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles; and
inspection and maintenance programs, as well as air district stationary
source measures for combustion sources of PM2.5, such as
open burning, refineries, and cement plants, and dust sources of
PM2.5, such as fugitive dust from roads and agricultural
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ CARB estimates that SO2 comprises 97% of the
state-wide SOX inventory and therefore used California
SOX emissions in its analysis to represent California
SO2 emissions. California Transport Plan, App. C, C-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also described trends in California emissions, which have
decreased by substantial amounts (e.g., statewide decreases from 2000
to 2016 of 75 percent direct PM2.5, 66 percent
NOX, 54 percent VOC, and 75 percent SO2) in
response to state and local control measures, as well as federal
measures for sources outside California's regulatory authority.
    Based on our review of the state and local measures cited in the
California Transport Plan that limit the emission of PM2.5
and its precursor pollutants and of the applicable California emission
trends, which are generally decreasing, we agreed with CARB's general
conclusions regarding interstate transport of PM2.5: That
California emissions from stationary sources are subject to stringent
limits for direct PM2.5 and its precursors (e.g.,
NOX and SOX); that California has a long history
of reducing emissions through motor vehicle and fuel standards; and
that state and local measures will continue to reduce the potential for
California emissions to contribute significantly to nonattainment, or
interfere with maintenance, of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 or
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
    Building on the identification of potential nonattainment and
maintenance receptors and our discussion of California emissions, we
presented the EPA's weight of evidence analysis to address the CAA
requirements, which affirmed CARB's weight of evidence analysis for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
We prepared a Technical Support Document (TSD) containing our more
detailed analysis of interstate transport for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (``EPA's PM2.5 Transport TSD''),
which was also relevant for our evaluation of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ``EPA Evaluation of the California Interstate Transport
Plan (2006 PM2.5 NAAQS), Technical Support Document,''
EPA, Region IX, January 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, we summarized our evaluation of the areas
encompassing the 18 nonattainment receptors, grouping them into three
geographic bins (i.e., Arizona, the Northern Rocky Mountains, and Utah)
based on the nature of the emission sources affecting the receptors,
and the areas encompassing the three maintenance receptors, grouping
them by the two relevant states (Montana and Utah).
    For each receptor area we described our review of the information
compiled and presented in the California Transport Plan, including
distance of relevant receptors from California; intervening terrain;
potential wildfire effects; chemical speciation data; local topography;
the effect of local emission sources, particularly residential wood
burning and, in certain cases, other sources (e.g., mobile sources,
agricultural activities), on wintertime exceedances; and regional
background levels represented by ambient 24-hour PM2.5 data
from Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitoring sites. We reviewed California's emissions and emission
control programs for PM2.5 and its precursors, especially
for NOX and SOX, and concluded that California
has an extensive and effective program for limiting emissions of such
pollutants. Thus, we proposed that California will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any western state.
    As the California Transport Plan did not evaluate PM2.5
transport to states farther east than Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and
New Mexico, we evaluated the potential for transport of
PM2.5 and its precursors to states farther east. We did so
by reviewing modeling data from the CSAPR and recent air quality data
to identify the westernmost area in the East \15\ with potential
nonattainment or maintenance receptors, and then comparing California's
likely contributions with the contributions of intervening states that
may significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS at the potential nonattainment and maintenance
receptors, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes of the PM2.5 evaluation in this
notice, ``the East'' refers to the 37 states and Washington, DC that
lie east of the states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New
Mexico. The EPA modeled the contribution of states within the East
to each receptor for CSAPR but did not model the contribution of any
state further west, such as California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We concluded that California emission sources will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS at the westernmost nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in the East, which were in Madison County,
Illinois. This was based on the generally improved air quality in the
East since the EPA's analysis in 2011 for CSAPR, which reduced the
number of potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors; the
distance of the Madison County, Illinois receptors from California;
intervening terrain; our analysis of the westernmost states linked to
the Madison receptors and comparison of California emissions; the large
reductions in emissions of PM2.5 and its precursors in
California; and the trend of decreasing 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations at the Madison receptors. As the distance from
California to the other potential eastern nonattainment or maintenance
receptors is even greater, we noted that the expected contribution from
California to 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at such receptors
would be even smaller and thus not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in any state farther east than Montana, Wyoming,
Colorado, and New Mexico.
    For interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 for the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, we agreed with CARB that California will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state and presented our analysis for potential maintenance receptors in
Lemhi and Shoshone counties, Idaho and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

    For the potential maintenance receptors in Idaho, we reviewed the
information compiled and presented in the California Transport Plan,
including distance of these monitors from California; intervening
terrain; wildfire effects; local topography; the effect of local
emission sources on wintertime exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS and the
effect of those exceedances on annual PM2.5 concentrations;
and rural background levels represented by IMPROVE data. We reviewed
California's emissions and emission control programs for
PM2.5 and its precursors, especially for NOX and
SOX, and concluded that California has an extensive and
effective program for limiting emissions of such pollutants. Thus, we
proposed that California will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in Idaho or any western state.
    For the potential maintenance receptor in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, we concluded that California emission sources will not
interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
This was based on our interpolated projection that the Allegheny
monitor will likely be attaining the annual PM2.5 NAAQS in
2021; the distance of this receptor from California; intervening
terrain; the contribution modeling performed for CSAPR; the large
reductions in emissions of PM2.5 and its precursors in
California; and the general trend of decreasing annual PM2.5
concentrations at the Allegheny receptor.
    Based on our analysis that there are no nonattainment receptors
outside of California for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and our
analysis for the maintenance receptors in Idaho and Pennsylvania, we
proposed that California will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.

C. Evaluation for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS

    The EPA proposed to approve the California Transport Plan for the
CAA requirements for interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. We described how our evaluation of SO2
transport required a slightly different approach than our evaluation
for regional pollutants, such as ozone and PM2.5, and more
localized pollutants, like lead, given the universe of SO2
emission sources and physical properties of SO2 in the
atmosphere relative to those other pollutants. In our evaluation we
addressed the air quality, emission sources, and emission trends in the
states bordering California, i.e., Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon. Then we
discussed California's air quality, emissions sources, control
measures, and emission trends with respect to interstate transport
prong 1, followed by discussion of additional California air quality
trends and emission trends with respect to interstate transport prong
2.
    We found that monitored 1-hour SO2 levels in Arizona,
Nevada, and Oregon are generally well below 75 ppb; that sources in
these bordering states that emit over 2,000 tpy of SO2 are
located at a distance well beyond a 50-km buffer from California's
borders where emissions from California sources might be expected to
have downwind impacts on air quality; and that the downward
SO2 emission trends in each bordering state reduce the
likelihood of SO2 nonattainment or maintenance issues
appearing in the future.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This final approval of the California Transport Plan for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
is based on the information contained in the administrative record
for this action and does not prejudge any other future EPA action
that may make other determinations regarding California's air
quality status. Any such future actions, such as area designations
under any NAAQS, will be based on their own administrative records
and the EPA's analyses of information that becomes available at
those times. Future available information may include, and is not
limited to, monitoring data and modeling analyses conducted pursuant
to the EPA's SO2 Data Requirements Rule (80 FR 51052,
August 21, 2015) and information submitted to the EPA by states, air
agencies, and third-party stakeholders such as citizen groups and
industry representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For interstate transport prong 1, the EPA reviewed the analysis
presented in the California Transport Plan and considered additional
information on ambient SO2 monitoring data, SO2
emission sources and controls, including state measures for mobile
sources and air district measures for large stationary sources, and
emission trends in California. As for Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon,
monitored 1-hour SO2 levels in California are low (most
often below half the level of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS); the 29
SO2 sources in California that emit over 100 tpy of
SO2 are located at a distance well beyond 50 km from
California's borders, the distance where emissions from California
sources might be expected to have downwind impacts on air quality in
bordering states; and California's decreasing SO2 emission
trend each reduce the likelihood of California emitting SO2
in amounts that would adversely affect other states in the future.
    Therefore, based on our analysis of SO2 air quality and
emission sources in Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon and our analysis of
SO2 air quality and emissions in California, we proposed
that California will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    For interstate transport prong 2, the EPA reviewed the analysis
presented in the California Transport Plan and considered additional
information on California air quality trends and emission trends to
evaluate CARB's conclusion that California does not interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in other states. The EPA's
analysis built on our evaluation of air quality and SO2
emission sources in Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon, and our evaluation for
significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1) based on the
evidence that we reviewed (i.e., low ambient concentrations of
SO2, large distance of SO2 sources from the
California border, decreasing SO2 emissions, and the
existence of SIP-approved California control measures).
    We found that from 2000 to 2015 both ambient SO2
concentrations and SO2 emissions from California's largest
stationary sources have decreased substantially; and that state and
local measures to limit the sulfur content of fuels and limit
SO2 emissions will continue to limit SO2
emissions that might adversely affect other states. Accordingly, we
proposed that California SO2 emission sources will not
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any
other state, per the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The 30-day comment period for the EPA's proposed rulemaking closed
on March 9, 2018. We received four comment letters in response to the
proposed rulemaking. CARB submitted a letter affirming its support for
the EPA's proposed approval.\17\ The Center for Biological Diversity
(CBD) submitted adverse comments regarding the State's and the EPA's
evaluation of interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\18\ The
two remaining letters were anonymous comment letters that raised issues
outside the scope of this rulemaking and did not identify any material
issues necessitating a

response.\19\ The comment letters are available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Letter dated March 9, 2018, from Kurt Karperos, Deputy
Executive Officer, CARB to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX.
    \18\ Letter dated March 9, 2018, from Robert Ukeiley, Senior
Attorney, Center for Biological Diversity to Rory Mays, Air Planning
Office, EPA Region IX.
    \19\ Comments received on February 21, 2018 and February 27,
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBD requests that the EPA disapprove the California Transport Plan
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We address CBD's comments in
three parts as follows.
    Comment #1: The commenter states that the ozone transport analysis
in the California Transport Plan is flawed because it underestimates
NOX emissions from agricultural soils in California. The
commenter relies on a recent study that concludes that agricultural
soils are a dominant source of California's NOX emissions
(``Soil NOX Study''), especially in the San Joaquin
Valley.\20\ Based on this study, the commenter states that California's
NOX emissions would have been 20 to 51 percent higher and
that, by underestimating such emissions, the California Transport Plan
underestimated California's contribution to downwind states. The
commenter recommends re-running ozone transport modeling with a
corrected NOX emission inventory for California and suggests
that this could change the linkages between California and other states
for ozone. The commenter asserts that, pursuant to the Supreme Court's
holding in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance, it is unlawful to fail to consider an important
aspect of a problem before the agency.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Almaraz, et al., ``Agriculture is a major source of
NOX pollution in California,'' Science Advances, January
31, 2018, 1. As this article is copyrighted, it is available in hard
copy, but not available electronically at Regulations.gov, as part
of the docket of this rulemaking; see the ADDRESSES section of this
action for hard copy viewing information. It is also publicly
available at: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/eaao3477/tab-pdf.
    \21\ 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response #1: The EPA disagrees that the California Transport Plan
is flawed in this manner and that the EPA failed to consider an
important aspect of interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As
an initial matter, the CSAPR Update modeling estimates that California
contributes more than 1 percent of the NAAQS to downwind maintenance
receptors in Denver (i.e., California is ``linked'' to receptors in
Denver). An increase in NOX emissions from California could
potentially increase the magnitude of the contribution to these
receptors but would be unlikely to result in any additional downwind
linkages for California because there are no other nonattainment or
maintenance receptors in the West (excluding California), based on
EPA's CSAPR Update modeling. Moreover, in the CSAPR Update four-step
process, the amount of contribution above the 1 percent threshold is
not a factor in determining whether the upwind state's contribution is
significant or will interfere with maintenance.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The 1 percent threshold can serve to limit the scope of an
upwind state's emission reduction obligation if upwind emission
reductions would otherwise reduce a state's impact to below the
threshold. See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct.
1584, 1608-09 (2014) (the EPA cannot require a state to reduce its
contribution to every receptor to which it is linked to below 1
percent of the NAAQS). In this action, however, the EPA has not
concluded that California's impact to any downwind receptors would
be reduced below the 1 percent threshold as a result of the emission
controls implemented by the State's SIP. Therefore, the potential
additional impact of NOX emissions resulting from
agricultural soils would not implicate this limit on the Agency's
statutory authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the study upon which the commenter relies was not
published until after the EPA's proposed rulemaking was signed on
January 26, 2018, we have considered the commenter's statement and the
study on possible underestimation of NOX emissions from
agricultural soils in California and potential effects in analyzing
California's contribution to ozone in downwind states. Accordingly, we
present a brief synopsis of how the CSAPR Update modeling accounted for
NOX emissions from land in California, as well as a summary
of the Soil NOX Study referenced by the commenter and our
evaluation thereof with respect to this rulemaking.
    In 2016, the EPA's CSAPR Update modeling used NOX
emissions from soils for the continental U.S based on application of
the Biogenic Emissions Inventory System (BEIS version 3.61).\23\
Emissions of soil NOX vary by land cover type and,
accordingly, model emission factors vary for each type of land cover.
For example, the emission factor for agricultural lands is relatively
higher than grasslands due to application of nitrogen-based
fertilizers. The annual soil NOX emissions from California
were estimated to be 30,593 tpy in both 2011 and 2017, which
corresponds to 4.1 percent of the total 2011 NOX inventory
for California (740,179 tpy) and 5.6 percent of the total 2017 base
case NOX inventory (544,972 tpy), respectively. Thus, the
CSAPR Update modeling accounted for the effect of California's soil
NOX emissions on ozone formation and downwind transport to
other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Information on BEIS can be found at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/biogenic-emission-inventory-system-beis. This
web page includes a brief version history of BEIS, including points
at which the system's soil NO algorithm was revised based on the
work of peer-reviewed research papers, and a list of BEIS references
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/beis_references.pdf. The EPA's emissions modeling platform TSD for
the CSAPR Update final rule describes how BEIS was used to estimate
emissions from soils and vegetation. ``Technical Support Document
(TSD) Preparation of Emission Inventories for the Version 6.3, 2011
Emissions Modeling Platform,'' EPA, August 2016, 33-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Soil NOX Study, the authors generated annual
estimates of soil NOX emissions from California using a
nitrogen isotope model and the Integrated Model for the Assessment of
the Global Environment at a 4 kilometer (km) by 4 km resolution. These
complex biogeochemical models include the full suite of variables
thought to contribute to soil NOX emissions. The model
results were compared to a limited number of observations from surface
measurements around California. The average modeled NOX
emissions were comparable to the surface measurements in some areas and
larger than the surface measurements in other areas.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Soil NOX Study, Table 1, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The authors then compared model predicted emissions to CARB's non-
soil NOX emissions inventory and estimated that soil
NOX emissions account for 25 percent of California's total
NOX emissions.\25\ They note that this is in the range of
previous modeling studies that considered agricultural soils worldwide.
With respect to the San Joaquin Valley, the study also used airborne
and surface measurements of NOX from a separate study \26\
to estimate total NOX emissions from a portion of the San
Joaquin Valley of 190 metric tons of nitrogen per day (tnpd), with a
range of plus or minus 130 tnpd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Soil NOX Study notes that CARB ascribes
about 3.8 percent of California's total NOX emissions to
cropland soils. Soil NOX Study, p. 1. The commenters did
not attempt to further compare the model results of the Soil
NOX Study with the emissions inventory used in the
California Transport Plan (based on the initial CSAPR Update
modeling) nor the CSAPR Update modeling, upon which the EPA's
proposed rulemaking was based. Notwithstanding, the proportion of
CARB's cropland NOX emissions estimates appear to fall in
a similar scale to those modeled for the EPA's CSAPR Update rule.
    \26\ Trousdell, et al., ``Observing entrainment mixing,
photochemical ozone production, and regional methane emissions by
aircraft using a simple mixed-layer framework,'' Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics. 16, 15433-15450 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Soil NOX Study concludes that it is the first study
to include a spatially explicit estimate of soil NOX
emissions compared to other emission sources in California. While
acknowledging the uncertainty in the estimate, the Soil NOX
Study further concludes that its model results add to a growing body of

literature suggesting that soil NOX emissions could be
significantly underestimated in current inventories and possibly
increase California's total NOX emissions by 20 to 51
percent.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA acknowledges the value that studies of this kind contribute
towards a better understanding of soil NOX emissions from
California. However, the quantification of such emissions is currently
uncertain, as described below, and would require further field research
to substantiate. The commenters did not address the uncertainties
expressed in the study and did not consider other important analytical
aspects of interstate transport of ozone.
    First, the study acknowledges that a limited number of surface
measurements were available for purposes of comparing the model results
and, where observations exist, there is a large range in observed
values due to varying soil conditions (e.g., relating to temperature,
moisture, fertilizer application, etc.). The authors acknowledge the
difficulty in comparing the model results to the observations and note
the need for more field measurements.\28\ Second, there was a
significant degree of uncertainty in the aircraft estimates of
NOX emissions over the San Joaquin Valley (190 tnpd plus or
minus 130 tnpd, which equates to plus or minus 68 percent). Further
research would be needed to determine whether these higher levels of
soil NOX emissions over California and elsewhere are
accurate and reliable before updates are included in air quality
modeling to support regulatory decisions.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id. at 5.
    \29\ Technical comments have been published in response to the
Soil NOX Study that present additional uncertainties
(with respect to the calculations used) in the Soil NOX
Study and recommend supplemental data that could be released to
allow for an improved assessment of the study. Maaz, et al.,
``Inconsistencies undermine the conclusion that agriculture is a
dominant source of NOX in California,'' Science Advances,
September 12, 2018. As these technical comments are copyrighted,
they are available in hard copy as part of the docket of this
rulemaking; see the ADDRESSES section of this action for viewing
information. They are also publicly available at: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/9/eaat4706?intcmp=trendmd-adv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, in the EPA's proposed rulemaking, we described the
rationale for our disagreement with CARB's assertions in the California
Transport Plan that California's contributions to ozone levels in the
Denver area were overestimated, while acknowledging that the future
research that CARB suggests to better characterize ozone transport from
California to other states could prove valuable.\30\ In this response,
we disagree with the commenter that California's contributions to such
ozone levels were underestimated, while similarly acknowledging the
value of further research to better characterize California's
NOX emissions. In both cases, however, we assert that the
prospect of future research that might better quantify California's
emissions or their effect on other states' ozone levels does not itself
undermine the technical adequacy of the EPA's current modeling for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. We reaffirm that the CSAPR Update modeling, including
its emissions inventory bases, and our analysis with respect to
California based on that modeling adequately estimate the interstate
transport of ozone from California to downwind states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 83 FR 5375, 5380 (February 7, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the soil NOX emissions used in the CSAPR Update
modeling, upon which our evaluation of the California Transport Plan
relies for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, were based on the BEIS, which
incorporates prior research on soil NOX as noted above.
While the Soil NOX Study suggests that California's soil
NOX emissions may be underestimated, they have not been
adequately quantified and verified to a sufficient degree to replace
the emissions inventories that were part of the analytical basis of the
EPA's proposal to approve California Transport Plan for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, nor to warrant re-running the ozone transport modeling.
Furthermore, the CSAPR modeling and our proposed finding did indicate
that California is linked to downwind receptors, and therefore we
presented a general assessment of cost-effective controls that can be
employed to reduce emissions from sources in California.
    The EPA therefore disagrees that it has failed to consider an
important aspect of the interstate transport problem in violation of
the Supreme Court's holding in State Farm. We affirm that the EPA has
considered the multiple important aspects of interstate transport of
ozone from California to other states, as described in our proposed
rulemaking and in this final rule's response to comments. These aspects
include, but are not limited to, consideration of measured and modeled
ambient ozone concentrations, measured and estimated NOX and
VOC emissions inventories for California and the continental U.S.,
application of state of the science modeling tools for regional air
pollution analysis and appropriate model validation, existing and
planned emission control regimes, and meteorology. Furthermore, we have
considered the commenter's arguments with respect to California's soil
NOX emissions and disagree that the science of such
emissions is quantified and verified to a sufficient degree to warrant
a new analysis of interstate transport from California to other states
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Comment #2: The commenter states that the ozone transport analysis
in the California Transport Plan is flawed by failing to consider
whether soil NOX emissions from California are adequately
controlled. Specifically, the commenter states that the EPA failed to
consider whether California has rules to limit NOX via
agricultural management practices, whether such rules are in the
California SIP, and whether such rules are adequate. The commenter does
not believe that such rules are in place.
    Response #2: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that the
California Transport Plan should have examined whether soil
NOX emissions are subject to control and whether such
controls are adequate for purposes of the interstate transport
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This flows from our
considerations expressed in Response #1 of this final rule. We do not
consider the Soil NOX Study alone to be sufficient to compel
replacement of the emissions inventories that were the analytical bases
of the EPA's proposal, particularly given the study's wide range of
suggested soil NOX emission increases (20 to 51 percent for
California) and the large uncertainty in the model results.
    Soil NOX emissions occur across California's wide range
of ecological regions \31\ and NOX emissions from
agricultural regions in the State represent a subset of the statewide
annual soil NOX estimate. Within the agricultural regions,
the amount of soil NOX emitted varies based on agricultural
practices employed (e.g., irrigation; method, timing, and amount of
fertilizer application; etc.), crop type, temperature, and other
factors. Additionally, soil NOX is not directly emitted
(e.g., nitrifying bacteria in the soil convert ammonium from various
sources into NOX, some of which is emitted into the
atmosphere) and involves numerous natural emissions sources and
processes. Therefore, the production of NOX in the soil is
quite complex and inherently difficult to estimate and model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ A map of California's ecological regions is available at:
https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoregion-download-files-state-region-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the commenter did not provide examples or
recommendations of alternative agricultural practices that might reduce
soil NOX emissions in California. Even if there were known

alternative practices, it may prove difficult to estimate the effect of
those potential controls given the complexity of soil NOX
production. Given the complexity in estimating and modeling soil
NOX emissions, the indirect and partially natural source of
the emissions, the absence of specific alternative measures that could
be implemented to reduce soil NOX emissions, and the
uncertainty in the effectiveness of potential emission controls, the
EPA concludes that there is not sufficient information available at
this time to warrant an evaluation of potential control of soil
NOX emissions in California for purposes of interstate
transport prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Therefore, we reaffirm that our approach of evaluating California's
largest sources of NOX emissions and the control measures
for such sources, including mobile sources (70 percent of the projected
2017 emissions inventory) and stationary point sources (15 percent of
the inventory, including EGUs and non-EGU sources), is a reasonable
means for assessing whether California has satisfied the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect
to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Comment #3: Lastly, the commenter asserts that measures to control
NOX emissions from cropland soils will bring economic,
ecosystem, and human health co-benefits to rural California, per the
recent study. On this basis, the commenter disagrees that the EPA lacks
discretionary authority under Executive Order 12898 to address
disproportionate human health or environmental effects and highlights
the San Joaquin Valley as an area with many communities that suffer
environmental injustice. The commenter states that the California
Transport Plan should include measures to control NOX
emissions from agricultural soils to reduce pollution in such
communities, consistent with Executive Order 12898.
    Response #3: We disagree that the EPA has discretionary authority
in this rulemaking under Executive Order 12898 to address any
disproportionate human health or environmental effects in rural
California. First, Executive Order 12898 applies only to federal agency
actions that invoke certain federal requirements, such as the National
Environmental Policy Act or CAA section 309, and it does not apply
where the EPA is merely approving a state submission as meeting basic
requirements of the CAA. Second, this rulemaking concerns the
interstate transport of ozone from California to other states under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), rather than the effect of California's
NOX emissions on communities within California. Thus, the
commenters suggestion that California should control NOX
emissions from cropland soils to reduce pollution that may affect
communities in California is outside the scope of this rulemaking. For
these reasons, Executive Order 12898 is not applicable to this action.

III. EPA Action

    We have reviewed the California Transport Plan for the 2008 ozone,
2006 PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS using step-wise processes. Based on this review and additional
analyses conducted by the EPA to verify and supplement the California
Transport Plan, and consistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
EPA guidance with respect to interstate transport for these NAAQS, we
find that California will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2008 ozone, 2006
PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS
in any other state. No comments were submitted that change our
assessment of the California Transport Plan as described in our
proposed rulemaking. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the Act, the EPA is fully approving the California Transport Plan into
the California SIP for the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for these NAAQS.
    In addition, for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS,
the EPA had previously found that California failed to submit the
required SIP revisions addressing interstate transport prongs 1 and 2
by certain dates.\32\ Those actions triggered the obligation for the
EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) for these
requirements unless the State submitted and the EPA approved a SIP
submission that addresses the two prongs. As the EPA is fully approving
the California Transport Plan for these two NAAQS, this final rule also
removes the obligation for the EPA to promulgate such FIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 79 FR 63536 (October 24, 2014) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS; and 80 FR 39961 (July 13, 2015) for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 19, 2019. 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, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 30, 2018.
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)(512) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220   Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (512) The following plan was submitted on January 19, 2016, by the
Governor's Designee.
    (i) [Reserved].
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) California Air Resources Board (CARB).
    (1) ``California Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Revision, Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D),'' adopted December 17,
2015, (``California Transport Plan'').

0
3. Section 52.283 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(3), (d)(3), and
(g)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.283   Interstate Transport.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) The requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding
significant contribution to nonattainment of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state and
interference with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by any other state.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) The requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding
significant contribution to nonattainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
any other State and interference with maintenance of the 2010 ozone
NAAQS by any other State.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (3) The requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding
significant contribution to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other State and interference with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS by any other State.

[FR Doc. 2018-27477 Filed 12-18-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P