Proposed Rule2022-27511
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Vehicle Miles Traveled Emissions Offset Demonstrations for the 2015 Ozone Standards; California
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
December 20, 2022
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the California state implementation plan (SIP) concerning vehicle miles traveled (VMT) offset demonstrations for the Los Angeles--South Coast Air Basin (South Coast), Riverside County (Coachella Valley), Los Angeles--San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert), and San Joaquin Valley nonattainment areas (NAAs) for the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The EPA is proposing to approve these revisions because they demonstrate that California has added or implemented specific enforceable transportation control strategies and transportation control measures to offset the growth in emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips. We are proposing to approve these revisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA or "the Act"), which establishes VMT offset demonstration requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified as "Severe" or "Extreme."
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 243 (Tuesday, December 20, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 20, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77774-77782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27511]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0681; FRL-10386-01-R9]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Vehicle Miles
Traveled Emissions Offset Demonstrations for the 2015 Ozone Standards;
California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the California state implementation plan (SIP)
concerning vehicle miles traveled (VMT) offset demonstrations for the
Los Angeles--South Coast Air Basin (South Coast), Riverside County
(Coachella Valley), Los Angeles--San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave
Desert), and San Joaquin Valley nonattainment areas (NAAs) for the 2015
ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The EPA is
proposing to approve these revisions because they demonstrate that
California has added or implemented specific enforceable transportation
control strategies and transportation control measures to offset the
growth in emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips. We are
proposing to approve these revisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
``the Act''), which establishes VMT offset demonstration requirements
for ozone nonattainment areas classified as ``Severe'' or ``Extreme.''
DATES: Written comments must arrive on or before January 19, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0681 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. For comments submitted at
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
[[Page 77775]]
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>. 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: Ben Leers, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)
947-4279 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#99d5fcfcebeab7dbfcf7d9fce9f8b7fef6ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e426b6b7c7d204c6b604e6b7e6f20696178">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary and Analysis of the State's Submittals
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 26, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone
NAAQS of 0.070 parts per million (ppm).\1\ In accordance with section
107(d) of the CAA, the EPA must designate an area ``nonattainment'' if
it is violating the NAAQS or if it is contributing to a violation of
the NAAQS in a nearby area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 4, 2018, the EPA designated 21 areas in California as
nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The designations became
effective on August 3, 2018.\2\ In its June 4, 2018 action, the EPA
also classified the 21 nonattainment areas in California, including the
South Coast and San Joaquin Valley NAAs as Extreme nonattainment and
the Coachella Valley and West Mojave Desert NAAs as Severe
nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within two years of designations, section 182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA
and 40 CFR 51.1302 require a state with an ozone NAA classified as
Severe or Extreme for the 2015 ozone NAAQS to submit a revision to the
SIP that addresses the VMT offset demonstration requirement in the
Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) includes three separate elements.
In short, under section 182(d)(1)(A), states are required to adopt
transportation control strategies and measures to offset growth in
emissions from growth in VMT, and, as necessary, in combination with
other emissions reduction requirements, to demonstrate reasonable
further progress and attainment. For more information on the EPA's
interpretation of the three elements of section 182(d)(1)(A), see 77
FR 58067, 58068 (September 19, 2012) (proposed withdrawal of
approval of South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations). In
this action, we are only addressing the first element of CAA section
182(d)(1)(A), i.e., the VMT emissions offset requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 27, 2020, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
submitted a staff report titled ``70 ppb Ozone SIP Submittal'' (``July
2020 submittal'') to the EPA.\4\ In part, the July 2020 submittal
contains the VMT offset demonstrations for the South Coast, Coachella
Valley, and San Joaquin Valley NAAs.\5\ On December 28, 2020, CARB
submitted to the EPA a staff report titled ``West Mojave Desert VMT
Offset Demonstration'' (``December 2020 submittal'') for the West
Mojave Desert NAA.\6\ In this action, we are evaluating and proposing
action on portions of the July 2020 submittal that address the South
Coast, Coachella Valley, and San Joaquin Valley VMT offset
demonstrations and the December 2020 submittal of the West Mojave
Desert VMT offset demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Letter dated July 24, 2020, from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX (submitted electronically July 27, 2020).
\5\ The July 2020 submittal also addresses base year emissions
inventory requirements for 18 of the 21 NAAs in California. The EPA
approved the July 2020 submittal as meeting the base year emissions
inventory requirements for the 18 areas addressed in the submittal
on September 29, 2022 (87 FR 59015).
\6\ Letter dated December 28, 2020, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX (submitted electronically December 29, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In California, CARB is the agency responsible for the adoption and
submission to the EPA of California SIPs and SIP revisions, and it has
broad authority to establish emissions standards and other requirements
for mobile sources. Local and regional air pollution control districts
in California are responsible for the regulation of stationary sources
and are generally responsible for the development of regional air
quality plans. The South Coast Air Quality Management District develops
and adopts air quality management plans to address CAA planning
requirements applicable in the South Coast and Coachella Valley NAAs.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District develops and
adopts air quality management plans to address CAA planning
requirements applicable in the San Joaquin Valley NAA. The Antelope
Valley Air Quality Management District and the Mojave Desert Air
Quality Management District collectively develop and adopt air quality
management plans to address CAA planning requirements applicable in the
West Mojave Desert. Such plans are then submitted to CARB for adoption
and submittal to the EPA as revisions to the California SIP.
A. The South Coast Ozone Nonattainment Area
The South Coast nonattainment area consists of Orange County, the
southwestern two-thirds of Los Angeles County, a portion of
southwestern San Bernardino County, and western Riverside County. The
South Coast nonattainment area encompasses an area of approximately
6,600 square miles and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and
the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains to the north
and east.\7\ The projected 2018 and 2030 populations of the South Coast
NAA are over 16 million and 18 million people, respectively.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For a precise definition of the boundaries of the South
Coast 2015 ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
\8\ South Coast Air Quality Management District, ``2022 Draft
Air Quality Management Plan,'' Chapter 7, 7-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Coachella Valley 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
The Coachella Valley NAA is located within Riverside County, and
its boundaries generally align with the Riverside County portion of the
Salton Sea Air Basin.\9\ The projected 2018 and 2030 populations of the
Coachella Valley NAA are 471,012 and 568,622, respectively.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For a precise definition of the boundaries of the Coachella
Valley 2015 ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
\10\ 2022 Draft Air Quality Management Plan, Chapter 7, 7-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area
The San Joaquin Valley NAA consists of San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, and Kings counties, and the western
portion of Kern County. The San Joaquin Valley NAA stretches over 250
miles from north to south, averages a width of 80 miles, and
encompasses over 23,000 square miles. It is partially enclosed by the
Coast Mountain range to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south,
and the Sierra Nevada range to the east.\11\ The population of the San
Joaquin Valley in 2015 was estimated to be nearly 4.2 million people,
and it is
[[Page 77776]]
projected to increase to over 5.2 million people in 2030.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For a precise definition of the boundaries of the San
Joaquin Valley 2015 ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
\12\ The population estimates and projections include all of
Kern County, not just the portion of Kern County within the
jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD. See San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District, ``2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone
Standard,'' Adopted June 16, 2016, Chapter 1, Table 1-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. The West Mojave Desert Ozone Nonattainment Area
The West Mojave Desert NAA consists of northeast Los Angeles County
and portions of southwest and central San Bernardino County.\13\ The
population of the West Mojave Desert NAA was estimated at 868,380 in
2010.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For a precise definition of the boundaries of the West
Mojave Desert 2015 ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
\14\ 8-Hour Ozone (2008) Designated Area/State Information,
Green Book, EPA, accessed on November 19, 2020, Population Data from
2010, <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/hbtc.html">https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/hbtc.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary and Analysis of the State's Submittals
A. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102 require states
to provide reasonable notice and an opportunity for a public hearing
prior to adoption of SIP revisions. Section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the
EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of
receipt. Any plan that the EPA does not affirmatively determine to be
complete or incomplete will become complete six months after the day of
submittal by operation of law. A finding of completeness does not
approve the submittal as part of the SIP, nor does it indicate that the
submittal is approvable. It does start a 12-month clock for the EPA to
act on the SIP submittal.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See CAA section 110(k)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Summary of the State's Submittals
The July 2020 submittal documents the public review process
followed prior to submittal to the EPA of the South Coast, Coachella
Valley, and San Joaquin Valley VMT offset demonstrations as revisions
to the SIP. In addition to the VMT offset demonstrations, the July 2020
submittal includes a copy of CARB's notice for a public meeting on June
25, 2020,\16\ a transcript from the June 25, 2020 meeting,\17\ a signed
resolution stating that CARB provided at least 30 days for public
review prior to the board hearing and that the VMT offset
demonstrations were adopted after adequate notice and public
hearing,\18\ and a compilation of comments received by CARB prior to
and during the June 25, 2020 public meeting.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Notice of Public Meeting to Consider 70 Parts Per Billion
Ozone State Implementation Plan Submittal,'' California Air
Resources Board, May 22, 2020.
\17\ ``Videoconference Meeting, State of California, Air
Resources Board, CALEPA Headquarters, Byron Sher Auditorium, Second
Floor, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, California,'' J&K Court Reporting,
LLC, June 25, 2020.
\18\ ``70 Parts Per Billion Ozone State Implementation Plan
Submittal,'' Resolution 20-17, CARB, June 25, 2020.
\19\ Compilation of comments received for 70 Parts Per Billion
Ozone State Implementation Plan Submittal. CARB indicated in its
July 24, 2020 transmittal letter to the EPA that CARB has considered
all comments and has determined all are non-substantive and do not
pertain to the action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The December 2020 submittal documents the public review process
followed prior to the submittal to the EPA of the West Mojave Desert
VMT offset demonstration as a revision to the SIP. In addition to the
West Mojave Desert VMT offset demonstration, the December 2020
submittal includes a copy of CARB's notice for a public meeting on
October 22, 2020,\20\ a signed resolution stating that CARB provided at
least 30 days for public review prior to the board hearing and the West
Mojave Desert VMT offset demonstration was adopted after adequate
notice and public hearing,\21\ and a comment received by CARB prior to
the October 22, 2020 public meeting.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the West Mojave
Desert VMT Offset Demonstration,'' California Air Resources Board,
September 18, 2020.
\21\ ``West Mojave Desert Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset
Demonstration,'' Resolution 20-27, California Air Resources Board,
October 22, 2020.
\22\ CARB determined the comment to be non-substantive and did
not pertain to the Board's action on the item. No comments were
received during the Board meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Stationary and Regulatory Requirements
Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act requires a state to submit, for
each ozone nonattainment area classified as Severe or above, a SIP
revision that ``identifies and adopts specific enforceable
transportation control strategies and transportation control measures
to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled
or number of vehicle trips in such area.'' Herein, we refer to the
related SIP requirement as the ``VMT emissions offset requirement.'' In
addition, we refer to the SIP revision intended to demonstrate
compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement as the ``VMT
emissions offset demonstration.''
In Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit
ruled that additional transportation control measures are required
whenever vehicle emissions are projected to be higher than they would
have been had VMT not increased, even when aggregate vehicle emissions
are actually decreasing.\23\ In response to the court's decision, in
August 2012, the EPA issued a memorandum titled ``Implementing Clean
Air Act Section 182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control Measures and
Transportation Control Strategies to Offset Growth in Emissions Due to
Growth in Vehicle Miles Travelled'' (``August 2012 Guidance'').\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d.
584, at 596-597 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January 27,
2012, 686 F.3d 668, further amended February 13, 2012 (``Association
of Irritated Residents'').
\24\ Memorandum dated August 30, 2012, Karl Simon, Director,
Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transportation and
Air Quality, to Carl Edland, Director, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, and Deborah Jordan, Director, Air
Division, EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The August 2012 Guidance discusses the meaning of ``transportation
control strategies'' (TCS) and ``transportation control measures''
(TCM) and recommends that both TCSs and TCMs be included in the
calculations made for the purpose of determining the degree to which
any hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT should be
offset. Generally, TCS is a broad term that encompasses many types of
controls (including, for example, motor vehicle emissions limitations,
inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, alternative fuel programs,
other technology-based measures, and TCMs) that would fit within the
regulatory definition of ``control strategy.'' \25\ A TCM is defined at
40 CFR 51.100(r) as ``any measure that is directed toward reducing
emissions of air pollutants from transportation sources,'' including,
but not limited to, those listed in section 108(f) of the CAA. TCMs
generally refer to programs intended to reduce VMT, number of vehicle
trips, or traffic congestion, such as programs for improved public
transit, designation of certain lanes for passenger buses and high-
occupancy vehicles, and trip reduction ordinances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.100(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The August 2012 Guidance explains how states may demonstrate that
the VMT emissions offset requirement is satisfied in conformance with
the Court's ruling in Association of Irritated Residents. Under the
August 2012 Guidance, states are recommended to develop one emissions
inventory for the base year and three different emissions inventory
scenarios for the attainment year. For the attainment year, the state
would present three emissions estimates, two of which would represent
[[Page 77777]]
hypothetical emissions scenarios that would provide the basis to
identify the ``growth in emissions'' due solely to the growth in VMT,
and one that would represent projected actual motor vehicle emissions
after fully accounting for projected VMT growth and offsetting
emissions reductions obtained by all creditable TCSs and TCMs. See the
August 2012 Guidance for specific details on how states might conduct
the calculations.
The base year on-road volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
should be calculated using VMT in that year, and they should reflect
all enforceable TCSs and TCMs in place in the base year. This would
include vehicle emissions standards, state and local control programs,
such as I/M programs or fuel rules, and any additional implemented TCSs
and TCMs that were already required by or credited in the SIP as of
that base year.
The first of the emissions calculations for the attainment year is
based on the projected VMT and trips for that year and assume that no
new TCSs or TCMs beyond those already credited in the base year
inventory have been added or implemented since the base year. This
calculation demonstrates how emissions would hypothetically change if
no new TCSs or TCMs were added or implemented, and VMT and trips were
allowed to grow at the projected rate from the base year. This estimate
shows the potential for an increase in emissions due solely to growth
in VMT and trips, representing a ``no action'' scenario. Attainment
year emissions in this scenario may be lower than those in the base
year due to the fleet that was on the road in the base year gradually
being replaced through fleet turnover; however, provided that VMT and/
or numbers of vehicle trips would in fact increase by the attainment
year, emissions would still likely be higher than they would have been
assuming VMT had held constant.
The second of the attainment year's emissions calculations assumes
that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those already credited have been added
or implemented since the base year, but it also assumes no growth in
VMT and trips between the base year and attainment year. This estimate
reflects the hypothetical emissions level that would have occurred if
no further TCMs or TCSs had been added or implemented and if VMT and
trip levels had held constant since the base year. Like the ``no
action'' attainment year estimate described above, emissions in the
attainment year may be lower than those in the base year due to the
fleet that was on the road in the base year gradually being replaced by
cleaner vehicles through fleet turnover, but in this case, they would
not be influenced by any growth in VMT or trips. This emissions
estimate reflects a ceiling on the attainment emissions that should be
allowed to occur under the statute as interpreted by the court in
Association of Irritated Residents because it shows what would happen
under a scenario in which no offsetting TCSs or TCMs have yet been
added or implemented, and VMT and trips are held constant during the
period from the area's base year to its attainment year. This
represents a ``VMT offset ceiling'' scenario. These two hypothetical
status quo estimates are necessary to identify the target level of
emissions from which states would determine whether further TCMs or
TCSs, beyond those that have been adopted and implemented in reality,
would need to be adopted and implemented in order to fully offset any
increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips identified in the
``no action'' scenario.
Finally, the third attainment year emissions estimate represents
the emissions that are actually expected to occur in the area's
attainment year after taking into account reductions from all
enforceable TCSs and TCMs. This estimate is based on the VMT and trip
levels expected to occur in the attainment year (i.e., the VMT and trip
levels from the first estimate) and all of the TCSs and TCMs expected
to be in place and for which the SIP will take credit in the area's
attainment year, including any TCMs and TCSs added or implemented since
the base year. This represents the ``projected actual'' attainment year
scenario. If this emissions estimate is less than or equal to the
emissions ceiling that was established in the second of the attainment
year calculations, the TCSs and TCMs for the attainment year would be
sufficient to fully offset the identified hypothetical growth in
emissions.
If, instead, the estimated projected actual attainment year
emissions are still greater than the ceiling that was established in
the second of the attainment year emissions calculations, even after
accounting for post-baseline year TCSs and TCMs, the state would need
to adopt and implement additional TCSs or TCMs to further offset the
growth in emissions. The additional TCSs or TCMs would need to bring
the actual emissions down to at least the VMT offset ceiling estimated
in the second of the attainment year calculations, to meet the VMT
offset requirement of section 182(d)(1)(A) as interpreted by the Court.
2. Summary of State's Submission
CARB prepared the VMT emissions offset demonstrations for the South
Coast, Coachella Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and West Mojave Desert for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and they are documented in the July 2020 and
December 2020 submittals. In addition to the VMT emissions offset
demonstrations, the submittals include attachments listing TCSs adopted
by CARB since 1990,\26\ TCMs developed by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG),\27\ the metropolitan planning
organization (MPO) for the South Coast, Coachella Valley, and West
Mojave Desert NAAs,\28\ and TCMs developed by the eight MPOs \29\ in
the San Joaquin Valley NAA.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See attachments B-1 in the July 2020 submittal and A-1 in
the December 2020 submittal.
\27\ SCAG is the metropolitan planning organization for the
South Coast NAA and surrounding areas. The SCAG region also includes
the West Mojave Desert NAA and encompasses six counties (Imperial,
Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura) and 191
cities in an area covering more than 38,000 square miles.
\28\ See attachments B-2 in the July 2020 submittal and A-2 in
the December 2020 submittal.
\29\ The following eight MPOs represent the eight counties in
the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area: The San Joaquin Council
of Governments, the Stanislaus Council of Governments, the Merced
County Association of Governments, the Madera County Transportation
Commission, The Council of Fresno County Governments, The Kings
County Association of Governments, the Tulare County Association of
Governments, and the Kern Council of Governments.
\30\ See attachment B-2 in the July 2020 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the VMT emissions offset demonstrations, CARB used EMFAC2017,
the latest EPA-approved motor vehicle emissions model for California
available at the time the four VMT offset demonstrations were
developed.\31\ The EMFAC2017 model estimates the on-road emissions from
two combustion processes (i.e., running exhaust and start exhaust) and
four evaporative processes (i.e., hot soak, running losses, diurnal
losses, and resting losses). The EMFAC2017 model combines trip-based
VMT data from the regional transportation planning agency (e.g., SCAG),
vehicle start data based on household travel surveys, and vehicle
population data from the California Department of Motor Vehicles. These
sets of data are combined with corresponding emissions rates to
calculate emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ On August 15, 2019, the EPA approved and announced the
availability of EMFAC2017, the latest update to the EMFAC model for
use by State and local governments to meet CAA requirements. See 84
FR 41717 (August 15, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions from running exhaust, start exhaust, hot soak, and
running losses are a function of how much a vehicle is
[[Page 77778]]
driven. Emissions from these processes are thus directly related to VMT
and vehicle trips, and CARB included these emissions in the
calculations that provide the basis for four VMT emissions offset
demonstrations addressed in this proposed action. CARB did not include
emissions from resting loss and diurnal loss processes in the analysis
because such emissions are related to vehicle population, not to VMT or
vehicle trips, and thus are not part of ``any growth in emissions from
growth in vehicle miles traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such
area'' under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A).
The VMT emissions offset demonstrations in the July 2020 and
December 2020 submittals use a 2017 base year. The base year for VMT
emissions offset demonstration purposes should generally be the same
base year used for nonattainment planning purposes. On September 29,
2022, the EPA approved the 2017 base year inventories for 18 ozone NAAs
in California, including South Coast, Coachella Valley, San Joaquin
Valley, and West Mojave Desert, for the purposes of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS, and thus, CARB's selection of 2017 is appropriate as the base
year for the VMT emissions offset demonstrations for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in the July 2020 and December 2020 submittals.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 87 FR 59015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VMT emissions offset demonstrations also include the three
different attainment year scenarios (i.e., no action, VMT offset
ceiling, and projected actual) described in section II.B.1 of this
notice. On July 5, 2022, CARB provided additional technical information
in support of the attainment year inventories used to derive the three
different attainment year scenarios in the VMT offset
demonstrations.\33\ On August 16, 2020, CARB provided additional
technical clarification regarding vehicle populations, VMT, and vehicle
starts (i.e., trips) in the attainment scenarios. Because mileage
accrual rates vary between gasoline and electric vehicles, the vehicle
populations and starts vary among the attainment year scenarios. VMT
accrual for gasoline vehicles is slightly higher than electric vehicles
before model year (MY) 2025; because CARB anticipates that battery
range will increase over time, CARB assumes that VMT accrual per year
for electric vehicles will equal that of gasoline vehicles in MY 2025
and later. Further, other factors such as spatial allocation and fuel
matching characteristics of the EMFAC model influence the vehicle
population estimates. Therefore, different populations of gasoline and
electric vehicles (and, consequently, different total populations and
numbers of starts) may correspond to the same VMT.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ CARB further clarified the additional technical information
in supplementary emails dated August 11 and 16, 2022, from Nesamani
Kalandiyur (CARB) to John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX) regarding VMT
offset demonstrations.
\34\ See email dated August 16, 2022, from Nesamani Kalandiyur
(CARB) and Karina O'Connor (EPA Region IX) to John Ungvarsky (EPA
Region IX) regarding VMT offset demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has reviewed the supporting technical information used to
calculate the 2032 attainment year scenarios for Coachella Valley and
West Mojave Desert Severe nonattainment areas and the 2037 attainment
year scenarios for South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Extreme
nonattainment areas. We reviewed the VMT, vehicle population, and
vehicle trip data input to EMFAC2017 and compared modeled emissions
reductions to the reductions expected from measures implemented after
the base year. Based on our review, we propose to find the information
to be adequate for use in the VMT offset demonstrations. We propose to
find acceptable CARB's selection of year 2032 as the attainment year
for the Coachella Valley and West Mojave Desert VMT emissions offset
demonstrations and 2037 as the attainment year for the South Coast and
San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset demonstrations for the 2015
ozone NAAQS.
(a) South Coast
Table 1 summarizes the relevant distinguishing parameters for each
of the emissions scenarios and shows CARB's corresponding VOC emissions
estimates in tons per day (tpd) for the South Coast VMT offset
demonstration for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Table 1--VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for South Coast for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VMT (1,000/ Starts (1,000/ VOC emissions
Scenario day) day) (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year (2017)................................................ 395,571 48,172 75
No Action (2037); no new measures, with VMT growth.............. 407,368 61,173 40
VMT Offset Ceiling (2037); no new measures, no VMT growth....... 395,571 59,997 36
Projected Actual (2037); new measures included, with VMT growth. 407,368 59,869 29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: July 2020 submittal, Tables 1 and 2, p. 25-26. Starts data provided in attachment (``South Coast VMT
Offset--2019 FSTIP--February 27 2020_USEPA.xlsx'') in email dated July 5, 2022, from Nesamani Kalandiyur
(CARB) to John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX).
For the base year scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2017 model for the
2017 base year using VMT and starts data corresponding to that year. As
shown in Table 1, CARB estimates the South Coast VOC emissions at 75
tpd in 2017.
For the no action scenario, CARB first identified the on-road motor
vehicle control programs (i.e., TCSs or TCMs) added or implemented
since the base year and incorporated into EMFAC2017. CARB then ran
EMFAC2017 with the VMT and starts data corresponding to the 2037
attainment year without the emissions reductions from the on-road motor
vehicle control programs added or implemented after the base year.
Thus, the no action scenario reflects the hypothetical VOC emissions in
the attainment year if CARB had not added or implemented any additional
TCSs or TCMs after 2017. As shown in Table 1, CARB estimates the no
action South Coast VOC emissions at 40 tpd in 2037.
For the VMT offset ceiling scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2017 model
for the 2037 attainment year but with VMT and starts data corresponding
to the 2017 base year. Like the no action scenario, the EMFAC2017 model
was adjusted to reflect the VOC emissions levels in the attainment year
without the benefits of the post-base-year on-road motor vehicle
control programs. Thus, the VMT offset ceiling scenario reflects
hypothetical VOC emissions in the South Coast if CARB had not added or
implemented any TCSs or TCMs after the base year and if there had been
no
[[Page 77779]]
growth in VMT or vehicle trips between the base year and the attainment
year.
The hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT and trips
can be determined from the difference between the VOC emissions
estimates under the no action and VMT offset ceiling scenarios. Based
on the values in Table 1, the hypothetical growth in emissions due to
growth in VMT and trips in the South Coast would have been 4 tpd (i.e.,
40 tpd minus 36 tpd). This hypothetical difference establishes the
level of VMT growth-caused emissions that need to be offset by the
combination of post-baseline year TCSs and TCMs and any necessary
additional TCSs and TCMs.
For the projected actual scenario calculation, CARB ran the
EMFAC2017 model for the attainment year with VMT and starts data at
attainment year values and with the full benefits of the relevant post-
baseline year motor vehicle control programs. For this scenario, CARB
included the emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs added or implemented
since the base year. Significant VOC emissions reductions during the
2017-2037 timeframe result from the zero emission vehicle provisions of
the Advanced Clean Cars program.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Attachment B-1 to the July 2022 submittal includes a list
of the state's TCSs adopted by CARB since 1990. Also see EPA final
action on CARB mobile source SIP submittals at 81 FR 39424 (June 16,
2016), 82 FR 14446 (March 21, 2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May 18, 2018).
Also see email dated August 16, 2022, from Nesamani Kalandiyur
(CARB) to John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 1, the projected actual attainment year VOC
emissions are 29 tpd. CARB compared this value against the
corresponding VMT offset ceiling value to determine whether additional
TCSs or TCMs would need to be adopted and implemented in order to
offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips. Because
the projected actual emissions do not exceed the corresponding VMT
offset ceiling emissions, CARB concluded that the demonstration shows
compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement and that the
adopted TCSs and TCMs are sufficient to offset the growth in emissions
from the growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the South Coast for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.
(b) Coachella Valley
Table 2 summarizes the relevant distinguishing parameters for each
of the emissions scenarios and shows CARB's corresponding VOC emissions
estimates for the Coachella Valley VMT offset demonstration for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.
Table 2--VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for the Coachella Valley NAA for the 2015 Ozone
NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VMT (1,000/ Starts (1,000/ VOC emissions
Scenario day) day) (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year (2017)................................................ 13,479 1,751 3.1
No Action (2032); no new measures, with VMT growth.............. 16,284 2,395 2.0
VMT Offset Ceiling (2032); no new measures, no VMT growth....... 13,479 2,023 1.6
Projected Actual (2032); new measures included, with VMT growth. 16,284 2,350 1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: July 2020 submittal, Tables 3 and 4, p. 28-29. Starts data provided in attachment (``Coachella VMT
Offset--2019 FSTIP--April 2 2020_USEPA.xlsx'') in email dated August 11, 2022, from Nesamani Kalandiyur (CARB)
to John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX).
For the base year scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2017 model for the
2017 base year using VMT and starts data corresponding to that year. As
shown in Table 2, CARB estimates the Coachella Valley VOC emissions at
3.1 tpd in 2017.
For the no action scenario, CARB first identified the on-road motor
vehicle control programs (i.e., TCSs or TCMs) added or implemented
since the base year and incorporated into EMFAC2017. CARB then ran
EMFAC2017 with the VMT and starts data corresponding to the 2032
attainment year without the emissions reductions from the on-road motor
vehicle control programs added or implemented after the base year.
Thus, the no action scenario reflects the hypothetical VOC emissions in
the attainment year if CARB had not added or implemented any additional
TCSs or TCMs after 2017. As shown in Table 2, CARB estimates the no
action Coachella Valley VOC emissions at 2.0 tpd in 2032.
For the VMT offset ceiling scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2017 model
for the 2032 attainment year but with VMT and starts data corresponding
to the 2017 base year. Like the no action scenario, the EMFAC2017 model
was adjusted to reflect the VOC emissions levels in the attainment year
without the benefits of the post-base-year on-road motor vehicle
control programs. Thus, the VMT offset ceiling scenario reflects
hypothetical VOC emissions in the Coachella Valley if CARB had not
added or implemented any TCSs or TCMs after the base year and if there
had been no growth in VMT or vehicle trips between the base year and
the attainment year.
The hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT and trips
can be determined from the difference between the VOC emissions
estimates under the no action and VMT offset ceiling scenarios. Based
on the values in Table 2, the hypothetical growth in emissions due to
growth in VMT and trips in the Coachella Valley would have been 0.4 tpd
(i.e., 2.0 tpd minus 1.6 tpd). This hypothetical difference establishes
the level of VMT growth-caused emissions that need to be offset by the
combination of post-baseline year TCSs and TCMs and any necessary
additional TCSs and TCMs.
For the projected actual scenario calculation, CARB ran the
EMFAC2017 model for the attainment year with VMT and starts data at
attainment year values and with the full benefits of the relevant post-
baseline year motor vehicle control programs. For this scenario, CARB
included the emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs added or implemented
since the base year. Significant VOC emissions reductions during the
2017-2037 timeframe result from the zero emission vehicle provisions of
the Advanced Clean Cars program.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Attachment B-1 to the July 2022 submittal includes a list
of the state's TCSs adopted by CARB since 1990. Also see EPA final
action on CARB mobile source SIP submittals at 81 FR 39424 (June 16,
2016), 82 FR 14446 (March 21, 2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May 18, 2018).
Also see email dated August 16, 2022, from Nesamani Kalandiyur
(CARB) to John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 2, the projected actual attainment year VOC
emissions are 1.6 tpd. CARB compared this value against the
corresponding VMT offset ceiling value to determine whether additional
TCSs or TCMs would need to be adopted and implemented in order to
offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips. Because
the projected actual emissions do not exceed the corresponding VMT
offset
[[Page 77780]]
ceiling emissions, CARB concluded that the demonstration shows
compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement and that the
adopted TCSs and TCMs are sufficient to offset the growth in emissions
from the growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the Coachella Valley for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
(c) San Joaquin Valley
Table 3 summarizes the relevant distinguishing parameters for each
of the emissions scenarios and shows CARB's corresponding VOC emissions
estimates for the San Joaquin Valley VMT offset demonstration for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.
Table 3--VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for the San Joaquin Valley NAA for the 2015 Ozone
NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VMT (1,000/ Starts (1,000/ VOC Emissions
Scenario day) day) (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year (2017)................................................ 101,828 13,223 26.6
No Action (2037); no new measures, with VMT growth.............. 128,611 18,534 13.4
VMT Offset Ceiling (2037); no new measures, no VMT growth....... 101,828 14,685 10.2
Projected Actual (2037); new measures included, with VMT growth. 128,611 18,171 10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ``SJV Total--8 GAIs--VMT Offset ROG Emissions--April 7 2020_USEPA (updated 081222).xlsx,'' included in
email dated August 15, 2022, from Nesamani Kalandiyur (CARB) to John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX). Note that the
San Joaquin Valley VMT offset demo in the July 2022 submittal erroneously reported VMT and emissions data for
San Joaquin County rather than the entire San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area. CARB provided VMT, starts,
and emissions data for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area in CARB's August 15, 2022 supplemental email
to EPA Region IX.
For the base year scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2017 model for the
2017 base year using VMT and starts data corresponding to that year. As
shown in Table 3, CARB estimates the San Joaquin Valley VOC emissions
at 26.6 tpd in 2017.
For the no action scenario, CARB first identified the on-road motor
vehicle control programs added or implemented since the base year and
incorporated into EMFAC2017. CARB then ran EMFAC2017 with the VMT and
starts data corresponding to the 2037 attainment year without the
emissions reductions from the on-road motor vehicle control programs
added or implemented after the base year. Thus, the no action scenario
reflects the hypothetical VOC emissions in the attainment year if CARB
had not added or implemented any additional TCSs and TCMs after 2017.
As shown in Table 3, CARB estimates the no action San Joaquin Valley
VOC emissions at 13.4 tpd in 2037.
For the VMT offset ceiling scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2017 model
for the 2037 attainment year but with VMT and starts data corresponding
to the 2017 base year. Like the no action scenario, the EMFAC2017 model
was adjusted to reflect the VOC emissions levels in the attainment year
without the benefits of the post-base-year on-road motor vehicle
control programs. Thus, the VMT offset ceiling scenario reflects
hypothetical VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley if CARB had not
added or implemented any TCSs and TCMs after the base year and if there
had been no growth in VMT or vehicle trips between the base year and
the attainment year.
The hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT and trips
can be determined from the difference between the VOC emissions
estimates under the no action and VMT offset ceiling scenarios. Based
on the values in Table 3, the hypothetical growth in emissions due to
growth in VMT and trips in the San Joaquin Valley would have been 3.2
tpd (i.e., 13.4 tpd minus 10.2 tpd). This hypothetical difference
establishes the level of VMT growth-caused emissions that need to be
offset by the combination of post-baseline year TCSs and TCMs and any
necessary additional TCSs and TCMs.
For the projected actual scenario calculation, CARB ran the
EMFAC2017 model for the attainment year with VMT and starts data at
attainment year values and with the full benefits of the relevant post-
baseline year motor vehicle control programs. For this scenario, CARB
included the emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs added or implemented
since the base year. Significant VOC emissions reductions during the
2017-2037 timeframe result from the zero emission vehicle provisions of
the Advanced Clean Cars program.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Attachment A-1 to the December 2022 submittal includes a
list of the state's TCSs adopted by CARB since 1990. Also see EPA
final action on CARB mobile source SIP submittals at 81 FR 39424
(June 16, 2016), 82 FR 14446 (March 21, 2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May
18, 2018), and email dated August 16, 2022, from Nesamani Kalandiyur
(CARB) to John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 3, the projected actual attainment year VOC
emissions are 10.0 tpd. CARB compared this value against the
corresponding VMT offset ceiling value to determine whether additional
TCSs or TCMs would need to be adopted and implemented in order to
offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips. Because
the projected actual emissions do not exceed the corresponding VMT
offset ceiling emissions, CARB concluded that the demonstration shows
compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement and that the
adopted TCSs and TCMs are sufficient to offset the growth in emissions
from the growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the San Joaquin Valley for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
(d) West Mojave Desert
Table 4 summarizes the relevant distinguishing parameters for each
of the emissions scenarios and shows CARB's corresponding VOC emissions
estimates for the West Mojave Desert VMT offset demonstration for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.
[[Page 77781]]
Table 4--VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for West Mojave Desert NAA for the 2015 Ozone
NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VMT (1,000/ Starts (1,000/ VOC Emissions
Scenario day) day) (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year (2017)................................................ 31,687 3,871 7.7
No Action (2032); no new measures, with VMT growth.............. 38,740 5,076 4.4
VMT Offset Ceiling (2032); no new measures, no VMT growth....... 31,687 4,286 4.0
Projected Actual (2032); new measures included, with VMT growth. 38,740 4,975 3.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: December 2020 submittal, Tables 1 and 2, p. 6-7. Starts data provided in attachment (``Western Mojave
VMT Offset--July 2020 Activity--July 24 2020_USEPA.xlsx'') in email dated July 5, 2022, from Nesamani
Kalandiyur (CARB) to John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX).
For the base year scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2017 model for the
2017 base year using VMT and starts data corresponding to that year. As
shown in Table 4, CARB estimates the West Mojave Desert VOC emissions
at 7.7 tpd in 2017.
For the no action scenario, CARB first identified the on-road motor
vehicle control programs (i.e., TCSs and TCMs added or implemented
since the base year and incorporated into EMFAC2017. CARB then ran
EMFAC2017 with the VMT and starts data corresponding to the 2032
attainment year without the emissions reductions from the on-road motor
vehicle control programs added or implemented after the base year.
Thus, the no action scenario reflects the hypothetical VOC emissions in
the attainment year if CARB had not added or implemented any additional
TCSs or TCMs after 2017. As shown in Table 4, CARB estimates the no
action West Mojave Desert VOC emissions at 4.4 tpd in 2032.
For the VMT offset ceiling scenario, CARB ran the EMFAC2017 model
for the 2032 attainment year but with VMT and starts data corresponding
to the 2017 base year. Like the no action scenario, the EMFAC2017 model
was adjusted to reflect the VOC emissions levels in the attainment year
without the benefits of the post-base-year on-road motor vehicle
control programs. Thus, the VMT offset ceiling scenario reflects
hypothetical VOC emissions in the West Mojave Desert if CARB had not
added or implemented any TCSs or TCMs after the base year and if there
had been no growth in VMT or vehicle trips between the base year and
the attainment year.
The hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT and trips
can be determined from the difference between the VOC emissions
estimates under the no action and VMT offset ceiling scenarios. Based
on the values in Table 4, the hypothetical growth in emissions due to
growth in VMT and trips in the West Mojave Desert would have been 0.4
tpd (i.e., 4.4 tpd minus 4.0 tpd). This hypothetical difference
establishes the level of VMT growth-caused emissions that need to be
offset by the combination of post-baseline year TCSs and TCMs and any
necessary additional TCSs and TCMs.
For the projected actual scenario calculation, CARB ran the
EMFAC2017 model for the attainment year with VMT and starts data at
attainment year values and with the full benefits of the relevant post-
baseline year motor vehicle control programs. For this scenario, CARB
included the emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs added or implemented
since the base year. Significant VOC emissions reductions during the
2017-2037 timeframe result from the zero emission vehicle provisions of
the Advanced Clean Cars program.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Attachment B-1 to the July 2022 submittal includes a list
of the state's TCSs adopted by CARB since 1990. Also see EPA final
action on CARB mobile source SIP submittals at 81 FR 39424 (June 16,
2016), 82 FR 14446 (March 21, 2017), and 83 FR 23232 (May 18, 2018),
and email dated August 16, 2022, from Nesamani Kalandiyur (CARB) to
John Ungvarsky (EPA Region IX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 4, the projected actual attainment year VOC
emissions are 3.8 tpd. CARB compared this value against the
corresponding VMT offset ceiling value to determine whether additional
TCSs or TCMs would need to be adopted and implemented in order to
offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips. Because
the projected actual emissions do not exceed the corresponding VMT
offset ceiling emissions, CARB concluded that the demonstration shows
compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement and that the
adopted TCSs and TCMs are sufficient to offset the growth in emissions
from the growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the West Mojave Desert for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submittals
The EPA reviewed the South Coast, Coachella Valley, and San Joaquin
Valley VMT emissions offset demonstrations in the July 2020 submittal
and the West Mojave Desert VMT emissions offset demonstration in the
December 2020 submittal. Based on our review, we propose to find CARB's
analysis to be consistent with our August 2012 Guidance and consistent
with the emissions and vehicle activity estimates provided by CARB. We
agree that the mobile source measures adopted by CARB and implemented
by SCAG and the San Joaquin Valley MPOs are sufficient to offset growth
in emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the South Coast,
Coachella Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and West Mojave Desert for the
purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, we propose to approve the
South Coast, Coachella Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and West Mojave
Desert VMT emissions offset demonstration elements as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A).
III. Proposed Action
For the reasons discussed in this notice, under CAA section
110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to approve the following as revisions
to the California SIP:
<bullet> VMT emissions offset demonstration element in the July 27,
2020 CARB submittal for the Los Angeles--South Coast Air Basin (South
Coast), Riverside County (Coachella Valley), and San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment areas as meeting the requirements of CAA section
182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1302 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
<bullet> VMT emissions offset demonstration element in the December
28, 2020 CARB submittal for the Los Angeles--San Bernardino Counties
(West Mojave Desert) as meeting the requirements of CAA section
182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1302 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
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 77782]]
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 rule does not impose any new information collection burden
under the Paperwork Reduction Act not already approved by the OMB.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. This action will not impose any requirements on small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments, or the
private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, tribes, or the relationship
between the national government and the states and tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that
have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.''
The state's submission does not apply to 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.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed 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
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
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
indicating that this action would be inconsistent with the stated goals
of Executive Order 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people
of color, low-income populations, and indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 14, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-27511 Filed 12-19-22; 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 December 20, 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.