Rule2022-20583
Withdrawal and Partial Approval/Partial Disapproval of Clean Air Plans; San Joaquin Valley, California; Contingency Measures for 2008 Ozone Standards
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 3, 2022
Effective
November 2, 2022
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to withdraw the portion of a March 25, 2019 final action conditionally approving state implementation plan (SIP) submissions from the State of California under the Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act") to address contingency measure requirements for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or "standards") in the San Joaquin Valley, California ozone nonattainment area. The SIP submissions include the portions of the "2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8- Hour Ozone Standard" and the "2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan" that address the contingency measure requirement for San Joaquin Valley. Simultaneously, the EPA is taking final action to partially approve and partially disapprove these SIP submissions. These actions are in response to a decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, Ninth Circuit, No. 19-71223, opinion filed August 26, 2021) remanding the EPA's conditional approval of the contingency measure SIP submissions back to the Agency for further proceedings consistent with the decision.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 190 (Monday, October 3, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 190 (Monday, October 3, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59688-59692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20583]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0535; FRL-9690-02-R9]
Withdrawal and Partial Approval/Partial Disapproval of Clean Air
Plans; San Joaquin Valley, California; Contingency Measures for 2008
Ozone Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to withdraw the portion of a March 25, 2019 final action
conditionally approving state implementation plan (SIP) submissions
from the State of California under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'')
to address contingency measure requirements for the 2008 ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the San
Joaquin Valley, California ozone nonattainment area. The SIP
submissions include the portions of the ``2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-
Hour Ozone Standard'' and the ``2018 Updates to the California State
Implementation Plan'' that address the contingency measure requirement
for San Joaquin Valley. Simultaneously, the EPA is taking final action
to partially approve and partially disapprove these SIP submissions.
These actions are in response to a decision issued by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Association of Irritated Residents v.
EPA, Ninth Circuit, No. 19-71223, opinion filed August 26, 2021)
remanding the EPA's conditional approval of the contingency measure SIP
submissions back to the Agency for further proceedings consistent with
the decision.
DATES: This final rule is effective on November 2, 2022.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0535. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>
[[Page 59689]]
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, 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: Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3407, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dcb0bdabaeb9b2bfb9f2b0bda9aebd9cb9acbdf2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e08c819792858e8385ce8c81959281a0859081ce878f96">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
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 May 24, 2022, the EPA proposed to withdraw the portion of a
March 25, 2019 final action conditionally approving SIP submissions
from the State of California under the CAA to address contingency
measure requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley, California ozone nonattainment area.\1\ The SIP submissions
include the portions of the 2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone
Standard (``2016 Ozone Plan'') and the 2018 Updates to the California
State Implementation Plan (``2018 SIP Update'') that address the
contingency measure requirement for San Joaquin Valley. In the same
rule, the EPA also proposed to partially approve and partially
disapprove these SIP submissions. Specifically, consistent with a 2021
decision by the Ninth Circuit remanding the EPA's previous conditional
approval of the contingency measure element, the EPA proposed to
disapprove the submissions for failure to meet the contingency measure
SIP requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), except for
a state measure referred to as the ``Enhanced Enforcement Activities
Program'' measure for which the EPA proposed approval based on SIP-
strengthening grounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 87 FR 31510. The San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS consists of San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, and Kings counties, and the western
portion of Kern County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our proposed rule, we provided background information on ozone
and its precursor emissions (i.e., volatile organic compounds and
oxides of nitrogen), common sources of ozone precursor emissions, and
health effects associated with elevated ozone levels. We also provided
background information on the EPA's establishment of the ozone NAAQS,
including the ozone NAAQS that we established in 2008 (``2008 ozone
NAAQS''), the SIP submissions that are required under the CAA for areas
designated as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the roles and
responsibilities of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or
``District'').
We also discussed the specific SIP submission requirements under
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for contingency measures. In
short, contingency measures are additional controls or measures to be
implemented in the event the area fails to make reasonable further
progress (RFP) or to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date. Among
other requirements, contingency measures must be designed so as to be
implemented prospectively; already-implemented control measures may not
serve as contingency measures even if they provide emissions reductions
beyond those needed for any other CAA purpose and should provide for
emissions reductions approximately equivalent to one year's worth of
RFP.
In our proposed rule, we described the State of California's SIP
submissions for the San Joaquin Valley ``Extreme'' nonattainment area
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including the District's 2016 Ozone Plan and
the San Joaquin Valley portion of the 2018 SIP Update. We noted that,
in 2019, the EPA approved the 2016 Ozone Plan and the relevant portion
of the 2018 SIP Update as meeting all the applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements for the San Joaquin Valley Extreme
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, with the exception of the
contingency measure requirement.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 84 FR 3302 (February 12, 2019), corrected at 84 FR 19680
(May 3, 2019); and 84 FR 11198 (March 25, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described further in the proposed rule, the contingency measure
element of the 2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP Update,
includes the Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program and an evaluation
of the surplus emissions reductions from already-implemented
measures.\3\ In addition, the District and CARB made commitments to
adopt and submit a contingency provision \4\ as part of the District's
architectural coatings rule within a year of the final conditional
approval. Once adopted, submitted, and approved, the contingency
provision in the architectural coatings rule would become a third part
of the contingency measure element. The EPA estimated that the
contingency measure, i.e., the contingency provision in the
architectural coatings rule, would achieve emissions reductions
equivalent to approximately 9 percent of one year's worth of RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 83 FR 61346, at 61356 (November 29, 2018). In this context,
``surplus'' emissions reductions refer to emissions reductions that
are not needed to meet other SIP requirements, such as the RFP and
attainment demonstrations.
\4\ The specific contingency provision that the District
committed to adopt is the removal of the exemption for architectural
coatings that are sold in containers with a volume of one liter
(1.057 quarts) or less, i.e., if triggered by an EPA determination
of failure to meet an RFP milestone or failure to attain the 2008
ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. On April 23, 2020,
CARB submitted the District's architectural coatings rule (SJVUAPCD
Rule 4601), as amended to include the contingency provision, to the
EPA as a SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in our proposed rule, we conditionally approved the
contingency measure element in our March 25, 2019 final rule based on
the District's and CARB's commitments and found that the one
contingency measure (i.e., once adopted, submitted, and approved by the
EPA) would be sufficient for the State and District to meet the
contingency measure requirement for San Joaquin Valley for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, notwithstanding expected emissions reductions from the
measure equivalent to only a fraction of one year's worth of RFP.\5\ In
our March 25, 2019 final rule, we found the reductions from the one
contingency measure to be sufficient when considered together with the
substantial surplus emissions reductions we anticipated to occur in the
future from already-implemented measures and from other approved
measures in the plan.\6\ In our March 25, 2019 final rule, we approved
CARB's Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program measure as a SIP-
strengthening measure rather than as a contingency measure.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 84 FR 11198, at 11206 (March 25, 2019).
\6\ Id.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our May 24, 2022 proposed rule, we noted that our final
conditional approval of the contingency measure element was the subject
of a legal challenge and that, in a 2021 Ninth
[[Page 59690]]
Circuit decision in the Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA case,
the Court remanded the conditional approval action back to the
Agency.\8\ In so doing, the Court found that, by taking into account
the emissions reductions from already-implemented measures to find that
the contingency measure would suffice to meet the applicable
requirement, the EPA was circumventing the court's 2016 holding in Bahr
v. EPA.\9\ The court rejected the EPA's arguments that the Agency's
approach was grounded in its long-standing guidance and was consistent
with the court's 2016 Bahr v. EPA decision. With respect to CARB's
Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program measure, the court upheld the
EPA's approval of it as SIP-strengthening and held that the measure was
enforceable according to its terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937 (9th
Cir. 2021).
\9\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
Under the Bahr holding, contingency measures under CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) must be designed so as to be implemented
prospectively; already-implemented control measures may not serve as
contingency measures even if they provide emissions reductions
beyond those needed for any other CAA purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our May 24, 2022 proposed rule, we found that, if we do not take
into account surplus emissions reductions, then the one contingency
measure (the contingency provision in the District's architectural
coatings rule) must shoulder the entire burden of achieving roughly one
year's worth of RFP (if triggered) but would only provide approximately
9 percent of one year's worth of progress. Because the contingency
measure would not provide reductions roughly equivalent to one year's
worth of RFP, we found that the conditional approval could no longer be
supported, and we proposed to withdraw our previous conditional
approval of the contingency measure element on that basis. For the same
reasons that justify the proposed withdrawal of the conditional
approval, we proposed to disapprove the contingency measure element
except for the Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program measure.
With respect to the Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program
measure, in our May 24, 2022 proposed rule, we proposed approval for
the same reasons that we provided in the March 25, 2019 final rule and
that were upheld by the Ninth Circuit. Namely, while we find that the
Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program measure fails to meet the
requirements for a stand-alone contingency measure, we also find that
it strengthens the SIP by triggering certain actions, upon a failure to
meet RFP or a failure to attain by the applicable attainment date, that
may lead to emissions reductions that would not otherwise be achieved,
thereby contributing in part to any remedy for an RFP shortfall or
failure to attain.
For more background information and a more extensive discussion of
the rationale for our proposed action, please see our May 24, 2022
proposed rule.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
Our proposed rule provided for a 30-day comment period during which
we received one response, which is a letter supporting our proposed
action.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Comment letter dated June 22, 2022, from the Association of
Irritated Residents and the Central California Environmental Justice
Network, including two exhibits: the American Lung Association's
report titled ``State of the Air 2022'' and the SJVUAPCD Executive
Director's report to the SJVUAPCD Governing Board for the June 16,
2022 Board meeting titled ``Item Number 13: Receive Update on
Attainment Planning Efforts for Federal Particulate and Ozone
Standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
For the reasons summarized above and presented in more detail in
the proposed rule, we are taking final action to withdraw our March 25,
2019 conditional approval of the contingency measure element of the
2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP Update, for the San
Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We are also taking final
action to partially approve and partially disapprove the contingency
measure element of the 2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP
Update, with respect to the contingency measure requirements under CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Specifically, we are disapproving the
contingency measure element except for the Enhanced Enforcement
Activities Program measure. We are approving the Enhanced Enforcement
Activities Program measure because, while we find that the Enhanced
Enforcement Activities Program measure fails to meet the requirements
for a stand-alone contingency measure, we also find that it strengthens
the SIP by triggering certain actions, upon a failure to meet RFP or
failure to attain by the applicable attainment date, that may lead to
emissions reductions that would not otherwise be achieved, thereby
contributing in part to any remedy for an RFP shortfall or failure to
attain.
Through this final action, we are revising the section of the CFR
where the California SIP is identified by removing the contingency
measure element of the 2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP
Update, that we previously approved (conditionally), except for the
Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program measure.\11\ Lastly, we are
making a protective finding under the transportation conformity rule
because, notwithstanding the partial disapproval of the contingency
measure element, the 2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP
Update, reflects adopted control measures and contains enforceable
commitments that fully satisfy the emission reduction requirements for
RFP and attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ We are also revising 40 CFR 52.220(c)(514)(ii)(A)(2) to
clarify that the applicability of CARB's Enhanced Enforcement
Activities Program measure is limited to San Joaquin Valley and
limited to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
\12\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3). Without a protective finding, the
final disapproval would result in a conformity freeze, under which
only projects in the first four years of the most recent conforming
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement
Programs (TIP) can proceed. Generally, during a freeze, no new RTPs,
TIPs, or RTP/TIP amendments can be found to conform until another
control strategy implementation plan revision fulfilling the same
CAA requirements is submitted, the EPA finds its motor vehicle
emissions budget(s) adequate pursuant to Sec. 93.118 or approves
the submission, and conformity to the implementation plan revision
is determined. Under a protective finding, the final disapproval of
the contingency measures element does not result in a transportation
conformity freeze in the San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area
and the metropolitan planning organizations may continue to make
transportation conformity determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a consequence of the partial disapproval of the contingency
measure element, within 24 months of the effective date of this action,
the EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan under section
110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP submissions that correct the
plan deficiencies. In addition, under 40 CFR 52.35, the offset sanction
in CAA section 179(b)(2) will be imposed 18 months after the effective
date of this action, and the highway funding sanction in CAA section
179(b)(1) will be imposed six months after the offset sanction is
imposed. A sanction will not be imposed if the EPA determines that a
subsequent SIP submission corrects the identified deficiencies before
the applicable deadline.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.
[[Page 59691]]
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because the partial SIP disapproval action under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself
create any new information collection burdens but simply disapproves
portions of certain state plans submitted for inclusion into the SIP.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this action on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose
any requirements or create impacts on small entities. The partial SIP
disapproval action under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but
simply disapproves portions of certain state plans submitted for
inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for the
EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or
reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of
the rule. The fact that the Clean Air Act prescribes that various
consequences (e.g., higher offset requirements) may or will result from
disapproval actions does not mean that the EPA either can or must
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for this action. Therefore,
this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The EPA has determined that the partial disapproval action does
not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action disapproves
portions of certain pre-existing plans under state or local law and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects 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.'' This action
does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects 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, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves portions of
certain state plans for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
that the EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving would
not 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,
and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This partial SIP disapproval action under section 110 and subchapter I,
part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
regulations but simply disapproves portions of certain state plans
submitted for inclusion into the SIP.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable
[[Page 59692]]
voluntary consensus standards. The EPA believes that this action is not
subject to requirements of section 12(d) of NTTAA because application
of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
The state did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal. There is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goals of Executive Order 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income
populations, and indigenous peoples.
K. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
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).
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
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, 2022. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 16, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
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:
0
a. Adding paragraph (c)(496)(ii)(B)(5);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(514)(ii)(A)(2); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (c)(514)(ii)(A)(11).
The additions and revision read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(496) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * *
(5) Previously approved on March 25, 2019, in paragraph
(c)(496)(ii)(B)(4) of this section and now deleted without replacement,
subchapter 6.4 (``Contingency for Attainment'') of the ``2016 Ozone
Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard,'' adopted June 16, 2016.
* * * * *
(514) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(2) 2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan,
adopted on October 25, 2018, chapter VIII (``SIP Elements for the San
Joaquin Valley''), chapter X (``Contingency Measures'') for
implementation in San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone standard, and
Appendix A (``Nonattainment Area Inventories''), pages A-1, A-2 and A-
27 through A-30, only.
* * * * *
(11) Previously approved on March 25, 2019 in paragraph
(c)(514)(ii)(A)(2) of this section and now deleted without replacement,
subchapter VIII.D (``Contingency Measures'') of chapter VIII (``SIP
Elements for the San Joaquin Valley'') of the ``2018 Updates to the
California State Implementation Plan,'' adopted on October 25, 2018.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.237 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(13) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.237 Part D disapproval.
(a) * * *
(13) The contingency measures element of the ``2016 Ozone Plan for
2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard,'' adopted June 16, 2016, as modified by the
``2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan,'' adopted
October 25, 2018, for San Joaquin Valley with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, with the exception of CARB's Enhanced Enforcement Activities
Program measure.
* * * * *
Sec. 52.248 [Amended]
0
4. Section 52.248 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (g).
[FR Doc. 2022-20583 Filed 9-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 3, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.