[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 97 (Friday, May 21, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27524-27532]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10510]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0440; FRL-10022-39-Region 9]

Clean Air Plans; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
Requirements; Western Nevada County, California

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 a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of California
to meet Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requirements for the 2008 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'')
in the Nevada County (Western part), California ozone nonattainment
area (``Western Nevada County''). The SIP revision is the ``Ozone
Attainment Plan, Western Nevada County, State Implementation Plan for
the 2008 Primary Federal 8-Hour Ozone Standard of .075 ppm'' (``2018
Western Nevada County Ozone Plan'' or ``Plan''). The 2018 Western
Nevada County Ozone Plan addresses the ``Serious'' nonattainment area
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including the requirements for
emissions inventories, attainment demonstration, reasonable further
progress, reasonably available control measures, and contingency
measures, among others; and establishes motor vehicle emissions
budgets. The EPA is approving the 2018 Western Nevada County Ozone Plan
as meeting all the applicable ozone nonattainment area requirements
except for the contingency measure requirement, which the EPA is
conditionally approving.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 21, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0440. 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. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T. Khoi Nguyen, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 947-4120, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of the Proposed Action

    On January 12, 2021, the EPA proposed to approve, under CAA section
110(k)(3), and to conditionally approve, under CAA section 110(k)(4), a
submittal from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the
Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD or
``District'') as a revision to the California SIP for the Western
Nevada County nonattainment area.\1\ The SIP revision is the 2018
Western Nevada County Ozone Plan.\2\ We refer to our January 12, 2021,
proposed rule as the ``proposed rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 86 FR 2318 (January 12, 2021). The Western Nevada County
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS consists of the portion
of Nevada County west of the ridge of the Sierra Nevada mountains.
For a precise definition of the boundaries of the Western Nevada
County 2008 ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
    \2\ Letter dated December 2, 2018, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region IX. The 2018 Western Nevada
County Ozone Plan was submitted electronically through the EPA's
State Planning Electronic Collaboration System on December 7, 2018,
making this date the effective date of submittal. The Plan was
deemed complete by operation of law six months after submittal, on
June 7, 2019. Our proposed rule incorrectly identified the December
2, 2018 letter date as the submittal date, and June 2, 2019 as the
date that the Plan was deemed complete by operation of law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our proposed rule, we provided background information on the
ozone standards,\3\ 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'').\4\ To summarize, the Western
Nevada County ozone nonattainment area is classified as Serious for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, and the 2018 Western Nevada County Ozone Plan was
developed to address the statutory and regulatory requirements for
revisions to the SIP for the Western Nevada County Serious ozone
nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 NAAQS is 0.075 ppm (eight-hour
average).
    \4\ 2008 Ozone SRR, 80 FR 12264, 12283 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed conditional approval of the contingency measures
element of the 2018 Western Nevada County Ozone Plan relied on specific
commitments: (1) From the District to adopt a rule that

would provide for additional emissions reductions in the event that
Western Nevada County fails to meet a reasonable further progress (RFP)
milestone or fails to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date, and (2) from CARB to submit the adopted District rule
to the EPA as a SIP revision within 12 months of our final action.\5\
For more information on the SIP revision submittals and related
commitments, please see our proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Letter dated November 16, 2020, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX. CARB's letter also forwarded the District's
commitment letter to the EPA. The District's letter is dated October
26, 2020, from Gretchen Bennitt, NSAQMD Air Pollution Control
Officer, to Richard Corey, CARB Executive Officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our proposed rule, we reviewed the various SIP elements
contained in the 2018 Western Nevada County Ozone Plan, evaluated them
for compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, and
concluded that they meet all applicable requirements, except for the
contingency measure requirement, for which the EPA proposed conditional
approval. More specifically, in our proposed rule, we based our
proposed actions on the following determinations:
     CARB and the District met all applicable procedural
requirements for public notice and hearing prior to the adoption and
submittal of the 2018 Western Nevada County Ozone Plan; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 86 FR 2318, 2321.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The 2011 base year emissions inventory from the 2018
Western Nevada County Ozone Plan is comprehensive, accurate, and
current, and therefore meets the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3)
and 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1115. Additionally, the future year
baseline projections reflect appropriate calculation methods and the
latest planning assumptions and are properly supported by the SIP-
approved stationary and mobile source measures; \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. at 2321-2322 and 2326-2330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 provide for the
implementation of RACM for stationary and area sources of oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC); \8\
CARB and the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) 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 Western Nevada County by at least one year; and
therefore, the 2018 Western Nevada County Ozone Plan provides for the
implementation of all RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40
CFR 51.1112(c); \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of
VOC and NOX in the presence of sunlight. 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 VOC to refer to this set of gases.
    \9\ 86 FR 2318, 2323-2326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The photochemical modeling in the 2018 Western Nevada
County Ozone Plan shows that existing CARB and District control
measures are sufficient to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date in Western Nevada County; given the
documentation in the 2018 Western Nevada County Ozone Plan of modeling
procedures and good model performance, the modeling is adequate to
support the attainment demonstration; and therefore the 2018 Western
Nevada County Ozone Plan meets the attainment demonstration
requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1108; \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at 2326-2328.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The 15 percent rate-of-progress (ROP) demonstration
element in the 2018 Western Nevada County Ozone Plan meets the
requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1); \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at 2330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The RFP demonstration in the 2018 Western Nevada County
Ozone Plan provides for emissions reductions of VOC or NOX
of at least 3 percent per year on average for each three-year period,
beginning 6 years after the baseline year until the attainment date,
and thereby meets the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2) and
182(c)(2)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(ii); \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 2330-2332.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 2018 Western
Nevada County Ozone Plan are consistent with the RFP demonstration, 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); \13\
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. at 2334-2335.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Through previous EPA approvals of the 1993 Photochemical
Assessment Monitoring Station SIP revision, the ``Annual Network Plan
Covering Monitoring Operations in 25 California Air Districts, July
2020'' with respect to the Western Nevada County element,\14\ and
CARB's enhanced monitoring plan submittal for Western Nevada
County,\15\ the enhanced monitoring requirements under CAA section
182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for Western Nevada County have been
met.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Letter dated November 5, 2020, from Gwen Yoshimura,
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Ravi
Ramalingam, Chief, Consumer Products and Air Quality Assessment
Branch, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB.
    \15\ Letter dated November 9, 2020, from Dr. Michael T.
Benjamin, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB, to
Meredith Kurpius, Assistant Director, EPA Region IX, enclosing the
``2020 Monitoring Network Assessment (October 2020).'' The
assessment includes a five-year network assessment and an updated
enhanced monitoring plan, as required by 40 CFR 58, Appendix D,
Section 5(a).
    \16\ 86 FR 2318, 2336.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in
Bahr v. EPA (``Bahr''),\17\ the District \18\ and CARB \19\ committed
to supplement the contingency measure element through submission, as a
SIP revision (within one year of our final conditional approval
action), of a revised District rule or rules that would add new limits
or other requirements if an RFP milestone is not met or if the area
fails to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date.\20\ The EPA proposed to conditionally approve the contingency
measure element as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9)
and 182(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2016) (rejecting
early-implementation of contingency measures and concluding that the
contingency measure requirement of CAA section 172(c)(9) can only be
satisfied by a measure that takes effect at the time the area fails
to make RFP or attain by the applicable attainment date, not
before).
    \18\ Letter dated October 26, 2020, from Gretchen Bennitt,
NSAQMD Air Pollution Control Officer, to Richard Corey, CARB
Executive Officer.
    \19\ Letter dated November 16, 2020, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX. CARB's letter also forwarded the District's
commitment letter to the EPA.
    \20\ 86 FR 2318, 2332-2333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the emissions statement element, the proposed rule states that
District Rule 513, ``Emissions Statements and Recordkeeping,'' approved
as a revision to the California SIP on June 21, 2017,\21\ fulfills the
relevant emissions statement requirements of CAA section
182(a)(3)(B)(i).\22\ Accordingly, the emissions statement element was
previously satisfied through the EPA's approval of Rule 513 on June 21,
2017. However, the EPA's December 11, 2017 finding of failure to submit
action incorrectly identified the emissions statement element for
Western Nevada County as not having been submitted.\23\ Additionally,
we note that language in

the proposed rule stating that the EPA was ``propos[ing] to find'' that
Rule 513 meets the emissions statement requirements could be read to
indicate that the EPA was proposing to address this element in the
proposed rule. Therefore, we now clarify that the EPA's June 21, 2017
approval of Rule 513 satisfied the emissions statement element for
Western Nevada County prior to the finding of failure to submit action
and prior to the proposed rule.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 82 FR 28240 (June 21, 2017).
    \22\ 86 FR 2318, 2323.
    \23\ 82 FR 58118 (December 11, 2017).
    \24\ 82 FR 28240, 28241 (finding that Rule 513 fulfills relevant
emission statement requirements of CAA 182(a)(3)(B)(i)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the clean fuels fleet program element, the proposed rule states
that through the 1994 ``Opt-Out Program'' SIP revision, the clean fuels
fleet program requirements in CAA sections 182(c)(4) and 246 and 40 CFR
51.1102 for Western Nevada County have been met with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS.\25\ However, CAA section 246(a)(3) applies only to
certain ozone nonattainment areas with a 1980 population of 250,000 or
more. As indicated in our proposed rule, Western Nevada County has a
population of 83,000,\26\ and the area's population was below 250,000
in 1980.\27\ Therefore, we now clarify that Western Nevada County is
not subject to the clean fuels fleet program element for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 86 FR 2318, 2335.
    \26\ See id. at 2320.
    \27\ See Demographic Information About the County, County of
Nevada, California, available at https://www.mynevadacounty.com/378/Demographic-Information-About-the-County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 2018 Western Nevada County Ozone Plan.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The public comment period on the proposed rule opened on January
12, 2021, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and
closed on February 11, 2021. During this period, the EPA received one
comment letter submitted by Air Law for All, Ltd. on behalf of the
Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Environmental Health
(collectively referred to herein as ``CBD''). We address CBD's comments
in the following paragraphs of this final rule.
    Comment #1: CBD asserts that the EPA has conflated the requirements
for contingency measures under subparts 1 and 2 of part D of title I of
the CAA. CBD distinguishes the generally applicable subpart 1 RFP
requirements for attainment plans under section 172(c)(2) (the
commenter refers to these as ``attainment RFP'' requirements) from the
subpart 2 RFP requirements applicable to ``Moderate'' and above and
also Serious and above ozone nonattainment areas under CAA
182(b)(1)(A)(i) and 182(c)(2)(B) respectively (the commenter refers to
these as ``VOC RFP'' requirements). Similarly, CBD distinguishes the
subpart 1 contingency measure requirements at CAA 172(c)(9) (which,
according to the commenter, are applicable upon a failure to make
``attainment RFP'' or to attain a NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date) from the subpart 2 contingency measure requirements at CAA
182(c)(9) (which, according to the commenter, are applicable upon a
failure to meet any applicable ``VOC RFP'' milestone). CBD argues that
under CAA 182(c)(9), the subpart 2 VOC RFP contingency measure
requirements are ``in addition to'' the subpart 1 attainment RFP
contingency measures, and that this language compels the EPA to require
separate, distinct VOC RFP contingency measures, including not only the
triggers for these measures, but the substantive contingency measures
themselves. CBD asserts that the subpart 1 RFP and contingency measure
requirements are distinct in purpose from the subpart 2 RFP and
contingency measure requirements, and that CAA 172(c)(9) attainment RFP
contingency measures are intended to make progress towards attainment
while a state assesses the additional reductions needed to timely
attain the ozone standards, whereas CAA 182(c)(9) VOC RFP contingency
measures are intended to make progress in VOC emission reductions if
the state elects to trigger them instead of reclassification or
adoption of an economic incentive program.
    Additionally, CBD asserts that the EPA entirely fails to discuss
CAA 182(c)(9)'s clear language, the structural distinction between what
the commenter asserts are separate attainment RFP and VOC RFP
requirements, and the corresponding need to have distinct attainment
RFP contingency measures and VOC RFP contingency measures. Given this
distinction, CBD says, the EPA cannot approve the single submitted
contingency measure as meeting both attainment RFP and VOC RFP
contingency measure requirements. CBD concludes that the EPA must
propose for comment its theory for how it can reconcile these distinct
RFP requirements in order to approve the submission as meeting the
contingency measure requirement for both.
    Response to Comment #1: As the commenter notes, Serious ozone
nonattainment areas are subject to both the general requirements for
nonattainment plans in subpart 1, and the specific requirements for
ozone areas in subpart 2, including the requirements related to RFP and
contingency measures. This is consistent with the structure of the CAA
as modified under the 1990 amendments, which introduced additional
subparts to part D of title I of the CAA to address requirements for
specific NAAQS pollutants, including ozone (subpart 2), carbon monoxide
(CO) (subpart 3), particulate matter (subpart 4), and sulfur oxides,
nitrogen dioxide, and lead (subpart 5).
    These subparts apply tailored requirements for these pollutants,
including those based on an area's designation and classification, in
addition to and often in place of the generally applicable provisions
retained in subpart 1. While CAA 172(c)(2) of subpart 1 states only
that nonattainment plans ``shall require reasonable further progress,''
CAA 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B) of subpart 2 provide specific percent
reduction targets for ozone nonattainment areas to meet the RFP
requirement. Put another way, subpart 2 further defines RFP for ozone
nonattainment areas by specifying the incremental amount of emissions
reduction required by set dates for those areas.\28\ In the context of
section 182(c)(2)(B), the percentage reduction target constitutes an
RFP ``milestone'' as described in section 182(g), by which the EPA
determines a Serious ozone nonattainment area's compliance with the RFP
requirements. For Serious and above ozone nonattainment areas, CAA
section 182(c)(2)(B) defines RFP by setting specific annual percent
reductions and allows averaging over a 3-year period, and 182(g)
establishes an RFP tracking mechanism called a ``milestone'' such that
failure to meet a milestone equates to failure to meet the RFP
requirement; they are one and the

same.\29\ Similarly, while CAA 172(c)(9) establishes the general
requirement for nonattainment plans to provide contingency measures
that are triggered in the event that the area fails to make RFP or to
attain a NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, CAA 182(c)(9)
specifies that a Serious area nonattainment plan for an ozone NAAQS
must provide for the implementation of contingency measures to address
a failure to meet a milestone, which, per the terms of CAA 182(g), is
the same as failing to make RFP. Likewise, for CO nonattainment areas,
section 187(a)(3) of subpart 3 addresses contingency measure provisions
based on consistency between previously projected and actual or
subsequently projected VMT levels, as well as failure to attain by the
required deadline. These pollutant-specific contingency measure
provisions are described in the EPA's General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(``General Preamble''), which explains that the additional contingency
measure provisions in subparts 2 and 3 are similar to the general
contingency measure requirements at CAA 172(c)(9), except that the
focus is on the planning requirements applicable to ozone and CO.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ CAA 171(1) defines reasonable further progress as ``such
annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air
pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required
by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable
date.'' As the commenter notes, the words ``this part'' in the
statutory definition of RFP refer to part D of title I of the CAA,
which contains both the general requirements in subpart 1 and the
pollutant-specific requirements in subparts 2-5 (including the
ozone-specific RFP requirements in CAA 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B)
for Serious areas).
    \29\ See CAA 182(g)(1) (explaining that an ``applicable
milestone'' is the emissions reduction required to be achieved by
the end of an interval pursuant to the RFP provisions at CAA
182(b)(1) and the corresponding RFP requirements of 182(c)(2)(B) and
(C) for Serious areas).
    \30\ 57 FR 13498, 13511 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As CBD notes, CAA 182(c)(9) specifies that plans for ozone
nonattainment areas classified as Serious or above must provide for the
implementation of contingency measures for failure to meet an ozone RFP
milestone, ``[i]n addition to the contingency provisions'' required
under CAA 172(c)(9). The commenter argues that this language requires
states to submit contingency measures specifically allocated to address
the section 182(c)(9) RFP milestones, in addition to other separate
contingency measures to address the general RFP and attainment
requirements in CAA 172(c)(9). This interpretation is based upon the
commenter's related interpretation of the subpart 2 RFP milestones as
distinct requirements separate from the general RFP requirements in
subpart 1, reflected in the commenter's distinction of ``attainment
RFP'' and ``VOC RFP.''
    These interpretations run counter to the EPA's longstanding
approach to the RFP and contingency measure provisions for the ozone
NAAQS, and we disagree that the statutory text compels the commenter's
suggested approach. Contrary to the commenter's suggestion, an area
that is subject to the subpart 2 RFP milestones is not subject to any
separate milestones or requirements for demonstrating ozone RFP under
the general RFP provisions in subpart 1. This point is specifically
addressed in the General Preamble, which specifies that a state that
meets the specific subpart 2 milestones ``will also satisfy the general
RFP requirements of section 172(c)(2) for the time period discussed.''
\31\ This approach is retained in the implementation rules for the 1997
and 2008 ozone NAAQS, which specify RFP milestones for ozone
nonattainment areas that incorporate both the general RFP requirements
in subpart 1 as well as the ozone-specific RFP requirements in subpart
2, depending on the area's classification and whether the area already
has an approved 15 percent rate-of-progress plan for a prior ozone
NAAQS.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13510 (for CAA 182(b)(1)
milestones); id. at 13518 (for 182(c)(2)(B) milestones).
    \32\ 40 CFR 51.1110; see also 70 FR 71612, 71615 (November 29,
2005); 80 FR 12264, 12271 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with the commenter that the subpart 1 and subpart 2 RFP
requirements have distinct purposes that require the EPA to establish
separate milestones or requirements for each. Under either subpart, the
purpose of RFP is to ensure attainment by the applicable attainment
date.\33\ As described above, the RFP requirements in CAA 182(b)(1) and
182(c)(2)(B) define specific RFP milestones applicable to,
respectively, Moderate and above and Serious and above ozone
nonattainment areas, for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the
general RFP requirement at CAA 172(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See CAA 171(1); see also 70 FR 71612, 71648 (November 29,
2005) (``[W]hether dealing with the general RFP requirement of
section 172(c)(2), or the more specific RFP requirements of subpart
2 for classified ozone nonattainment areas (i.e., the 15 percent
plan requirement of section 182(b)(1) and the 3 percent per year
requirement of section 182(c)(2)), the purpose of RFP is to ensure
attainment by the applicable attainment date.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because there are no separate milestones or requirements for
demonstrating ozone RFP under the general RFP provisions in subpart 1,
and because the purposes of RFP are the same under each subpart, we
similarly disagree with the commenter that a state would be required to
submit separate contingency measures to address the RFP and milestone
requirements of subparts 1 and 2. The commenter asserts that the
language in CAA 182(c)(9) stating the requirements for contingency
measures in Serious and above ozone nonattainment areas are ``in
addition to the contingency provisions required under section
[172(c)(9)]'' refers to both the triggers for contingency measures and
the contingency measures themselves. In other words, the commenter
asserts that the EPA must require the state to submit contingency
measures to address RFP failures under subpart 1 and additional
contingency measures to address such failures under subpart 2.
    As explained above, CAA 182(c)(9) requires state nonattainment
plans for Serious and above ozone nonattainment areas to provide for
the implementation of contingency measures to be undertaken if an area
fails to meet an applicable milestone, i.e., RFP. Because a
``milestone,'' as the term is used in CAA section 182(g), is applicable
only to areas classified as Serious and above, CAA 182(c)(9) represents
an additional requirement that states must address in an ozone
nonattainment plan submission for these areas. Section 182(c)(9)
requires that certain state submissions must provide for the
implementation of contingency measures in the event of a failure to
meet a milestone; it does not require the state to submit separate and
distinct contingency measures allocated exclusively for a failure to
meet a milestone. Serious and above areas remain subject to the general
contingency measure requirement described at CAA 172(c)(9), including
the requirement for contingency measures to take effect in the event of
a failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (which
is not provided for in CAA 182(c)(9)), as well as the requirement for
contingency measures to address a failure to make RFP (i.e., under CAA
182(c)(9), a failure to meet an applicable milestone under CAA 182(g)).
CAA 182(c)(9) therefore applies a more specific requirement ``in
addition to'' the general requirements at CAA 172(c)(9), by
establishing failure to meet a CAA 182(g) milestone as a specific
trigger for contingency measures in Serious and above ozone
nonattainment areas.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ As explained above and in the proposed rule, the District
and CARB have met this requirement by committing to supplement the
contingency measures element by submitting, within one year of our
final conditional approval action, a SIP revision that establishes
contingency measures that will be triggered if the area fails to
meet an RFP milestone for the 2008 ozone NAAQS or fails to reach
attainment by the applicable attainment date. See 86 FR 2318, 2320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is consistent with the EPA's longstanding interpretation of
the contingency measure requirements, as set out in the General
Preamble and the

EPA's implementation rules for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. For all
of the foregoing reasons, this interpretation is reasonable and
appropriate.
    We also disagree with the commenter's suggestion that the EPA would
be required to re-propose and take comment on our rationale for
reconciling the subpart 1 and subpart 2 contingency measures
requirements. As described above, our approach in this action reflects
the EPA's longstanding interpretation of the statutory requirements as
set out in the General Preamble and in the ozone NAAQS implementation
rules, including the implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, for
which the EPA solicited and received public comment on our proposed
approaches to RFP, contingency measures, and other topics.
    Comment #2: CBD notes that the milestone provisions at CAA 182(g)
provide an enforceable tracking and triggering mechanism for subpart 2
contingency measures, and asserts that because the EPA has conflated
attainment RFP contingency measures and VOC RFP contingency measures,
it has not created any separate, enforceable mechanism for tracking and
triggering the subpart 1 contingency measures. CBD asserts that the EPA
cannot reasonably approve contingency measures that cannot be
triggered, and argues that the EPA's failure to provide an enforceable
tracking and triggering mechanism for the subpart 1 contingency
measures is an impermissible interpretation of CAA 172(c)(9) because it
is unmoored from the purposes and concerns of that part. CBD asserts
that without an enforceable commitment by the state to track and report
on annual emission reductions, the EPA's discretionary authorities,
such as a SIP call under CAA 110(k)(5), are inadequate to address this
failure, and that those authorities do not allow the EPA to trigger the
subpart 1 contingency measures by determining that attainment RFP has
not been met.
    Response to Comment #2: Under CAA 172(c)(9), attainment contingency
measures are triggered by the EPA's finding under CAA 181(b)(2) that an
area has failed to attain a NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
This finding is based on the design value for the area as of the
attainment date, which represents ambient ozone concentration data
collected for the area. A finding of failure to attain by the
attainment date triggers contingency measures to be implemented in the
area, without further action by the state or the EPA.\35\ Therefore,
the enforceable tracking and triggering mechanism for attainment
contingency measures are the EPA's determinations under CAA 181(b)(2)
regarding whether the ozone nonattainment areas are in attainment by
their applicable attainment date. Further, contingency measures are
also triggered by an area's failure to reach an RFP milestone, as
described by the commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, the RFP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
are described in the 2008 ozone SRR \36\ and codified at 40 CFR
51.1110. These requirements incorporate the subpart 1 and subpart 2 RFP
requirements as they apply to nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, depending on classification and whether the area has an approved
15 percent rate-of-progress plan for the 1-hour or 1997 ozone NAAQS.
The percentage reductions described therein represent the applicable
subpart 1 and subpart 2 obligations for an area to demonstrate RFP for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS,\37\ and a failure to meet these obligations will
trigger RFP contingency measures as described above and in the proposed
rule. Accordingly, we disagree with the commenter that there is not an
enforceable mechanism for tracking and triggering the RFP contingency
measures under subpart 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 80 FR 12264, 12263 (March 6, 2015).
    \37\ See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13510 and 13518
(explaining that an area that meets the RPF milestones specified in
subpart 2 ``will also satisfy the general RFP requirements of
section 172(c)(2) for the time period discussed.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #3: CBD recounts the backgrounds and outcomes of the Bahr
decision and the recent Sierra Club decision from the D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals,\38\ and discusses policy implications of those
decisions. CBD also negatively critiques the LEAN decision from the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,\39\ which the commenter asserts was in
error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 985 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
    \39\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575
(5th Cir. 2004) (``LEAN'') (upholding contingency measures that were
previously required and implemented where they were in excess of the
attainment demonstration and RFP SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response to Comment #3: Our proposed rule explains that we have
reviewed the contingency measures element of the 2018 Western Nevada
County Ozone Plan in light of the Bahr decision which is applicable
within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The more
recent Sierra Club decision, issued after our proposed rule, is
consistent with the Bahr decision's treatment of contingency measures.
For the purposes of our review and action on the 2018 Western Nevada
County Ozone Plan, we agree that the Bahr and Sierra Club decisions
govern our review of the contingency measures element.
    Comment #4: CBD notes that longstanding EPA policy states
contingency measures should equal one year of RFP, and states that the
EPA is nonetheless proposing to conditionally approve contingency
measures that fall far short of this amount, based on surplus emission
reductions from already-implemented measures. CBD asserts that
consideration of surplus emissions reductions from already-implemented
measures in evaluating the adequacy of contingency measures is
functionally no different than simply approving the already-implemented
measures as contingency measures, which the commenter says is
inconsistent with the Bahr and Sierra Club decisions.
    CBD views the EPA's consideration of surplus reductions from
already-implemented measures as relying on a factor Congress has not
intended the Agency to consider in evaluating the adequacy of
contingency measures under CAA section 172(c)(9). According to CBD, the
plain language of sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), as explained by the
Bahr and Sierra Club decisions, explicitly limits the factors that the
EPA may consider by prohibiting use of already implemented measures
either as de jure or de facto contingency measures. CBD indicates that
it disagrees with the EPA's response to recent similar comments that
CBD submitted for our action on the Ventura County 2008 ozone plan.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 85 FR 38081, 38084 (June 25, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response to Comment #4: 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. However, consistent with our longstanding guidance, we agree
that contingency measures should generally provide for emissions
reductions approximately equivalent to one year's worth of progress,
which, for Serious ozone nonattainment areas such as Western Nevada
County, amounts to reductions of 3 percent of the RFP baseline
emissions inventory for the nonattainment area.
    As we described in the prior response document referenced in this
comment, in recommending that contingency measures typically achieve
one year's worth of RFP, the EPA considers 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 though additional emissions reductions
at a rate similar to that specified under the RFP requirements. The
intent is that the state will achieve the emissions reductions from the
contingency measures while conducting additional control measure
development and implementation, as necessary to correct the RFP
shortfall to meet the next applicable milestone or as part of a new
attainment demonstration plan.\41\ The facts and circumstances of a
given nonattainment area may justify larger or smaller amounts of
emissions reductions for contingency measure purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 57 FR 13498, 13512 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reviewing a SIP revision for compliance with CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), the EPA evaluates whether the contingency
measure or measures would provide emissions reductions that, when
considered with surplus emissions reductions from other measures not
otherwise required or relied upon in the plan, 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 situations in which sufficient
progress would be maintained by the contingency measures and surplus
emissions reductions from other sources, while the state proceeds to
develop and implement additional control measures 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 after the RFP milestone years or the attainment year
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 the contingency measures would result in less than
one year's worth of RFP in appropriate circumstances.
    We disagree that this approach contradicts Congressional intent.
The specific explicit factors Congress intended the Agency to use in
evaluating the contingency measures at issue here are set forth in CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and include specificity
(``implementation of specific measures''), timing (``measures to be
undertaken'' and ``to take effect''), triggers (if the area fails to
attain the NAAQS by the applicable [NAAQS] or if the area fails to meet
any applicable milestone), federal enforceability (``included in the
[SIP]''), and readiness (measures must be designed to take effect
without further action by the state or the EPA). However, neither CAA
section 172(c)(9) nor 182(c)(9) contains language implying that these
are the only factors for the EPA to consider. Neither section specifies
the magnitude of emissions reductions that contingency measures must
achieve as an explicit factor for the EPA to consider, although
consideration of the magnitude is appropriate in determining whether
the contingency measure or measures submitted by the state meet the
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Consideration of
the magnitude of emissions reductions is appropriate because
contingency measures serve a remedial function where an area fails to
achieve an RFP milestone or fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date, and RFP and attainment are achieved through emissions
reductions.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See, e.g., CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), 171(1),
182(c)(1). Under CAA 182(g)(3), in the event that a Serious or
Severe ozone nonattainment area fails to meet an applicable
milestone, the state may elect to implement contingency measures
determined by the EPA as adequate to meet the next milestone, to
have the area reclassified to the next higher classification, or to
adopt an economic incentive program. If the state elects to
implement contingency measures, the EPA may require further measures
as necessary to meet the next milestone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Just as the CAA does not include the magnitude of emissions
reductions as a specific explicit consideration, the CAA also does not
prescribe how the EPA is to evaluate that question. As such, the EPA is
not relying on a factor that Congress did not intend the EPA to
consider when the Agency considers the emissions reductions from
already-implemented measures that are surplus to those needed for RFP
or attainment within a given nonattainment area when evaluating whether
the state's contingency measure submittal meets CAA sections 172(c)(9)
and 182(c)(9).
    Comment #5: CBD states that the EPA does not say whether the
surplus emissions reductions considered in evaluating the adequacy of
contingency measures will remain surplus if the contingency measures
are triggered. CBD asserts that because these surplus reductions are
not contingency measures approved into the SIP (which the commenter
notes would contravene the Bahr decision), the EPA might consider them
surplus even after the area had failed to make RFP, and use the surplus
reductions as context to approve inadequate continency measures.
    Response to Comment #5: As described in the proposed rule, the 2018
Western Nevada County Ozone Plan provides surplus emissions reductions
from CARB's already-adopted mobile source control program in the two
RFP milestone years and in the year following the attainment year.
CARB's estimates of surplus reductions in the RFP milestone years are
11 to 15 times greater than the amount required to show one year's
worth of RFP.\43\ In the year after the attainment year, CARB estimates
that NOX emissions in Western Nevada County will be
approximately 0.23 tons per day (tpd) lower in 2021 than in the 2020
attainment year due to mobile source controls and vehicle turnover.\44\
On this basis, we found that the District's contingency measures do not
need to achieve one year's worth of RFP alone, because these
contingency measures and other surplus emission reductions will ensure
sufficient continued progress in the event of a failure to achieve an
RFP milestone or a failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. We therefore conditionally approved the Plan based on
the District's commitment to adopt and submit specific enforceable
contingency measures as described in letters from the District and
CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ CARB estimates surplus reductions of 1.9 tpd of
NOX in 2017 and 2.6 tpd of NOX in 2020,
compared to the 0.17 tpd of NOX that represents one
year's worth of RFP. These estimates are derived from the surplus
percentages listed in Table 4 of the proposed rule (34 percent in
2017 and 45.9 percent in 2020) multiplied by the 2011 baseline
NOX emissions level of 5.69 tpd. See 86 FR 2318, 2331.
    \44\ See 86 FR 2318, 2333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event that contingency measures were triggered for failure
to meet an RFP milestone, the District would be required to adopt new
contingency measures to take effect in the event of any subsequent
failure that would trigger a contingency measure.\45\ As described
above and in the proposed rule, the EPA evaluates any contingency
measures submission to ensure that the submitted measures will continue
to

make progress toward attainment in the event of a milestone or
attainment failure through additional emissions reductions at a rate
similar to that specified under the RFP requirements, given the facts
and circumstances of the nonattainment area. Therefore, an evaluation
of what emissions reductions are surplus would occur when a new
contingency measure is submitted, following a failure to meet an RFP
milestone or a failure to attain by the attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See, e.g., General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13520 (explaining
that a state is required to adopt additional measures to replace
previously used contingency measures, to assure the continuing
availability of contingency measures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #6: CBD asserts that the proposed rule approaches arbitrary
and capricious decision making because it states that it is useful to
distinguish RFP contingency measures and attainment contingency
measures but does not apply any relevant distinction between the two.
CBD asserts that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because
it abandons a theory from a previous rulemaking that measures the
adequacy of attainment contingency measures by attempting to predict
what is necessary to make up a shortfall for a failure to attain
without providing an explanation. CBD says that the EPA needs to find a
measure for attainment contingency measures that aligns with the
statute and is rational. CBD suggests that the EPA could require a
state to use RACM measures not needed for expeditious attainment as
contingency measures. CBD notes that these measures might be de
minimis, and that the EPA could require one year of RFP as a fallback.
    Response to Comment #6: As explained in the proposed rule, for
purposes of the ozone NAAQS the EPA distinguishes RFP contingency
measures from attainment contingency measures, respectively, as
contingency measures to address potential failures to achieve RFP
milestones and to address potential failure to attain the NAAQS.\46\
This distinction is useful for the purposes of evaluating the adequacy
of the emissions reductions from the contingency measures (once adopted
and submitted), relative to the facts and circumstances of the area,
and the anticipated needs to address a shortfall in the relevant years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 86 FR 2318, 2333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBD's reference to the EPA's theory for measuring the adequacy of
attainment contingency measures includes a citation to our proposed
rulemaking for the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area. This appears to
refer to the EPA's finding for that area that the committed contingency
measures that served as the basis for our conditional approval were
projected to be sufficient to correct a failure to attain in less than
a year from the attainment date, and therefore reflect continued
progress for purposes of the attainment contingency measure
requirements.\47\ As described in the proposed rule, the 2018 Western
Nevada County Ozone Plan shows that reductions from the proposed
contingency measure, combined with additional emissions reductions from
other sources that the state does not rely upon to meet other
requirements in the nonattainment plan in the year following the
attainment year, will exceed one year's worth of RFP.\48\ For this
reason and for the reasons described above, we disagree that our
conditional approval of the attainment contingency measures is
arbitrary and capricious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See 85 FR 68509, 68529 (October 29, 2020). See General
Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13511 (explaining that where a failure to
attain or meet RFP can be corrected in less than one year, the EPA
may consider contingency measures that are proportionally less than
one year's worth of RFP sufficient to correct the identified
failure).
    \48\ 86 FR 2318, 2333 (January 12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A described above, we disagree that the EPA's longstanding approach
to evaluating attainment contingency measures is not rational or does
not align with the CAA. To CBD's specific suggestion that an area
should use RACM measures not needed for expeditious attainment as
contingency measures, we agree that this option may be available to
some districts and states \49\ but disagree with the commenter's
suggestion that the EPA would be constrained against approving other
measures that are consistent with the Act and the EPA's implementing
regulations with respect to contingency measure requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See, e.g., 81 FR 58010, 58066 (August 24, 2016) (suggesting
measures identified as possible RACM or RACT that are not needed for
expeditious attainment may be suitable as contingency measures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #7: CBD's Appendix provides numerous comments directed at
the EPA's NOX Substitution Guidance, contending that the
EPA's NOX Substitution Guidance is illegitimate. These
comments assert generally that the NOX Substitution Guidance
contradicts CAA section 182(c)(2)(C) by recommending a procedure that
fails to demonstrate any equivalence between VOC and NOX
reductions, relies on incorrect policy assumptions, and gives legal
justifications that are without merit.
    Response to Comment #7: Comments relating solely to the
NOX Substitution Guidance are outside the scope of this
rulemaking action. As noted in our proposed rule, our approval of the
District's use of NOX substitution is supported by local
conditions and needs as documented in the modeling and analysis
included in the 2018 Western Nevada County Ozone Plan, and is
consistent with the requirements in CAA section 182(c)(2)(C).

III. Final Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the 2018
Western Nevada County Ozone Plan as described in our proposed action.
Therefore, 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 2018 Western Nevada County Ozone Plan for the 2008
ozone NAAQS submitted by CARB on December 7, 2018:
     Base year emissions inventory element as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR
51.1115;
     RACM demonstration element as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c);
     Attainment demonstration element as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1108;
     ROP demonstration element as meeting the requirements of
CAA 182(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(4)(i);
     RFP demonstration element as meeting the requirements of
CAA sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR
51.1110(a)(4)(iii); and
     Motor vehicle emissions budgets for the RFP milestone and
attainment year of 2020, as shown below, because they are consistent
with the RFP and attainment demonstrations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
approved herein and meet the other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e).

 Table 1--Transportation Conformity Budgets for 2020 for the 2008 Ozone
                     NAAQS in Western Nevada County
                    [Summer planning inventory, tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2020
                                                     -------------------
                                                         VOC       NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor vehicle emissions budget......................      0.8       1.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 7 of the 2018 Western Nevada County Ozone Plan.

    We are also taking final action to find that the:
     Requirements for enhanced monitoring under CAA section
182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for Western Nevada County for the 2008
ozone NAAQS have been met; and

     The submitted 2020 budgets from the 2018 Western Nevada
County Ozone Plan are adequate for transportation conformity
purposes.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(iii), the EPA's adequacy
determination is effective upon publication of this final rule in
the Federal Register. The proposed rule proposed to find that
Western Nevada County had met the clean fuels fleet program
requirements in CAA sections 182(c)(4) and 246 and 40 CFR 51.1102
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS through the State's 1994 ``Opt-Out
Program'' SIP revision. However, as explained above, the area is not
subject to this element because its 1980 population was less than
250,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, we are conditionally approving, under CAA section
110(k)(4), the contingency measures element of the 2018 Western Nevada
County Ozone Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9)
and 182(c)(9) for RFP and attainment 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 our
final conditional approval action), of a District rule that would add
new limits or other requirements that would apply if an RFP milestone
is not met or if Western Nevada County fails to attain the 2008 ozone
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Letter dated November 16, 2020, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX. CARB's letter also forwarded the District's
commitment letter to the EPA. The District's letter is dated October
26, 2020, from Gretchen Bennitt, NSAQMD Air Pollution Control
Officer, to Richard Corey, CARB Executive Officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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);
     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 July 20, 2021. 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: May 13, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends chapter I,
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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)(554) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (554) The following plan was submitted on December 7, 2018 by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials. (A) Northern Sierra Air Quality
Management District
    (1) Ozone Attainment Plan, Western Nevada County, State
Implementation Plan for the 2008 Primary Federal 8-Hour Ozone Standard
of .075 ppm, adopted on October 22, 2018.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) [Reserved]

0
3. Section 52.244 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(12) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.244  Motor vehicle emissions budgets.

    (a) * * *
    (12) Nevada County (Western part), approved June 21, 2021.
* * * * *

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

Sec.  52.248  Identification of plan--conditional approval.

* * * * *
    (l) The EPA is conditionally approving the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for Nevada County (Western part) for the 2008
ozone NAAQS with respect to the contingency measures requirements of
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). The conditional approval is based
on a commitment from the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management
District (District) in a letter dated October 26, 2020, to adopt a
specific rule revision, and a commitment from the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) dated November 16, 2020, to submit the amended
District rule 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. 2021-10510 Filed 5-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 110 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30824-30826]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12038]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0454; Project Identifier AD-2021-00006-RRIN 2120-
AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Textron Inc. (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Bell Textron Inc. (type certificate previously held by Bell
Helicopter Textron Inc.) (Bell) Model 205B helicopters. This proposed
AD was prompted by a notification of certain parts needing a life
limit. This proposed AD would require determining the total hours time-
in-service (TIS) of certain part numbered main rotor grip assemblies
(grip assemblies), establishing a life limit for certain part-numbered
grip assemblies, removing from service any grip assembly that has
reached or exceeded its retirement life, creating a component history
card, and removing any grip assembly from service before reaching its
retirement life. This proposed AD would also prohibit installing
certain grip assemblies unless the life limit was established in
accordance with this proposed AD. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 26,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0454; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kuethe Harmon, Safety Management
Program Manager, DSCO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0454; Project Identifier
AD-2021-00006-R'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Kuethe Harmon, Safety Management Program Manager, DSCO Branch,
Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101

Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA received notification from Bell of established life limits
for certain part numbered grip assemblies that were not included in
Chapter 4--Airworthiness Limitations Schedule (ALS) of Bell Helicopter
205B Maintenance Manual BHT-205B-MM-1, Revision 1, dated July 15, 1993.
Bell states the life limit of 9,000 hours TIS for grip assembly part
number (P/N) 204-011-121-005, P/N 204-011-121-113, and P/N 204-011-121-
005 was left out of the ALS for Model 205B helicopters. Bell states
this may suggest that these part numbers have an unlimited life when
installed on Model 205B helicopters, whereas the retirement life is
9,000 hours TIS. This condition, if not addressed, could result in
fatigue and failure of the grip assembly and loss of control of the
helicopter.
    Accordingly, Bell specifies updating the existing ALS to establish
a life limit of 9,000 hours TIS for grip assembly P/N 204-011-121-005,
P/N 204-011-121-113, and P/N 204-011-121-005.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require, before further flight, determining
the total hours TIS of certain part-numbered grip assemblies and
removing from service any certain part-numbered grip assembly that has
accumulated or exceeded 9,000 total hours TIS. This proposed AD would
also require, for certain part-numbered grip assemblies that have not
accumulated or exceeded 9,000 total hours TIS, creating a component
history card or equivalent record to annotate a life limit of 9,000
total hours TIS and removing these grip assemblies from service before
accumulating 9,000 total hours TIS. Finally, this NPRM would prohibit
installing any affected grip assembly that has exceeded or accumulated
9,000 hours TIS, and prohibit alternative life limits for any affected
grip assembly.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 2 helicopters
of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the
following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are
estimated at $85 per work-hour.
    Determining the total hours TIS of each grip assembly and updating
the helicopter records would take about 1 work-hour for each grip
assembly, for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $170 for the
U.S fleet.
    Replacing each grip assembly would take about 16 work-hours and
parts would cost about $50,000 for an estimated cost of $51,360 per
grip assembly.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Bell Textron Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bell
Helicopter Textron Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2021-0454; Project
Identifier AD-2021-00006-R.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by July 26, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Textron Inc. (type certificate
previously held by Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.) (Bell) Model 205B
helicopters, certificated in any category, with main rotor grip
assembly (grip assembly) part number (P/N) 204-011-121-005, P/N 204-
011-121-113, or P/N 204-011-121-117 installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code: 6220, Main Rotor
Head.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a notification of certain parts needing
a life limit. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent a grip assembly
remaining in service beyond its fatigue life. The unsafe condition,
if not addressed, could result in fatigue and failure of the grip
assembly and loss of helicopter control.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight after the effective date of this AD,
determine the total hours time-in-service (TIS) of any grip assembly
having P/N 204-011-121-005, P/N 204-011-121-113, or P/N 204-011-121-
117. Remove from service any grip assembly that has accumulated or
exceeded 9,000 total hours TIS. For each grip assembly that has
accumulated less than 9,000 total hours TIS, do the following:

    (i) Create a component history card or equivalent record to
establish a life limit of 9,000 total hours TIS.
    (ii) Thereafter, remove from service any grip assembly before it
accumulates 9,000 total hours TIS.
    (2) Thereafter, no alternative life limits may be approved for
any grip assembly P/N 204-011-121-005, P/N 204-011-121-113, or P/N
204-011-121-117.
    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any grip
assembly having P/N 204-011-121-005, P/N 204-011-121-113, or P/N
204-011-121-117 on any Model 205B helicopter unless the life limit
is established in accordance with this AD.

(h) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, DSCO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
DSCO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kuethe Harmon,
Safety Management Program Manager, DSCO Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on June 3, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-12038 Filed 6-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P