[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52005-52015]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21325]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0051; FRL-9999-49-Region 9]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; South
Coast Air Basin; 1-Hour and 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve, or conditionally approve, all or portions of five
state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
California to meet Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act'') requirements for
the 1979 1-hour, 1997 8-hour, and 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the Los Angeles--
South Coast Air Basin, California (``South Coast'') ozone nonattainment
area. The five SIP revisions include the ``Final 2016 Air Quality
Management Plan,'' the ``Revised Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the
State Implementation Plan,'' the ``2018 Updates to the California State
Implementation Plan,'' the ``Updated Federal 1979 1-Hour Ozone Standard
Attainment Demonstration,'' and a local emissions statement rule. In
today's action, the EPA refers to these submittals collectively as the
``2016 South Coast Ozone SIP.'' The 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP
addresses the nonattainment area requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
including the requirements for an emissions inventory, attainment
demonstration, reasonable further progress, reasonably available
control measures, contingency measures, among others; establishes motor
vehicle emissions budgets; and updates the previously-approved control
strategies and attainment demonstrations for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is taking final action to approve the
2016 South Coast Ozone SIP as meeting all the applicable ozone
nonattainment area requirements except for the reasonable further
progress contingency measure requirement, for which the EPA is
finalizing a conditional approval.

DATES: This rule will be effective on October 31, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0051. 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: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 972-3963, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Action
II. Submittal of District Rule 301
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
IV. Final Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of the Proposed Action

    On June 17, 2019 (84 FR 28132), the EPA proposed to approve, under
CAA section 110(k)(3), and to conditionally approve, under CAA section
110(k)(4), portions of submittals from the California Air Resources
Board (CARB or ``State'') and the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD

or ``District'') as revisions to the California SIP for the South Coast
ozone nonattainment area.\1\ The relevant SIP revisions include
SCAQMD's Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (``2016 AQMP''), CARB's
Revised Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan
(``2016 State Strategy''), CARB's 2018 Updates to the California State
Implementation Plan (``2018 SIP Update''), SCAQMD's Updated Federal
1979 1-Hour Ozone Standard Attainment Demonstration (``1-Hour Ozone
Update''), and SCAQMD's local emissions statement rule (i.e., certain
paragraphs of District Rule 301 (``Permitting and Associated Fees'').
With respect to the SCAQMD emissions statement rule, our proposal was
based on a public draft version of the rule and requests from the
District and CARB that the EPA accept the public draft for parallel
processing.\2\ Since publication of the proposed rule, the District has
adopted, and CARB has submitted, the emissions statement rule as a SIP
revision. The SIP submittal of the emissions statement rule is
discussed in more detail in section II of this document. Collectively,
we refer to the relevant portions of the five SIP revisions as the
``2016 South Coast Ozone SIP,'' and we refer to our June 17, 2019
proposed rule as the ``proposed rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The South Coast ozone nonattainment area includes Orange
County, the southwestern two-thirds of Los Angeles County,
southwestern San Bernardino County, and western Riverside County. A
precise description of the South Coast ozone nonattainment area is
contained in 40 CFR 81.305.
    \2\ Letters dated May 17, 2019, from Wayne Nastri, Executive
Officer, SCAQMD, to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, and May
20, 2019, from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Michael
Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed conditional approval of the reasonable further
progress (RFP) contingency measure element of the 2016 South Coast
Ozone SIP relied on specific commitments: (1) From the District to
modify an existing rule or rules, or adopt a new rule(s), that would
provide for additional emissions reductions in the event that the South
Coast fails to meet an RFP milestone, and (2) from CARB to submit the
revised or new District rule(s) to the EPA as a SIP revision within 12
months of our final action.3 4 For more information on these
submittals, please see our proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Letters dated January 29, 2019 and May 2, 2019, from Wayne
Nastri, Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB.
    \4\ Letter dated February 13, 2019, from Dr. Michael T.
Benjamin, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB, to
Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, and letter dated
May 20, 2019, from Dr. Michael T. Benjamin, Chief, Air Quality
Planning and Science Division, CARB, to Amy Zimpfer, Associate
Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our proposed rule, we provided background information on the
ozone standards,\5\ area designations, and related SIP revision
requirements under the CAA, and the EPA's implementing regulations for
the 2008 ozone standards, referred to as the 2008 Ozone SIP
Requirements Rule (``2008 Ozone SRR''). To summarize, the South Coast
ozone nonattainment area is classified as Extreme for the 1-hour, 1997
and 2008 ozone standards, and the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP was
developed to update the attainment plans for the 1-hour and 1997 ozone
NAAQS and to address the requirements for this Extreme nonattainment
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight. The 1-hour ozone NAAQS
is 0.12 parts per million (ppm) (one-hour average), the 1997 ozone
NAAQS is 0.08 ppm (eight-hour average), and the 2008 ozone standard
is 0.075 ppm (eight-hour average). CARB refers to reactive organic
gases (ROG) in some of its ozone-related submittals. The CAA and the
EPA's regulations refer to VOC, rather than ROG, but both terms
cover essentially the same set of gases. In this final rule, we use
the term federal term (VOC) to refer to this set of gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our proposed rule, we also discussed a decision issued by the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in South Coast Air Quality Management
Dist. v. EPA, (`` South Coast II '') \6\ that vacated certain portions
of the EPA's 2008 Ozone SRR. The only aspect of the South Coast II
decision that affects this action is the vacatur of the provision in
the 2008 Ozone SRR that allowed states to use an alternative baseline
year for demonstrating RFP. To address this, in the 2018 SIP Update,
CARB submitted an updated RFP demonstration that relied on a 2011
baseline year as required, along with updated motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs) associated with the new RFP milestone years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 882 F.3d
1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). The term ``South Coast II '' is used in
reference to the 2018 court decision to distinguish it from a
decision published in 2006 also referred to as ``South Coast.'' The
earlier decision involved a challenge to the EPA's Phase 1
implementation rule for the 1997 ozone standard. South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the contingency measure requirement, in our
proposed rule, we noted that the EPA's longstanding interpretation of
section 172(c)(9) that states may rely on already-implemented measures
as contingency measures (if they provide emissions reductions in excess
of those needed to meet any other nonattainment plan requirements) was
rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case referred to as
Bahr v. EPA (``Bahr'').\7\ In Bahr, the Ninth Circuit concluded that
contingency measures must be measures that would take effect at the
time the area fails to make RFP or to attain by the applicable
attainment date, not before.\8\ Thus, within the geographic
jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, states cannot rely on already-
implemented control measures to comply with the contingency measure
requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
    \8\ Id. at 1235-1237.
    \9\ The Bahr v. EPA decision involved a challenge to an EPA
approval of contingency measures under the general nonattainment
area plan provisions for contingency measures in CAA section
172(c)(9), but, given the similarity between the statutory language
in section 172(c)(9) and the ozone-specific contingency measure
provision in section 182(c)(9), we find that the decision affects
how both sections of the Act must be interpreted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For our proposed rule, we reviewed the various SIP elements
contained in the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP, evaluated them for
compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, and concluded
that they meet all applicable requirements with the exception of the
RFP contingency measure element. More specifically, in our proposal
rule, we determined the following:
     CARB and the District met all applicable procedural
requirements for public notice and hearing prior to the adoption and
submittal of the 2016 AQMP, 2016 State Strategy, 2018 SIP Update and 1-
Hour Ozone Update;
     The 2012 base year emissions inventory from the 2016 AQMP
is comprehensive, accurate, and current and thereby meets the
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1115
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and future year baseline projections reflect
appropriate calculation methods and the latest planning assumptions and
are properly supported by SIP-approved stationary and mobile source
measures (see 84 FR 28137-28139 from the proposed rule);
     The emissions statement element of the 2016 AQMP,
including public draft version of District Rule 301 (specifically,
paragraphs (e)(1)(A) and (B), (e)(2), (e)(5) and (e)(8)), meets the
requirements for emissions statements under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)
and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (see 84 FR 28139-28140 from
the proposed rule);
     The process followed by the District to identify
reasonably available control measures (RACM) is generally consistent
with the EPA's

recommendations; the District's rules and commitments made to adopt
certain additional measures provide for the implementation of RACM for
stationary and area sources of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC); CARB and the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) provide for the implementation of
RACM for mobile sources of NOX and VOC; there are no
additional RACM that would advance attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in the South Coast by at least one year; and therefore, the 2016 AQMP
and 2016 State Strategy provide for the implementation of all RACM as
required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c) for the 2008
ozone NAAQS (see 84 FR 28140-28143 from the proposed rule);
     The photochemical modeling in the 2016 AQMP and 1-Hour
Ozone Update shows that existing CARB and District control measures,
plus CARB and District commitments to achieve additional emissions
reductions in the 2016 AQMP and 2016 State Strategy, are sufficient to
attain the 1-hour, 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment dates in the South Coast; given the extensive documentation
in the 2016 AQMP of modeling procedures and good model performance, the
modeling is adequate to support the attainment demonstrations for the
three ozone NAAQS; and therefore, the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP meets
the attainment demonstration requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A)
and 40 CFR 51.1108 (see 84 FR 28143-28157 from the proposed rule);
     As provided in our SRR, the previously-approved 15 percent
rate-of-progress (ROP) demonstration for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the
South Coast meets the ROP requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1) for the
South Coast for the 2008 ozone NAAQS given that the boundaries of the
South Coast nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 2008
ozone NAAQS are the same (see 84 FR 28157-28158 from the proposed
rule);
     The RFP demonstration in the 2018 SIP Update provides for
emissions reductions of VOC or NOX of at least 3 percent per
year on average for each three-year period from a 2011 baseline year
through the attainment year and thereby meets the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR
51.1110(a)(2)(ii) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (see 84 FR 28157-28158 from
the proposed rule);
     The 2016 AQMP (specifically, appendix VI-E (``VMT Offset
Demonstration'')) demonstrates that CARB and SCAG have adopted
sufficient transportation control strategies and transportation control
measures to offset the growth in emissions from growth in vehicle-
miles-traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips in the South Coast, and thereby
complies with the VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA section
182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (see 84 FR
28158-28161 from the proposed rule);
     Through EPA-approved District Rules 1303
(``Requirements''), 1146 (``Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from
Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators,
and Process Heaters''), and 2004 (``Requirements'') (paragraph (h)),
the 2016 AQMP meets the clean fuels or advanced control technology for
boilers requirement in CAA section 182(e)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the
2008 ozone NAAQS (see 84 FR 28163-28164 from the proposed rule);
     The MVEBs for the RFP milestone years of 2020, 2023, 2026,
2029, and the attainment year of 2031 from the 2018 SIP Update are
consistent with the RFP and attainment demonstrations, are clearly
identified and precisely quantified, and meet all other applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements in 40 CFR 93.118(e), including
the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) (see 84 FR 28164-
28166 from the proposed rule); \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In light of CARB's request to limit the duration of the
approval of the budgets in the 2018 SIP Update and in anticipation
of the EPA's approval, in the near term, of an updated version of
CARB's EMFAC (short for EMission FACtor) model for use in SIP
development and transportation conformity in California to include
updated vehicle mix and emissions data, we proposed to limit the
duration of our approval of the budgets until replacement budgets
have been found adequate. See pages 28165-28166 from the proposed
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The general conformity budgets in the 2016 AQMP are
established for a set time period, cover both precursors of ozone, are
precisely quantified, and are consistent with the attainment
demonstrations for the three ozone NAAQS in the South Coast, and the
2016 AQMP provides an adequate tracking procedure to ensure compliance
(see 84 FR 28166-28167 from the proposed rule); and
     Through previous EPA approvals of the State's I/M program,
the 1994 ``Opt-Out Program'' SIP revision, the 1993 Photochemical
Assessment Monitoring Station (PAMS) SIP revision, and the 2016 annual
monitoring network plan for the South Coast, the 2016 AQMP adequately
addresses for the 2008 ozone NAAQS: The enhanced vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) requirements in CAA section 182(c)(3) and 40 CFR
51.1102; the clean fuels fleet program in CAA sections 182(c)(4) and
246 and 40 CFR 51.1102; and the enhanced ambient air monitoring
requirements in CAA section 182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102 (see 84 FR
28167-28168 from the proposed rule).
    With respect to the RFP contingency measure element of the 2016
South Coast Ozone SIP, we proposed to conditionally approve the element
as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, based on commitments by CARB and the District to
supplement the element through submission of a SIP revision within one
year of final conditional approval action that will include a revised
or new District rule or rules.\11\ See pages 28161-28163 from the
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In light of the proposed approval of the attainment
demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the reliance of the
attainment demonstration on section 182(e)(5) new technology
measures, and CARB's clarification concerning the agency's
commitment to submit section 182(e)(5) contingency measures, we
proposed to find that CARB's commitment to submit attainment
contingency measures provides an adequate basis to defer submittal
of attainment contingency measures meeting the requirements in CAA
section 172(c)(9) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS until 2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please see our proposed rule for more information concerning the
background for this action and for a more detailed discussion of the
rationale for approval or conditional approval of the above-listed
elements of the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP.

II. Submittal of District Rule 301

    As noted above, we proposed to approve the emissions statement
element of the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP based on a public draft
version of District Rule 301 (paragraphs (e)(1)(A) and (B), (e)(2),
(e)(5) and (e)(8)) and a May 20, 2019 request from CARB that the EPA
accept the public draft version of District Rule 301 for parallel
processing. Under the EPA's parallel processing procedure, the EPA may
propose action on a state's public draft version of a SIP revision but
will take final action only after the state adopts and submits the
final version to the EPA for approval.\12\ If there are no significant
changes from the draft version of the SIP revision to the final
version, the EPA may elect to take final action on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, section 2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, on July 12, 2019, the District adopted without
significant modifications the final version of District Rule 301
previously released for public review, and on August 5, 2019, CARB
adopted and submitted District Rule 301 to the EPA as a revision to the

California SIP.\13\ The submittal includes CARB Executive Order S-19-
011 adopting the specified sections of District Rule 301 as a revision
to the SIP, a copy of District Rule 301 itself, and documentation of
public notice and opportunity to comment on the draft rule. We based
our proposed action on the public draft version of District Rule 301
submitted to us on May 20, 2019, and we are now finalizing our action
based on the August 5, 2019 submittal of the final adopted version of
District Rule 301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Letter dated August 5, 2019, from Richard W. Corey, CARB
Executive Officer, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this final rule, we have evaluated the August 5, 2019 submittal
for compliance with CAA procedural requirements for adoption and
submission of SIP revisions. Specifically, CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) and 110(l) require a state to provide reasonable public notice and
opportunity for public hearing prior to the adoption and submission of
a SIP or SIP revision. To meet this requirement, every SIP submittal
should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and an
opportunity for a public hearing was provided consistent with the EPA's
implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
    The District and CARB have satisfied the applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior
to the adoption and submittal of District Rule 301. On May 17, 2019,
the District published a notice of public hearing to be held on July
12, 2019, to consider approval of amendments to District Rule 301,
including the addition of a paragraph requiring certification of annual
emissions information. On July 12, 2019, the District held the hearing,
adopted the amendments to District Rule 301, as proposed, and approved
the submission of District Rule 301 (paragraphs (e)(1)(A) and (B),
(e)(2), (e)(5) and (e)(8)) to CARB for submittal to the EPA for
inclusion into the California SIP.\14\ On August 5, 2019, through
Executive Order S-19-011, the CARB Executive Officer approved the
relevant portion of District Rule 301 as a revision to the California
SIP, and on August 5, 2019, CARB submitted it to the EPA. Because the
District and CARB have complied with all applicable procedural
requirements for adoption and submittal of SIP revisions, and because
the final, adopted version of District Rule 301 is essentially the same
as the draft version of the rule for which we proposed approval, we are
taking final action today to approve District Rule 301 (paragraphs
(e)(1)(A) and (B), (e)(2), (e)(5) and (e)(8) only) as meeting the
emissions statement requirements of CAA 182(a)(3)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1102
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See District Resolution 19-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The public comment period on the proposed rule opened on June 17,
2019, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed
on July 17, 2019. During this period, the EPA received two anonymous
comments, two comment letters submitted by private individuals, one
comment letter submitted on behalf of the North American Insulation
Manufacturers Association (NAIMA), and one comment letter submitted by
Earthjustice on behalf of the Center for Community Action & Environment
Justice (CCAEJ).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In addition to the comments received during the comment
period, on August 2, 2019, we received a late comment from the
Scientific Integrity Institute challenging the validity of
statements in the proposed rule concerning public health effects at
current ozone exposure levels experienced by residents in the South
Coast. This late comment has been placed in the rulemaking docket
but is not addressed in this final rule because it is untimely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the anonymous commenters expresses overall support for the
proposed action. The other anonymous commenter describes certain
pending legislation in Congress, an issue that is outside the scope of
this rulemaking. One of the private individuals submitted numerous
documents to the EPA, but the commenter's written comment does not
relate to any specific aspect of our proposed rule nor does it explain
the relevance of the submitted documents to our proposed action. The
EPA is not responding to these three commenters, either because their
comments are not adverse to, or because they are not relevant to, the
proposed action. With respect to the other commenters, we provide
summaries of the comments and our responses thereto in the following
paragraphs. All the comments received are included in the docket for
this action.
    Comment #1: A private individual makes numerous general assertions
against the State of California regarding, for example, motor vehicle
standards, interstate commerce, California's high-speed rail project,
and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Citing three
specific examples,\16\ the commenter alleges inadequate consideration
of public comments by State and local public agencies during
environmental review of projects or documents that are subject to the
State's CEQA process. The commenter contends that such inadequacies are
systemic in California and, as such, apply to the State's actions in
nonattainment areas. The commenter also alleges failure by California
public agencies to reduce the impacts of increased commute times
through adoption of appropriate land use policies and trip reduction
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ U.S. Highway 101 widening project in south Santa Barbara
County involving the California Department of Transportation; Santa
Barbara County's Fast Forward 2040 Federal Transportation
Improvement Plan update; and CARB's Zero Emission Airport Shuttle
Regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response #1: Because the general assertions against California
described by the commenter are not linked by the commenter to specific
aspects of our proposed rule, the EPA is not responding to the
assertions. As described in the proposed rule \17\ and in section II of
this document, we have reviewed the public process documentation for
the development, adoption and submittal of the five SIP revisions that
collectively comprise the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP and conclude that
they meet the procedural requirements for public notice and hearing for
SIP revisions as set forth in CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) and 40 CFR
51.102. None of the specific examples cited by the commenter relate to
the public processes (including CEQA) used by the District and CARB to
develop, adopt and submit the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP, and a
generalized assertion about alleged inadequacies generally to meet
California public agency public processes (e.g., CEQA) is not
sufficient to contradict the specific findings we have made in
connection with the public processes used by the District and CARB in
developing, adopting and submitting the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 84 FR 28132, at 28136-28137 (June 17, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to land use policies and trip reduction measures to
reduce commute-related vehicle emissions, we note that the 2016 AQMP
includes a number of transportation control measures that are intended
to reduce vehicle use or change traffic flow or congestion
conditions.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 2016 AQMP, attachment A (``Committed Transportation
Control Measures (TCMs)'') to appendix IV-C (``Regional
Transportation Strategy and Control Measures'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #2: For a number of reasons, including the absence of
fiberglass manufacturing facilities in the South Coast, the risk of
unwarranted precedent for similar types of rules in other SIPs, and
technical infeasibility, NAIMA urges the EPA to delete, from

the EPA's proposed rule, the modification of District Rule 1117
(``Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Glass Melting Furnaces'') to
remove the exemption for idling fiberglass furnaces.
    Response #2: In 1990, the EPA approved District Rule 1117 (amended
January 6, 1984) as a revision to the SCAQMD portion of the California
SIP.\19\ The SIP-approved version of District Rule 1117 includes
exemptions for furnaces used in the melting of glass for the production
of fiberglass exclusively and for idling furnaces.\20\ In our June 17,
2019 proposed rule, we did not propose to remove the exemption for
idling fiberglass furnaces in District Rule 1117 in the current
approved SIP for SCAQMD, and our final action on the 2016 South Coast
Ozone SIP will have no effect on District Rule 1117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 55 FR 28624 (July 12, 1990).
    \20\ District Rule 1117, paragraphs (d)(5) and (d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our proposed rule, we do refer to the removal of exemptions in
District Rule 1117 for idling furnaces used in the melting of glass for
the production of fiberglass, but we do so as an example of the type of
rule amendments that the District has included in its commitment to
revise a District rule or rules to include as an RFP contingency
measure.\21\ In other words, this is a potential change to the existing
SIP for SCAQMD that the District and CARB may determine is appropriate
for use as a contingency measure in the event of future failures to
meet the RFP requirement. The District's commitment is contained in a
letter dated May 2, 2019, that clarifies an earlier commitment letter
from the District dated January 29, 2019.\22\ The District's May 2,
2019 letter lists 12 different rules, including District Rule 1117,
that the District intends to review for possible inclusion as an RFP
contingency measure. The letter also describes the types of amendments
that the District and CARB are likely to consider for each of the
rules, including, in some cases, the removal of exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 28162 from the June 17, 2019 proposed rule. The term
``RFP contingency measure'' refers to contingency measures to take
effect if an area fails to meet an RFP milestone as required by CAA
section 182(c)(9). RFP contingency measure is used to distinguish
contingency measures to address failures to meet an RFP milestone
from ``attainment contingency measures'' that are intended to
address a failure by an area to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date as required by CAA section 172(c)(9).
    \22\ Letters dated January 29, 2019 and May 2, 2019, from Wayne
Nastri, Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our final action on the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP today, we are
not approving the District's letters as part of the SIP or taking any
action on potential changes to the District rules cited therein, but we
are relying on the letters as the basis, in part, on which to
conditionally approve the contingency measure element, as authorized
under CAA section 110(k)(4). Over the course of the next year, to
fulfill the commitment made with respect to the RFP contingency measure
element, we expect the District to initiate rulemaking proceedings with
respect to one or more of the rules listed in the May 2, 2019
commitment letter. We anticipate that such rulemaking proceedings would
lead to adoption by the District of a provision for the removal of
exemptions or lowering of emissions limits upon a determination by the
EPA that the South Coast has failed to meet an RFP milestone for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. NAIMA is encouraged to participate in the District's
rulemaking process if District Rule 1117 is selected by the District
for amendment to include such an RFP contingency measure.
    Comment #3: CCAEJ asserts that the EPA violates the CAA by waiving
the previously adopted commitment to adopt section 182(e)(5)
contingency measures for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. According to CCAEJ,
the EPA has no basis to determine whether the section 182(e)(5)
measures have achieved the planned reductions as called for in section
182(e)(5), and the EPA cannot demonstrate that the section 182(e)(5)
measures will achieve the necessary reductions to attain the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS by the 2022 attainment year because we have not reached the
deadline. CCAEJ also asserts that the decision to waive the section
182(e)(5) contingency measures is also arbitrary and capricious because
taking away these contingency measure protections removes a necessary
backstop for people in Extreme ozone nonattainment areas and presents
people in the region with fewer protections if the area fails to attain
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Response #3: We agree that the CAA does not allow the EPA to
``waive'' a commitment that has been approved as part of a SIP. In this
action, the EPA is not waiving any commitment, but rather, we are
approving a SIP revision that demonstrates that the commitment is moot
because the 1-hour ozone control strategy no longer relies on section
182(e)(5) new technology measures. If new technology measures are no
longer needed, then section 182(e)(5) continency measures are no longer
required, and if section 182(e)(5) contingency measures are no longer
required, then an enforceable commitment to submit section 182(e)(5)
contingency measures no longer serves any purpose.
    Section 182(e)(5) of the CAA allows the EPA to approve an
attainment demonstration for an Extreme ozone nonattainment area based
on provisions that anticipate development of new control techniques or
improvement of existing control technologies (herein, ``new technology
measures'') if the state has submitted enforceable commitments to
develop and adopt contingency measures (herein, ``section 182(e)(5)
contingency measures'') if the new technology measures do not achieve
planned reductions. The section 182(e)(5) contingency measures must be
submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision no later than 3 years before
implementation of the plan provisions (i.e., three years before the
attainment year on which the attainment demonstration is based), and
the section 182(e)(5) contingency measures must be adequate to produce
emissions reductions sufficient, in conjunction with other approved
plan provisions, to attain the ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date.
    In 2014, the EPA approved the attainment demonstration for the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS for the South Coast in the ``Final 2012 Air Quality
Management Plan'' (``2012 AQMP'').\23\ The 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration in the 2012 AQMP relied upon new technology measures to
achieve emissions reductions of 17 tons per day (tpd) of VOC and 150
tpd of NOX in the South Coast by January 1, 2022. The new
technology measures in the 2012 AQMP were supported by a commitment by
CARB to submit section 182(e)(5) contingency measures by January 1,
2019, as necessary to ensure that the emissions reductions from new
technology measures are achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 79 FR 52526 (September 3, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 AQMP and 1-Hour Ozone Update revise the attainment
demonstration for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the South Coast to reflect
updated emissions inventories, photochemical modeling, and control
strategy. In adopting the 1-Hour Ozone Update, CARB found that the 1-
Hour Ozone Update demonstrates that identified District control
measures will achieve the emissions reductions needed for attainment of
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 2022 without additional reductions from new
technology measures and that section 182(e)(5) requirements no longer
apply to the South Coast for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ CARB Resolution 18-55, December 13, 2018, 4.

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

    The District control measures to which CARB refers are included in
the District's aggregate emissions reduction commitments through which
the District commits to develop, adopt, submit and implement certain
ozone measures to achieve emissions reductions in the aggregate of 20.6
tpd of NOX and 6.1 tpd of VOC by 2022.\25\ The District's
aggregate emissions reduction commitment in the 2016 AQMP (to take
certain actions and achieve reductions of 20.6 tpd of NOX
and 6.1 tpd of VOC by 2022) fills the gap between the 2022 adjusted
baseline emissions level (that reflects already-adopted measures) and
2022 modeled attainment emissions level for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\26\
Thus, there is no further need to rely on new technology measures, and
thus, no need for the corresponding section 182(e)(5) contingency
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See the proposed rule at 28145-28147 for a detailed
description of the District's aggregate emissions reduction
commitments.
    \26\ See table 9 from the proposed rule--page 28151-28152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, we are approving the updated emissions inventories
and photochemical modeling for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the 2016 AQMP
and 1-Hour Ozone Update, and approving the revised control strategy
that has been reset to reflect the updated inventory and modeling
results. Again, we are not waiving CARB's commitment to submit section
182(e)(5) contingency measures but, rather, we are approving a SIP
revision that provides the technical basis (updated inventories and
photochemical modeling) demonstrating that no such contingency measures
are needed because the control strategy no longer relies on new
technology measures. In effect, our approval of the updated 1-hour
ozone attainment demonstration in the 2016 AQMP and 1-Hour Ozone Update
replaces the enforceable commitment by CARB to submit section 182(e)(5)
contingency measures with an enforceable commitment by the District to
take certain actions and achieve certain emissions reductions by 2022.
We note that the enforceable commitments made by the District through
adoption of the 2016 AQMP are similar to the enforceable commitments
that the EPA has approved as part of attainment demonstrations in
previous California air quality plans and that have withstood legal
challenge.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th
Cir. 2015) (approval of state commitments to propose and adopt
emissions control measures and to achieve aggregate emissions
reductions for San Joaquin Valley ozone and particulate matter plans
upheld); Physicians for Social Responsibility--Los Angeles v. EPA,
9th Cir., memorandum opinion issued July 25, 2016 (approval of air
district commitments to propose and adopt measures and to achieve
aggregate emissions reductions for South Coast 1-hour ozone plan
upheld).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, we disagree with CCAEJ's assertion that it is not possible
to determine at this point in time whether the new technology measures
approved as part of the 2012 AQMP have achieved the necessary emissions
reductions because that determination cannot be made until the 2022
deadline. Under these circumstances, the CAA requires an accounting of
the remaining reductions to be achieved by new technology measures
three years prior to attainment. In this case, the accounting had to
have been submitted by 2019 to determine the extent to which section
182(e)(5) contingency measures are needed, which is why it was
necessary for CARB to commit to submitting section 182(e)(5)
contingency measures (as needed) by 2019. The updated 1-hour ozone
attainment demonstration in the 2016 AQMP and 1-Hour Ozone Update
provide the accounting of the remaining emissions reductions necessary
to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 2022, and based on that analysis,
CARB concludes that emissions reductions from new technology measures
are no longer needed, given that the District's aggregate emissions
reduction commitment of 20.6 tpd of NOX and 6.1 tpd of VOC
by 2022 will close the gap between the 2022 baseline emissions level
(reflecting adopted measures) and the 2022 modeled attainment emissions
level.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Table 3 of the June 17, 2019 proposed rule (84 FR 28132, at
28146) shows the District's stationary and mobile source measures
that are expected to achieve the District's 2022 aggregate emissions
reduction commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #4: Citing evidence of climate change from various sources,
including sources published by the EPA, CARB, and the SCAQMD, CCAEJ
asserts that the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP fails to meet CAA
requirements for attainment demonstrations because the attainment
demonstrations for the 1-hour, 1997, and 2008 ozone NAAQS do not
account for climate change (increased heat and high heat days).
Moreover, CCAEJ asserts that the failure to account for climate change
calls into question all the weight of evidence conclusions because
evidence of increased difficulties in meeting ozone standards has been
excluded from the analysis.
    Response #4: We acknowledge that the attainment demonstrations in
the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP do not explicitly account for potential
climate change impacts. Although EPA modeling guidance acknowledges the
potential effect of climate change on ozone levels,\29\ the EPA does
not recommend that air agencies need to explicitly account for long-
term climate change in attainment demonstrations. The guidance states
that ``there are significant uncertainties regarding the precise
location and timing of climate change impacts on air quality.
Generally, climate projections are more robust for periods at least
several decades in the future because the forcing mechanisms that drive
near-term natural variability in climate patterns (e.g., El Nino, North
American Oscillation) have substantially larger signals over short time
spans than the driving forces related to long-term climate change. In
contrast, projections for SIP purposes are generally for time spans of
less than 20 years. Given the relatively short time span between base
and future year meteorology in most SIP demonstrations, the EPA does
not recommend that air agencies explicitly account for long-term
climate change in attainment demonstrations.'' \30\ In contrast, the
time spans between base and future year meteorology in the 2016 AQMP
(year 2012) \31\ and the modeled attainment years are 10, 11, and 19
years for the 1-hour, 1997, and 2008 ozone NAAQS, respectively. The
attainment demonstrations in the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP are thus
consistent with our guidance in this respect, and we find that the
failure to account for potential climate change in the attainment
demonstrations does not undermine our approval of them. The same is
true for the weight of evidence model runs (presented in chapter 5 of
appendix V of the 2016 AQMP) that are also based on 2012 meteorology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Modeling
Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze, EPA 454/R-18-009, November 2018
(``Final Modeling Guidance''), 31-32.
    \30\ Final Modeling Guidance, page 32.
    \31\ 2016 AQMP, appendix V (``Modeling and Attainment
Demonstration''), page V-1-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that our modeling guidance states that air agencies are
welcome to consider potential climate impacts in their specific areas,
especially where and when there is evidence of significant potential
impacts,\32\ and the SCAQMD has issued a request for proposals to
evaluate meteorological factors and trends contributing to recent poor
air quality in the South Coast.\33\ The information that will be
developed

through this study, while too late to inform development of the 2016
AQMP, may inform development of future AQMPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Final Modeling Guidance, page 32.
    \33\ SCAQMD Board Meeting, November 2, 2018, Agenda No. 9,
Proposal: Issue RFP to Evaluate Metrological Factors and Trends
Contributing to Recent Poor Air Quality in South Coast Air Basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #5: CCAEJ asserts that the EPA's proposed conditional
approval as a contingency measure of CARB's commitment to submit a
contingency measure developed and adopted by the District, or as
referred to by CCAEJ as ``CARB's plan to adopt a plan,'' is
inconsistent with the Bahr decision and violates the CAA. More
specifically, CCAEJ objects to the contingency measure commitment by
CARB because it would not provide for one year's worth of progress;
because the commitment to submit a contingency measure will not be
federally enforceable; because CARB has only submitted a plan to adopt
a plan and thus the EPA has no basis to evaluate whether the
contingency measure provides emissions reductions that are
quantifiable, enforceable, permanent and surplus; and because the
contingency measure would not comply with the requirement under the CAA
that contingency measures take effect without further action by the
state or the EPA.
    Response #5: We did not propose to conditionally approve CARB's
commitment to submit a revised District rule (to include contingent
provisions to be triggered by a failure to meet an RFP milestone) as a
contingency measure. We proposed to conditionally approve the RFP
contingency measure element of the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP that
includes the emissions analysis from the 2018 SIP Update documenting
how the measure (once adopted, submitted and approved) would be
sufficient to meet the RFP contingency measure requirement in CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and that will include the yet-to-be-
submitted District rule contingency measure. CARB's commitment to
submit such a revised District rule is not itself part of the
contingency measure element, but is the basis, in part, of our
proposing conditional approval under CAA section 110(k)(4).
    Under CAA section 110(k)(4), the EPA may conditionally approve a
SIP revision based on a state commitment to adopt specific enforceable
measures by a date certain, but no later than 1 year after the date of
the final conditional approval. Section 110(k)(4) does not require that
the state submit the commitment as a SIP revision. We believe that the
District's commitment to revise a rule or rules, or adopt a new rule or
rules, to include provisions to eliminate exemptions or reduce
emissions limits upon an EPA determination that the South Coast has
failed to meet an RFP milestone, and CARB's commitment to submit the
revised District rule within 1 year of final conditional approval, to
be a sufficient basis to conditionally approve the contingency measure
element of the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP. Section 110(k)(4) also
provides that conditional approvals shall be treated as disapprovals if
the state fails to comply with the commitments made.
    We acknowledge that, because CARB's commitment to submit a revised
District rule will not be approved into the SIP, it will not be
federally enforceable. However, as noted above, CAA section 110(k)(4)
authorizes the EPA under certain circumstances to conditionally approve
a SIP revision based on commitments that are not part of the SIP.
Instead of a potential lawsuit for failure to fulfill a SIP obligation,
the consequence for a state's failure to meet a commitment relied upon
for conditional approval is that the conditional approval (in this
case, of the contingency measure element) becomes a disapproval that
triggers sanctions clocks under CAA section 179(a) and 40 CFR 52.31.
    We also acknowledge that we cannot at the present time evaluate
whether the contingency measure (i.e., the yet to be revised District
rule including contingency provisions) meets the various criteria for
approvable control measures in general--such as quantifiable,
enforceable, permanent and surplus. This circumstance, however, arises
whenever the EPA issues a conditional approval of a SIP revision. In
all such cases, the EPA cannot judge definitively, at the time of the
conditional approval, whether the SIP revision that a state will later
submit (within one year of the conditional approval) will adequately
remedy the deficiency that prevents full approval of the original SIP
revision. In such circumstances, the EPA evaluates the commitment of
the state to determine whether the submission, if consistent with the
commitment, will be likely to resolve the deficiency. In this case, the
deficiency in the RFP contingency measure element is the absence of a
specific measure that will reduce emissions in the event that the South
Coast fails to meet an RFP milestone for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and that,
once triggered, will take effect without significant further action by
the state or the EPA and will thereby meet the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) consistent with the Bahr decision.
    Once the District fulfills its commitment (i.e., to revise a rule,
or adopt a new rule, to include contingent provisions), and CARB
submits the revised rule as a SIP revision (within one year of final
conditional approval), then the EPA will evaluate the rule and take
appropriate action to propose approval or disapproval of the rule for
compliance with the general criteria for approvability as well as the
specific criteria set forth in CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for
RFP contingency measures. The public will then have the opportunity to
comment on the EPA's proposed action on the submitted rule.
    As noted in our June 17, 2019 proposed rule, we believe that the
specific types of revisions the District has committed to make, such as
increasing the stringency of an existing requirement or removing an
exemption, upon an RFP milestone failure would comply with the
requirements in CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) because they would
be undertaken if the area fails to meet an RFP milestone and would take
effect without significant further action by the state or the EPA.\34\
However, if we find that the contingency measure SIP revision fails to
meet the applicable requirements, then we would issue a disapproval,
and a disapproval would trigger sanctions clocks under CAA section
179(a) and 40 CFR 52.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 84 FR 28132, at 28162-28163 (June 17, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, we acknowledge that it is unlikely that the RFP contingency
measure, once adopted by the District, will achieve the equivalent of
one year's worth of progress in the South Coast, but we do not believe
that an RFP contingency measure in the South Coast must achieve one
year's worth of progress given the extent to which future baseline
emissions in the South Coast exceed the RFP milestones for the area.
First, we note that neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing
regulations for the ozone NAAQS establish a specific amount of
emissions reductions that implementation of contingency measures must
achieve. Rather, the EPA has recommended in guidance that contingency
measures should provide emissions reductions approximately equivalent
to one year's worth of RFP, which, with respect to ozone in the South
Coast ozone nonattainment area, amounts to approximately 16 tpd of VOC
or NOX reductions.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 84 FR 28132, at 28162 (June 17, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In making the recommendation that contingency measures achieve one
year's worth of RFP, the EPA has considered the overarching purpose of
such measures in the context of attainment planning. The purpose of

emissions reductions from implementation of contingency measures is to
ensure that, in the event of a failure to meet an RFP milestone or a
failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, the
state will continue to make progress toward attainment at a rate
similar to that specified under the RFP requirements. The state will
achieve the reductions from the contingency measures while conducting
additional control measure development and implementation as necessary
to correct the RFP shortfall or as part of a new attainment
demonstration plan.\36\ The facts and circumstances of a given
nonattainment area may justify larger or smaller amounts of emissions
reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 57 FR 13498, at 13512 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has also interpreted the Act to allow already-implemented
measures to qualify as contingency measures so long as the emissions
reductions from such measures are surplus to those necessary for RFP or
attainment. In light of the Bahr decision, already-implemented measures
no longer qualify as contingency measures for SIP purposes in the
states located within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Thus, in the states affected by the Bahr decision, the EPA
evaluates contingency measure SIP elements to determine whether they
include contingency measures that are structured to meet the statutory
requirements set forth in CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) (e.g.,
structured to take effect prospectively in the event of a failure to
achieve an RFP milestone or to attain by the applicable attainment
date). The EPA also evaluates whether the contingency measure or
measures would provide emissions reductions that, when considered with
surplus emissions reductions from already-implemented measures or other
extenuating circumstances, ensure sufficient continued progress in the
event of a failure to achieve an RFP milestone or to attain the ozone
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. We continue to evaluate the
sufficiency of continued progress that will result from contingency
measures in light of our guidance, but in appropriate circumstances, do
not believe that the contingency measures themselves must provide for
one year's worth of RFP. Such appropriate circumstances include where
sufficient progress would be maintained by the contingency measures and
surplus emissions reductions from other sources while the state
conducts additional control measure development and implementation as
necessary to correct the RFP shortfall or as part of a new attainment
demonstration plan. In other words, if there are additional emissions
reductions projected to occur that a state has not relied upon for
purposes of RFP or attainment or to meet other nonattainment plan
requirements, and that result from measures the state has not adopted
as contingency measures, then those reductions may support EPA approval
of contingency measures identified by the state even if they would
result in less than one year's worth of RFP in appropriate
circumstances.
    In this instance, the RFP contingency measure element of the 2016
AQMP, as modified by the 2018 SIP Update, and supplemented by the
commitments to adopt and submit a local contingency measure, relies
upon a to-be-adopted District contingency measure. In our proposed
rule, we indicated that the District had not provided an estimate of
the emissions reductions from the to-be-adopted District contingency
measure, but that we assume that the emissions reductions may not
achieve one year's worth of RFP given the types of rule revisions under
consideration and the magnitude of emissions reductions constituting
one year's worth of RFP in the South Coast. As to whether the
contingency measure, once adopted, would provide for sufficient
continued progress in the event of a failure to achieve an RFP
milestone, we reviewed the documentation provided in the 2018 SIP
Update of ``surplus'' (i.e., emissions reductions over and above the
reductions necessary to demonstrate RFP in the South Coast
nonattainment area) reductions from CARB's already-adopted mobile
source control program in the RFP milestone years. For the South Coast
nonattainment area, CARB's estimates of ``surplus'' reductions in the
various RFP milestones years (ranging from 168 tpd to 262 tpd of
NOX) provide the factual basis for us to conclude that the
to-be-adopted District contingency measure need not in itself achieve
one year's worth of RFP.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 2018 SIP Update, 65. The estimate of the RFP milestone
surplus as ranging from 168 tpd to 262 tpd of NOX is
based on the 2018 SIP Update estimate of surplus in terms of
percentages (range of 31.5 percent to 47.2 percent) times the 2011
baseline NOX emissions level of 534.2 tpd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We anticipate that the emissions reductions from the contingency
measure or measures ultimately adopted by the District will be
sufficient, although they may achieve less than 16 tpd (i.e., one
year's worth of RFP), because already-implemented measures (although
not relied upon directly to meet the statutory contingency measure
requirement) will ensure sufficient continued progress in the event of
a failure to achieve an RFP milestone. Therefore, even though we do not
know the extent of emissions reductions from the to-be-adopted
contingency measure, we consider the contingency measure to be
sufficient to remedy the deficiency in the contingency measure element
of the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP.

IV. Final Action

    For the reasons discussed in detail in the proposed rule and
summarized herein, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is taking final
action to approve as a revision to the California SIP the following
portions of the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP submitted by CARB on April
27, 2017, December 5, 2018, December 20, 2018, and August 5, 2019:
     Base year emissions inventory element in the 2016 AQMP as
meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) and 40
CFR 51.1115 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
     Emissions statement element, including District Rule 301
(``Permitting and Associated Fees'') (paragraphs (e)(1)(A) and (B),
(e)(2), (e)(5) and (e)(8)), as amended by the District on July 12,
2019, as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and 40
CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
     RACM demonstration element in the 2016 AQMP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c) for the
2008 ozone NAAQS;
     Updated attainment demonstration element for the revoked
1-hour ozone NAAQS in the 2016 AQMP and the 1-Hour Ozone Update as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A); \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Because the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration in the 1-
Hour Ozone Update does not rely on advanced control technology
measures under CAA section 182(e)(5), final approval of the
attainment demonstration in the 1-Hour Ozone Update would fulfill
CARB's commitment, in adopting the 2012 AQMP, to achieve by January
1, 2022, aggregate emissions reductions from advanced control
technology measures under CAA section 182(e)(5) or actual emissions
decreases that occur and to develop, adopt and submit contingency
measures by 2019 if advanced control technology measures do not
achieve planned reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Updated attainment demonstration element for the revoked
1997 ozone NAAQS in the 2016 AQMP as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 182(c)(2)(A);
     Attainment demonstration element for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in the 2016 AQMP as meeting the requirements of CAA section
182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1108;
     SCAQMD's commitments in the 2016 AQMP and District
Resolution 17-

2 to adopt, submit, and implement certain defined measures, as listed
in tables 4-2 and 4-4 of Chapter 4 in the 2016 AQMP, and to achieve
specific aggregate emissions reductions (shown in tables 4-9 through 4-
11 of the 2016 AQMP) by 2022, 2023 and 2031 for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
1997 ozone NAAQS, and 2008 ozone NAAQS, respectively, and to substitute
any other measures as necessary to make up any emissions reduction
shortfall; \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Final approval of SCAQMD's commitments in the 2016 AQMP
would update the corresponding commitments made by the District in
the 2007 South Coast Ozone SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and in the
2012 AQMP for both the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CARB's commitments in the 2016 State Strategy and CARB
Resolution 17-7 to bring to the CARB Board for consideration the list
of proposed SIP measures outlined in the 2016 State Strategy and
included in attachment A (to Resolution 17-7) according to the schedule
set forth in attachment A, and to achieve the aggregate emissions
reductions in the South Coast of 113 tpd of NOX and 50 to 51
tpd of VOC by 2023 for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and 111 tpd of
NOX and 59 to 60 tpd of VOC by 2031 for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS; \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Final approval of CARB's commitments in the 2016 State
Strategy for the South Coast would update the corresponding
commitments by CARB in the 2007 South Coast Ozone SIP for the 1997
ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The provisions in the 2016 State Strategy for the
development of new technology measures for attainment of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS and 2008 ozone NAAQS in the South Coast pursuant to CAA section
182(e)(5), and CARB's commitment in Resolution 17-8 to adopt and submit
by 2028 contingency measures to be implemented if the new technology
measures do not achieve the planned emissions reductions for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, as well as attainment contingency measures meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9); \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ For the purposes of the 2007 South Coast Ozone SIP, CARB
committed to develop, adopt and submit by 2020 contingency measures
to be implemented if the new technologies do not achieve the planned
emissions reductions for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, as well as additional
attainment contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(9). The EPA approved that commitment at 77 FR 12674,
12695 (March 1, 2012). CARB's pre-existing commitments with respect
to section 182(e)(5) and section 172(c)(9) attainment contingency
measures for the South Coast for the 1997 ozone NAAQS are not
affected by today's final action on the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ROP demonstration element in the 2016 AQMP as meeting the
requirements of CAA 182(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2) for the 2008
ozone NAAQS;
     RFP demonstration element in the 2018 SIP Update as
meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), and
182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(ii) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
     VMT emissions offset demonstration element in the 2016
AQMP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR
51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
     Clean fuels or advanced control technology for boilers
element in the 2016 AQMP as meeting the requirements of CAA section
182(e)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
     Motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 2018 SIP Update for
the RFP milestone years of 2020, 2023, 2026, 2029, and the attainment
year of 2031, as shown below, because they are consistent with the RFP
and attainment demonstrations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS finalized for
approval herein and meet the other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e);

 Transportation Conformity Budgets for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in the South
                                  Coast
                    [Summer planning inventory, tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Budget year                        VOC        NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020..............................................         80        141
2023..............................................         68         89
2026..............................................         60         77
2029..............................................         54         69
2031..............................................         50         66
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table IX-3 of the 2018 SIP Update.

     General conformity budgets of NOX and VOC of
2.0 tpd of NOX and 0.5 tpd of VOC (on an annual basis) from
2017 to 2030, and 0.5 tpd of NOX and 0.2 tpd VOC in 2031, as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR 93.161;
     Enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program
element in the 2016 AQMP as meeting the requirements of CAA section
182(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
     Clean fuels fleet program element in the 2016 AQMP as
meeting the requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(4) and 246 and 40 CFR
51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; and
     Enhanced monitoring element in the 2016 AQMP as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Regarding other applicable requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in the South Coast, the EPA has previously approved SIP
revisions that address the nonattainment area requirements for NSR
and for implementation of RACT for the South Coast for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. See 83 FR 64026 (December 13, 2018) (NSR) and 82 FR
43850 (September 20, 2017) (RACT). SIP revisions for the South Coast
addressing the penalty fee requirements under CAA sections 181(d)(4)
and 185 are not yet due for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the MVEBs, we are taking final action to limit the
duration of the approval of the MVEBs to last only until the effective
date of the EPA's adequacy finding for any subsequently submitted
budgets. We are doing so at CARB's request and in light of the benefits
of using EMFAC2017-derived budgets \43\ prior to our taking final
action on the future SIP revision that includes the updated budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ On August 15, 2019, the EPA approved and announced the
availability of EMFAC2017, the latest update to the EMFAC model for
use by State and local governments to meet CAA requirements. See 84
FR 41717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, we are taking final action, under CAA section 110(k)(4), to
approve conditionally the contingency measure element of the 2016 South
Coast Ozone SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9)
and 182(c)(9) for RFP contingency measures. Our approval is based on
commitments by the District and CARB to supplement the element through
submission, as a SIP revision (within one year of final conditional
approval action), of a new or revised District rule or rules that would
include a more stringent requirement or would remove an exemption if an
RFP milestone is not met.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Letter dated January 29, 2019, from Wayne Nastri, Executive
Officer, SCAQMD, to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB; and
letter dated February 13, 2019, from Dr. Michael T. Benjamin, Chief,
Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB, to Mike Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. Also see letter dated May 2,
2019, from Wayne Nastri, Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Richard
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB; and letter dated May 20, 2019, from
Dr. Michael T. Benjamin, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science
Division, CARB, to Amy Zimpfer, Associate Director, Air Division,
EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
SCAQMD rule described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
available through www.regulations.gov and at EPA Region IX (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

VI. 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, or conditionally approves,
state plans 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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, 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 December 2, 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: August 29, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    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 paragraphs (c)(514)(ii)(A)(3),
(c)(517)(ii)(A)(3) through (6), (c)(517)(ii)(B)(4) and (5), and
(c)(525) and (526) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (514) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) 2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan,
adopted on October 25, 2018, excluding chapters II through VIII, and
chapter X, and excluding pages A-3 through A-30 of appendix A
(``Nonattainment Area Inventories'').
* * * * *
    (517) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) Resolution 17-7, 2016 State Strategy for the State
Implementation Plan, March 23, 2017, commitments to a rulemaking
schedule; to achieve aggregate emissions reductions of 113 tons per day
(tpd) of NOX and 50 to 51 tpd of VOC in the South Coast by
2023, and 111 tpd of NOX and 59 to 60 tpd of VOC in the
South Coast by 2031; and the rulemaking schedule included in attachment
A to Resolution 17-7, only.
    (4) Revised Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the State
Implementation Plan, adopted on March 23, 2017, subchapter titled
``South Coast Commitment'' in chapter 3 (``Proposed SIP Commitment'').
    (5) Resolution 17-8, 2016 Air Quality Management Plan for Ozone and
PM2.5 in the South Coast Air Basin and the Coachella Valley,
March 23, 2017, commitments to develop, adopt, and submit contingency
measures by 2028 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS if advanced technology
measures do not achieve planned reductions.
    (6) Letter from Dr. Michael T. Benjamin, Chief, Air Quality
Planning and Science Division, California Air Resources Board, to Amy
Zimpfer, Associate Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, May 20, 2019,
clarification that commitments in Resolution 17-8 to submit contingency
measures by 2028 if advanced technology measures do not achieve planned
reductions includes a

commitment to submit attainment contingency measures to satisfy the
requirements in sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act,
only.
    (B) * * *
    (4) Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (March 2017) and
appendices, adopted March 3, 2017, excluding the portions of the plan
and appendices related solely to PM2.5 and Coachella Valley,
and excluding the portion of chapter 6 that is titled ``California
Clean Air Act Requirements,'' chapter 8 (``Looking Beyond Current
Requirements''), chapter 9 (``Air Toxics Control Strategy'') and
chapter 10 (``Climate and Energy'').
    (5) Resolution 17-2, A Resolution of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD or District) Governing Board certifying the
Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the 2016 Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP or Plan), and adopting the 2016 AQMP,
which is to be submitted into the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP), March 3, 2017, commitments to develop, adopt, submit and
implement the ozone control measures in tables 4-2 and 4-4 of chapter 4
in the AQMP as expeditiously as possible to meet or exceed the
commitments identified in tables 4-9, 4-10 and 4-11 of the AQMP, and to
substitute any other measures as necessary to make up any emissions
reduction shortfall.
* * * * *
    (525) The following plan was submitted on December 20, 2018, by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Updated Federal 1979 1-Hour Ozone Standard Attainment
Demonstration (November 2018), adopted November 2, 2018.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) [Reserved]
    (526) The following rule was submitted on August 5, 2019, by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 301, ``Permitting and Associated Fees'' (paragraphs
(e)(1), except (e)(1)(C), (e)(2), (5), and (8) only), amended on July
12, 2019.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) [Reserved]
    (ii) [Reserved]

0
3. Section 52.244 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.244  Motor vehicle emissions budgets.

* * * * *
    (8) South Coast, approved October 31, 2019.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 52.248 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.248  Identification of plan--conditional approval.

* * * * *
    (h) The EPA is conditionally approving the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the South Coast for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
with respect to the reasonable further progress (RFP) contingency
measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). The
conditional approval is based on a commitment from the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (District) in a letter dated January 29,
2019, and clarified in a letter dated May 2, 2019, to adopt specific
rule revisions, and a commitment from the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) dated February 13, 2019 to submit the amended District
rule or rules to the EPA within 12 months of the effective date of the
final conditional approval. If the District or CARB fail to meet their
commitments within one year of the effective date of the final
conditional approval, the conditional approval is treated as a
disapproval.

[FR Doc. 2019-21325 Filed 9-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P