Rule2025-01110
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; Coachella Valley; Extreme Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour 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
January 21, 2025
Effective
February 20, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve elements of a state implementation plan (SIP) submittal from the State of California to meet Clean Air Act (CAA) "Extreme" nonattainment area requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Riverside Co. (Coachella Valley), CA nonattainment area ("Coachella Valley"). We are specifically approving the reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration and the vehicle miles traveled demonstration.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6823-6827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01110]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0448; FRL-11677-03-R9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
California; Coachella Valley; Extreme Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve elements of a state implementation plan (SIP)
submittal from the State of California to meet Clean Air Act (CAA)
``Extreme'' nonattainment area requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Riverside Co.
(Coachella Valley), CA nonattainment area (``Coachella Valley''). We
are specifically approving the reasonable further progress (RFP)
demonstration and the vehicle miles traveled demonstration.
DATES: This rule is effective February 20, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0448. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 a
disability 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: Tom Kelly, Geographic Strategies and
Modeling Section (AIR-2-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 972-3856; or email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d262821213463392522202c3e3d0d283d2c632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1279777e7e6b3c667a7d7f736162527762733c757d64">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses
III. The EPA's Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
A. Summary
On April 16, 2024,\1\ the EPA proposed to approve two SIP
submittals from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD
or ``District'') and the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
addressing the Extreme area planning requirements for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS in Coachella Valley. The first submittal, the ``Final Coachella
Valley Extreme Area Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard''
(``Coachella Valley Ozone Plan'' or ``Plan''),\2\ was prepared by the
SCAQMD and submitted by CARB on December 29, 2020.\3\ We proposed to
approve all elements of the Plan except the reasonably available
control technology (RACT) demonstration, which we plan to address in a
subsequent rulemaking. The second submittal, the ``2020 Coachella
Valley Vehicle Miles Traveled Emissions Offset Demonstration'' (``VMT
Offset Demonstration''),\4\ was prepared by CARB and submitted on March
18, 2021.\5\ We proposed to approve the entire VMT Offset
Demonstration. Our proposed action contains more information on the two
submittals and our evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 89 FR 26817.
\2\ SCAQMD, ``Final Coachella Valley Extreme Area Plan for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard,'' December 2020.
\3\ Letter dated December 28, 2020, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to John W. Busterud, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9 (submitted electronically December 29,
2020).
\4\ CARB, Staff Report, ``2020 Coachella Valley Vehicle Miles
Traveled Emissions Offset Demonstration,'' release date January 22,
2021.
\5\ Letter dated March 15, 2021, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9 (submitted electronically March 18,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 12, 2024, we finalized our proposed action on certain
portions of the Coachella Valley Ozone Plan.\6\ Specifically, we
finalized approval of the reasonably available control measures
demonstration, the attainment demonstration, and the State's
demonstration that it has satisfied the clean fuels for boilers
requirement for the Coachella Valley nonattainment area. Our June 12,
2024, notice stated that we intended to take final action on the
remaining VMT Offset Demonstration and RFP demonstration in a future
rulemaking. We are finalizing approval of these elements in this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 89 FR 49815.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Correction
In summarizing the State's photochemical modeling and the
associated control measures, the EPA's proposed rule incorrectly stated
that the Coachella Valley control strategy for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
relies on aggregate emissions reduction commitments from the ``Final
2016 Air Quality Management Plan'' (``2016 AQMP'').\7\ While the
Coachella Valley Ozone Plan discusses rules addressing the area's
progress related to commitments needed for the area to meet the 2008
ozone NAAQS by 2026, the emissions reductions associated with these
rules are not reflected in the area's inventory, and the Plan does not
rely on the commitments to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 2023.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 89 FR 26817, 26826.
\8\ See Coachella Valley Ozone Plan, pp. 4-4 through 4-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received comments from Air Law for All (ALFA),
dated May 16, 2024. These comments relate to our proposed action on the
RFP demonstration. No comments were received on other parts of the
proposal. The comments are summarized and addressed below.
[[Page 6824]]
Comment #1: ALFA criticizes the EPA's proposal to decline to act on
the area's contingency measures and new source review (NSR) submittals
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The commenter argues that the EPA lacks
discretion to act on selected portions of submittals when the 18-month
statutory deadline for action has passed. The commenter states that CAA
section 110(k) does not explicitly grant the EPA authority to act on
selected portions of submittals, and argues that when an agency
exercises discretion, it must give permissible reasons for doing so.
The commenter asserts that the EPA has not given a permissible reason
for acting on only portions of the submittal and speculates that the
EPA has done so only to delay disapproval of the provisions and avoid
starting the associated sanctions and federal implementation plan
clocks. The commenter also points out that the EPA noted in the
proposal that the State has not yet submitted certain required portions
of the plan, and states that EPA has not offered an explanation for not
making a finding of failure to submit for those missing portions of the
attainment plan.
Response to Comment #1: As a general matter, comments regarding SIP
elements not addressed in the proposed rule are outside the scope of
this action. The EPA intends to address all required planning elements
for the Coachella Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in subsequent
actions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For example, in addition to the contingency measures
submittal noted previously, the EPA recently received the State's
submittal to address the fee requirements of CAA section 185 for the
Coachella Valley. Letter from Steven S. Cliff, CARB, to Martha
Guzman, EPA, dated August 9, 2024, and submitted electronically on
August 13, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the EPA has a statutory deadline by which to act on all SIP
submittals under CAA section 110(k)(2), the EPA is not obligated to act
on all SIP submittals or all SIP elements for a nonattainment area in
the same action. The EPA routinely takes separate actions on submittals
or portions of submittals that address unique CAA requirements.\10\ The
EPA strives to meet all statutory deadlines; however, the EPA
acknowledges that we are sometimes delayed due to resource limitations
and other practical constraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., 85 FR 8181 (February 13, 2020), 85 FR 11817
(February 27, 2020) (acting separately on Imperial Valley RACT
element and ozone plan, respectively, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the Coachella Valley contingency measures, the EPA
notes that CARB and the SCAQMD previously made a submittal addressing
the contingency measures requirement for the 1997 ozone NAAQS that was
subsequently withdrawn,\11\ and the EPA has no obligation to act on
withdrawn submittals. The EPA's current approach for evaluating
contingency measures submittals has been shaped by several recent court
decisions.\12\ In response to these decisions, the EPA has issued the
draft guidance cited in our proposed action, titled ``DRAFT: Guidance
on the Preparation of State Implementation Plan Provisions that Address
the Nonattainment Area Contingency Measure Requirements for Ozone and
Particulate Matter.'' \13\ Following our issuance of this draft
guidance document, the District and CARB submitted Coachella Valley
contingency measures for the 1997 ozone NAAQS to the EPA on April 3,
2024. The EPA notes that the statutory deadline to act on that
submittal under CAA section 110(k)(2) has not yet passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Contingency measures were submitted on November 28, 2007,
in the SCAQMD ``Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan,''
transmitted to the EPA in a letter from James N. Goldstene, CARB, to
Wayne Nastri, EPA, and withdrawn by the District, in a letter dated
April 7, 2020, from Wayne Nastri, SCAQMD to Richard Corey, CARB, and
withdrawn by CARB in a letter dated April 28, 2020, from Richard
Corey, CARB, to John W. Busterud, EPA.
\12\ See esp. Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2016); Sierra
Club v. EPA, 21 F.4th 815 (D.C. Cir. 2021); Association of Irritated
Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937 (9th Cir. 2021).
\13\ 88 FR 17571 (March 23, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment #2: ALFA comments that the submittal fails to show that the
substitute NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions will ``result in a
reduction of ozone concentrations at least equivalent'' to the required
3 percent per annum VOC emissions reductions, and that as a result, the
EPA's proposed approval is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to
law. The commenter describes the relative roles of VOC and
NO<INF>X</INF> in ozone formation, including the existence of an
``optimum'' VOC to NO<INF>X</INF> ratio for a given level of VOC (i.e.,
a NO<INF>X</INF> concentration at which the maximum amount of ozone is
produced). As explained by the commenter, in a ``NO<INF>X</INF>
saturated'' situation where NO<INF>X</INF> levels exceed this optimum
ratio, a reduction in NO<INF>X</INF> levels can lead to increases in
ozone levels, and in a ``NO<INF>X</INF> limited'' situation with
NO<INF>X</INF> levels below the optimum ratio, VOC reductions toward
the optimum ratio may have little effect on ozone levels. As a result,
the commenter says, ozone response to precursor control can vary
greatly between areas. The commenter argues that language in the CAA,
including CAA sections 185B, 182(f), and 182(c)(2)(C), indicates that
Congress was aware of these issues, including that in some scenarios
NO<INF>X</INF> reductions may not decrease ozone concentrations.
The commenter also points to the EPA's consideration of the
relative effectiveness of NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC controls for
interpollutant offset trading under the new source review (NSR)
permitting program and in applying requirements for major stationary
sources of VOC to NO<INF>X</INF> sources under CAA 182(f), noting that
in these situations EPA guidance indicates that photochemical grid
modeling of multiple scenarios should be conducted to support
demonstrations related to the relative effectiveness of controls.
Through these comparisons, the commenter suggests that the Coachella
Valley submittal should have included similar photochemical grid
modeling to determine whether the substitute NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
reductions result in equivalent ozone reductions.
While acknowledging that ozone isopleths, which are graphs of ozone
levels resulting from various levels of emissions reductions for each
monitoring station, are a technically sound method of comparing the
relative benefits of reducing NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions, the
commenter states that the EPA's overall analysis is insufficient and
that there are missing steps in going from isopleths to a justification
for the percentage method in the NO<INF>X</INF> Substitution Guidance.
The commenter states, ``if EPA plans to rely on the isopleths'' as the
justification for NO<INF>X</INF> substitution, ``EPA must re-propose
its action with an explanation that is reasonably detailed enough for
the public to be able to comment on it.'' The commenter further states
that CAA section 182(c)(2)(C)'s use of the plural ``ozone
concentrations'' means that an equivalency demonstration at a single
monitoring site would be contrary to the CAA and argues that Congress
intended the equivalence requirement to apply throughout the
nonattainment area.
Response to Comment #2: We disagree with the commenter's
characterization of the District's submittal and the EPA's proposed
approval. As described further in this document, the EPA concludes that
the analysis included with the modeling and control strategy in the
Coachella Valley Ozone Plan adequately demonstrates that plan
reductions of VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> would result in a reduction in
ozone concentrations at least equivalent to that resulting from VOC
emissions reductions. This condition is required under CAA 182(c)(2)(C)
for substituting NO<INF>X</INF> reductions for VOC reductions. We
therefore conclude that the District's use of NO<INF>X</INF>
substitution in the RFP demonstration for the Coachella Valley is
appropriate in this circumstance.
[[Page 6825]]
One factor, not discussed in the Coachella Valley Ozone Plan, that
contributes to the NO<INF>X</INF>-limited conditions is biogenic VOC
emissions from vegetation. Biogenic VOC emissions are not required to
be reported in nonattainment area inventories. Biogenic emissions are,
however, included in the inventory used to model attainment in the
Plan, and do contribute to the formation of ozone in the area. The most
recent National Emissions Inventory estimates that biogenic VOC
emissions represent more than 37 percent of VOC emissions in Riverside
County.\14\ California's statewide estimate for biogenic VOC emissions
represents nearly 43 percent of the total VOC inventory. Biogenic
NO<INF>X</INF>, in comparison, represent only 3.4 percent of Riverside
County NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and 7.7 percent of statewide
NO<INF>X</INF>.\15\ Because biogenic VOC is such a large portion of the
inventory, reducing anthropogenic VOC emissions represents a smaller
reduction in total VOC than a corresponding reduction of anthropogenic
NO<INF>X</INF> compared to total NO<INF>X</INF> reductions.\16\ When
biogenic emissions are taken into account, the amount of NO<INF>X</INF>
relative to VOC is smaller, tending to make the ozone chemistry more
NO<INF>X</INF>-limited. That is, reductions of NO<INF>X</INF> are even
more effective than VOC reductions at reducing ozone, and appropriate
to substitute for VOC reductions to achieve equivalent ozone
concentration reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See file titled ``D.1.a. Riverside NO<INF>X</INF> & VOC
Emissions.xlsx'' in the docket for this rulemaking, which displays
information from the EPA's Emissions Inventory Gateway (<a href="https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/emissions-inventory-system-eis-gateway">https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/emissions-inventory-system-eis-gateway</a>).
\15\ Id.
\16\ Wildfire emissions are a large source of NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions and are included the model evaluation but are not factored
into the base and future year attainment modeling. Additionally, the
influence of wildfire can be excluded from an EPA attainment finding
as an exceptional event, in accordance with the EPA's Exceptional
Events Rule 81 FR 68216 (October 3, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coachella Valley Ozone Plan provides ample documentation that
the transport of ozone and ozone precursors in the South Coast Air
Basin is the primary cause of high ozone concentrations in the
Coachella Valley, such as the correlation between the annual number of
exceedance days for the two areas.\17\ The Plan relies on upwind
reductions within the South Coast Air Basin, where NO<INF>X</INF> and
VOC emissions are respectively more than 20 and nearly 27 times larger
than those within Coachella Valley.\18\ By the time ozone precursors
have been transported to the Coachella Valley, NO<INF>X</INF> has been
preferentially removed by chemical and physical processes.\19\ At the
same time, there are fewer NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and more biogenic
VOC emissions in moving from the more developed Los Angeles urban area
to the more rural Coachella area. This leaves less NO<INF>X</INF>
available to form ozone, creating a NO<INF>X</INF>-limited condition
where NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions are more effective than VOC
emissions reductions at decreasing ozone concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Coachella Valley Ozone Plan, p. 2-3, figure 2-3.
\18\ 2018 Coachella Valley Ozone Plan, p. 3-6, table 3-3.
\19\ The VOC:NO<INF>X</INF> ratio increases due to chemical
conversion to HNO<INF>3</INF> and due to the process of deposition
to surfaces, which removes NO<INF>X</INF> (in the form of
HNO<INF>3</INF>) from the air more quickly than VOC. Barbara J.
Finlayson-Pitts and James N. Pitts Jr., 1993, ``Atmospheric
Chemistry of Tropospheric Ozone Formation: Scientific and Regulatory
Implications,'' Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association,
43:8, 1091-1100, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1073161X.1993.10467187">https://doi.org/10.1080/1073161X.1993.10467187</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The isopleth diagrams in the Coachella Valley Ozone Plan show that
NO<INF>X</INF> reductions are more effective than VOC reductions at
decreasing ozone across a wide range of VOC emissions quantities, which
is all that is needed to show that substitution on a 1-1 basis yields a
reduction in ozone concentrations at least equivalent to the required
VOC reductions.\20\ The District generated these diagrams by using
photochemical grid modeling to simulate various combinations of
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions reductions and then plotting the
resulting ozone concentrations for the monitor. Thus, while the
commenter suggests that the submittal should have included
photochemical modeling, that modeling is the basis of the analysis
already provided in the form of the isopleth diagrams. The isopleth
diagrams have VOC emissions on the horizontal x-axis and NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions on the vertical y-axis. Isopleth lines represent the ozone
concentration at different levels of VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions,
and a 45-degree line sloping from upper left to lower right would
indicate that NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions reductions are equally
effective at reducing ozone concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The isopleths include biogenic VOCs in the analysis as
constant values, showing changes only to anthropogenic emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Palm Springs monitor, which is the only monitor in the
Coachella Valley exceeding the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the diagram shows
nearly horizontal isopleth lines.\21\ This indicates a very small ozone
response to VOC reductions, so that ozone formation in the Palm Springs
area is much more responsive to NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions
than to VOC reductions. The 2016 AQMP's isopleth for Indio-Jackson
Street monitor near the center of the nonattainment area shows a
similarly flat slope.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Coachella Valley Ozone Plan, p. 5-8, Figure 5-5. See also
89 FR 26817, 26826 (citing isopleth and surrounding discussion).
\22\ 2016 AQMP, appendix V, Attachment 5, page 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, the graphs show that when NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
are reduced, the level of ozone decreases substantially, and that, in
contrast, reducing the level of VOC emissions results in much less
reduction in the level of ozone. The curve of the line on the graphs
indicates that reductions in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions will be
considerably more effective than VOC reductions in reducing ozone
concentrations on both a mass and percentage basis, and that VOC
reductions will achieve only minor reductions in ozone concentrations
even under scenarios involving large VOC reductions relative to current
levels. Because NO<INF>X</INF> reductions are more effective than VOC
reductions at reducing ozone concentrations, the Plan's NO<INF>X</INF>
to VOC substitution ratio of one to one (equivalent on a percentage
basis) is a conservative way to determine the amount of NO<INF>X</INF>
reductions needed to replace VOC emissions reductions and result in at
least an equivalent ozone decrease in ozone concentration as required
under CAA section 182(c)(2).
In fact, the isopleths show that a given percentage of
NO<INF>X</INF> reductions provide more of a reduction in ozone
concentration than the same percentage of VOC reductions.\23\ Thus, the
Plan's NOx to VOC substitution ratio of one to one is an appropriate
ratio here and the analysis is not missing steps, as the commenter has
alleged. As explained, the isopleths for the two Coachella Valley
monitoring sites (Indio-Jackson Street and Palm Springs-Fire Station)
show that ozone concentrations are more sensitive to reductions in
NO<INF>X</INF> than reductions in VOC across a wide range of VOC
emissions quantities. In addition, the Plan provides multiple lines of
evidence to support its statement that ``ozone concentration in Palm
Springs is much more sensitive to changes in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
than to changes in VOC emissions and indicates that NO<INF>X</INF>
emission reduction is key for ozone attainment in the Coachella
Valley.'' \24\ Thus, as the Coachella Valley Ozone Plan's modeling and
control strategy demonstrates, NO<INF>X</INF> reductions are more
effective than VOC reductions in reducing ozone concentration for this
[[Page 6826]]
area based on a one to one substitution ratio, and the underlying
requirement in CAA section 182(c)(2)(C) has been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that our approval
relies on demonstration of equivalence at a ``a single monitoring
site'' and is therefore contrary to the CAA. As explained in this
notice, this demonstration includes the analysis of isopleth graphs for
both the Palm Springs-Fire Station and Indio-Jackson Street monitoring
sites, which are the only two monitoring sites in the Coachella Valley
nonattainment area. Moreover, the EPA disagrees that CAA section
182(c)(2)(C)'s use of the term ``ozone concentrations'' warrants the
narrow interpretation that equivalence must be specifically
demonstrated throughout a nonattainment area. As an initial matter, we
note that the Act commonly uses the term ``concentrations'' to refer
generally to ambient pollution levels at one or more (but not
necessarily multiple) monitors or locations.\25\ CAA section
182(c)(2)(C) grants the EPA discretion to define the conditions under
which NO<INF>X</INF> reductions may be substituted for or combined with
VOC reductions ``in order to maximize the reduction in ozone air
pollution'' and does not further specify the conditions that represent
an ``equivalent'' reduction in ozone; for instance, it does not require
a specific concentration test at every monitor or at specific locations
within an area.\26\ No such requirement appears in the Act's other
provisions governing the RFP demonstration, which define specific
percentage reductions aimed at ensuring timely attainment of the
NAAQS,\27\ or in the EPA's 1993 NO<INF>X</INF> Substitution Guidance,
which describes a recommended procedure for states to follow to utilize
NO<INF>X</INF> substitution.\28\ We interpret CAA section 182(c)(2)(C)
and these supporting authorities as properly reflecting Congress'
intent to allow NO<INF>X</INF> reductions to be considered to
substitute for the required VOC reductions so long as these reductions
are at least as effective in reducing ozone concentrations and
consistent with the area's demonstration of timely attainment.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ E.g., CAA section 107(e)(2); CAA section 110(a)(5)(D).
\26\ NO<INF>X</INF> Substitution Guidance, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
December 1993, available at <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/ttn/ozone/web/html/index-13.html">https://archive.epa.gov/ttn/ozone/web/html/index-13.html</a>.
\27\ E.g., CAA 182(b)(1) and (c)(2)(B); see also CAA 171(1)
(defining RFP as ``such annual incremental reductions in emissions
of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality
standard by the applicable date'').
\28\ NO<INF>X</INF> Substitution Guidance, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
December 1993.
\29\ See id. at 8 (quoting H. Rept. No. 490, 101st Cong., 2d
Sess. 239 (1990)) (``NO<INF>X</INF> reductions may not be
substituted for VOC reductions in a manner that delays attainment of
the ozone standard or that results in lesser annual reductions in
ozone concentration than provided for in the attainment
demonstration.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, we believe that the commenter's comparison to the EPA's
requirements and recommendations for interpollutant trading and
exemption from NO<INF>X</INF> requirements under CAA 182(f)
misunderstands the purpose of and requirements for NO<INF>X</INF>
substitution under CAA 182(c)(2)(B) relative to these other examples.
First, interpollutant trading is no longer allowed for ozone.\30\
Second, the guidance documents cited by the commenter for these
examples are non-binding and do not constrain the EPA's discretion to
adopt a different approach where appropriate.\31\ The documents
recommend photochemical grid modeling in some scenarios but do not
require this approach or any other specific demonstration. This
reflects the EPA's acknowledgement that the level of analysis required
for any particular demonstration related to NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC
reductions will differ based on context and local conditions, such as
those noted by the commenter regarding the relative effectiveness of
controlling each. In the context of CAA 182(c)(2)(C), in an area where
isopleths generated through photochemical grid modeling and
accompanying analysis indicate that the VOC reductions required under
CAA 182(c)(2)(B) will be less effective for reducing ozone
concentrations than a corresponding percentage reduction in
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, no additional modeling or demonstration is
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See 86 FR 37918, 37923-24 (July 19, 2021).
\31\ See EPA, ``Guideline for Determining the Applicability of
Nitrogen Oxide Requirements under Section 182(f)'' (December 16,
1993), 1; Memorandum dated January 14, 2005, from Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to
EPA Regional Air Directors, Regions I-X, Subject: ``Guidance on
Limiting Nitrogen Oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) Requirements Related to 8-
Hour Ozone Implementation,'' 3; EPA-454/R-18-004, ``Technical
Guidance for Demonstration of Inter-Precursor Trading (IPT) for
Ozone in the Nonattainment New Source Review Program,'' Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (May 2018) (``IPT Guidance''), 2.
The IPT Guidance specifically excludes applicability to RFP
demonstrations. IPT Guidance at 2, n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons described herein, the EPA disagrees that additional
justification is needed to show that equal percentage reductions of
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions can substitute for VOC emissions to meet the
CAA requirements for RFP in this context. We find that the District has
provided ample evidence to demonstrate that NO<INF>X</INF> reductions
will be more effective at reducing ozone concentrations in Coachella
Valley, and that the photochemical grid modeling conducted for the
attainment demonstration, in combination with the supporting analysis
accompanying the control strategy and other demonstrations, is
sufficient to support the District's use of NO<INF>X</INF>
substitution.
Comment #3: ALFA faults the EPA's NO<INF>X</INF> Substitution
Guidance, contending that it recommends a procedure that fails to
demonstrate any equivalence between VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> reductions,
as required by CAA Section 182(c)(2)(C); relies on incorrect policy
assumptions; and gives legal justifications that are without merit.
Response to Comment #3: Comments relating solely to the
NO<INF>X</INF> Substitution Guidance are outside the scope of this
rulemaking action. Our proposed approval of the Plan's use of
NO<INF>X</INF> substitution is consistent with the recommended approach
outlined in the NO<INF>X</INF> Substitution Guidance, which, while non-
binding and not having the force of regulation, provides a recommended
procedure for substituting NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions for VOC
reductions on a percentage basis, consistent with a state's ozone
attainment plan, control strategy, modeled attainment demonstration,
and RFP milestones and requirements. As noted in our response to
Comment #2 above, our approval of the District's use of NO<INF>X</INF>
substitution is supported by local conditions and needs as documented
in the modeling and analysis included in the Coachella Valley Ozone
Plan and the 2016 AQMP's use of NOx substitution in this RFP
demonstration is consistent with the requirements of CAA 182(c)(2)(C)
for the reasons described in this notice.
III. The EPA's Action
Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, and for the reasons
provided in our April 16, 2024 proposed rule and this final action and
response to comments, the EPA is taking final action to approve into
the California SIP the RFP demonstration of the ``Final Coachella
Valley Extreme Area Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard,'' dated
December 2020, as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2)
and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(4).
In addition, the EPA is taking final action to approve CARB's
``2020 Coachella Valley Vehicle Miles Traveled Emissions Offset
Demonstration,'' release date January 22, 2021, as meeting the
requirements of CAA
[[Page 6827]]
section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(10).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
<bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11,
2023);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
<bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because applications of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt Tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on communities with environmental justice
(EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on
and supplements Executive Order 12898 and defines EJ as, among other
things, ``the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people,
regardless of income, race, color, national origin, Tribal affiliation,
or disability, in agency decision-making and other Federal activities
that affect human health and the environment.''
The State did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. Our June 12, 2024 final action
on other elements of the Plan includes additional discussion about how
SCAQMD responded to comments related to EJ concerns during development
of the Plan.\32\ The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not
consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken
here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on
the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not
required as part of this action, and there is no information in the
record inconsistent with the stated goal of Executive Orders 12898 and
14096 of achieving EJ for communities with EJ concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 89 FR 49815, 49816.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 24, 2025. 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 oxides, Ozone, and
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: January 8, 2025.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends Chapter I of
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(614)(ii)(A)(2)
and (c)(624) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(614) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(2) ``South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Coachella
Valley Extreme Area Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard,'' dated
December 2020, the section titled ``Reasonable Further Progress,''
pages 6-1 through 6-7.
* * * * *
(624) The following plan was submitted electronically on March 18,
2021, by the Governor's designee as an attachment to a letter dated
March 15, 2021.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) California Air Resources Board, Staff Report, ``2020 Coachella
Valley Vehicle Miles Traveled Emissions Offset Demonstration,'' Release
Date: January 22, 2021.
(2) [Reserved]
(B) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2025-01110 Filed 1-17-25; 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 January 21, 2025.
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.